Re: [RDA-L] Place of publication in RDA (fwd)
Dear Mac,
I hope you will forgive the delay in responding, there's a lot of
traffic on the list.
2.8.2 Instructs cataloguers to record the place of publication (which is
a transcribed element 2.8.1.4)
Include both the local place name (city, town, etc.) and the name of
the larger jurisdiction or jurisdictions (state, province, etc., and/or
country) if present on the source of information.
In your first example, both pieces of information come from the same
source, which is external to the resource.
In your second example, only London is on the resource.
This is a consistent application of RDA principles. The resource is
being described in its own terms, which is sufficient for
identification, and an example of the take what you see approach. The
cataloguer may also save some time on research. It is not clear what
benefit you perceive is derived from the addition of information about
the larger jurisdiction.
Kind regards,
Alan
Alan Danskin
Chair Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA
The British Library
Bldg 25
Boston Spa
WETHERBY
West Yorkshire
LS23 7BQ
www.bl.uk
T +44 (0) 1937 546669
Mob 07833401117
F +44 (0) 1937 546586
alan.dans...@bl.uk
-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: 27 April 2011 03:24
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Place of publication in RDA (fwd)
So far I have seen no defense of this difference on or off list.
Mac
Forwarded message
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:54:42 -0700
From: J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: [RDA-L] Place of publication in RDA
It seems very strange to me that RDA would allow in MARC:
260 $a[London, Ontario]
but not
260 $aLondon [Ontario]
For the benefit of the patrons of our clients, we will add that
[Ontario] when lacking on the item, as we added [Ont.] with AACR2.
The inconsistency in adding jurisdictions was one of the worst parts of
AACR2 application, made worse by RDA. I see no reason not to
consistently give needed information where expected.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Snoopy, Dr.
I have asked this before. If fictional characters are now handled as if they are real people, what does this mean for groups of fictitious characters such as X-Men, the Justice League of America, or the Fantastic Four? Are they now going to be handled under the rules for corporate bodies? And if so, are we going to have to find materials published by their organization to find how the form of name appears on the chief source of information, which I guess would be one of their comic books? And I must say that the heading Fantastic Four does not imply to me a corporate body, so it would have to be qualified in a different way from the current heading Fantastic Four (Comic strip) to Fantastic Four (Firm)? I will simply take it for granted that these kinds of changes are being instituted because of numerous complaints from members of the public, who have experienced major problems finding such materials and it has been demonstrated that these are the kinds of changes that will help our patrons find the materials they need. -- James L. Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ On 04/26/2011 11:44 PM, Adam L. Schiff wrote: In the Snoopy, Dr. example, the instructions are basically telling us that Dr. is an integral part of this person's name. It's not an addition being made to distinguish this name from others or added because the name doesn't convey the idea of a person. And I should point out that I don't believe that the RDA instructions that I cited to arrive at the access point Snoopy, Dr. are really any different from what we have had in AACR2 (see 22.1C, 22.8A, 22.11). The only difference here is that they are being applied also to a fictitious person. Adam ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asvech...@u.washington.edu ~~ On Tue, 26 Apr 2011, Mark Ehlert wrote: Deborah Tomares dtoma...@nypl.org wrote: First, I've read that Dr. will no longer be allowed, under RDA, to disambiguate headings. So perhaps the heading should be Snoopy, Doctor. Just commenting on this bit. Distinguishing terms for occupation and field of activity that are added to personal names are enclosed in parentheses according to RDA E.1.2.2. See also 9.19.1.6-9.19.1.7. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex CoordinatorUniversity of Minnesota Bibliographic Technical 15 Andersen Library Services (BATS) Unit222 21st Avenue South Phone: 612-624-0805Minneapolis, MN 55455-0439 http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
Re: [RDA-L] Where to Direct Questions about RDA Examples?
I think we've missed something important in this discussion. Deborah brought up other works by Snoopy, and, as Adam quotes, we are to look for preferred access points in resources associated with the person. There is a work called The wit and wisdom of Snoopy. (OCLC #6910980). I assume this might count as a resource associated with the person. That said, it seems fair to consider her concerns that Snoopy is not always presented as a doctor, and should not be entered as such. snip 9.2.2.2 Determine the preferred name for a person from the following sources (in order of preference): a) the preferred sources of information (see 2.2.2 rdalink) in resources associated with the person snip It was very instructive to have Adam's careful walk-through of the process of preferred access point choice with all its delightful wrinkles. This is where understanding comes from. -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Place of publication in RDA (fwd)
Quoting Danskin, Alan alan.dans...@bl.uk: It is not clear what benefit you perceive is derived from the addition of information about the larger jurisdiction. The benefit is to inform the catalogue user where the document was issued. There are many, many places which may appear in this element of a resource description, but which share a name with other places far distant. One of the FRBR things that seldom reaches our consciousness is context -- the set of conditions in which a work or an expression was created, or a manifestation published. Context also applies when a user searches the catalogue. In my own environment (Australia), Melbourne as unqualified place is inevitably taken to denote the capital of the state of Victoria. In a document description, it might well be the homonymous place in Florida, or in England in Humberside or in Derbyshire -- no doubt there are others as well. Elaine Svenonius, in expounding the principle of representation (to reflect the way bibliographic entities represent themselves)* states the need for truth in transcription to support accuracy; she also says, A description is inaccurate if it in any way misrepresents an entity, making it seem what it is not. No description can be called accurate if the omission of information misleads a proportion of the users of the catalogue where it appears. A great many users outside Ontario who read London will inevitably suppose it to denote the capital of England -- the bibliographical universe is indeed universal. No single principle can be carried to the utmost in implementation without producing an absurd result: there always have to be checks and balances. One strand of check and balance is the normal expectations of the user of the catalogue -- a factor modified by environment, but one of which we can make an easy guess in the case of London. London, England, is not the same place as London, Ontario (nor London, Kentucky; London, Kiribati; nor a number of other places). Accurate knowledge of the place of publication is often one of the criteria for selecting the resource which best meets the user's requirements; the more so as selection is generally made initially from a brief record display, not the full set of data. To deprive the user of the necessary identifying information presented in conjunction with the primary place name is doing the user a disservice -- and the highest principle, as Svenonius (p. 68-70, following Ranganathan and others) reminds us, is the principle of user convenience: Decisions taken in the making of descriptions should be made with the user in mind. (p. 68) How does refusal to specify the jurisdiction which contains the place named as the place of publication, and necessary to enable the user to identify it properly, do anything but offer an obstacle to the catalogue user? Is the principle of representation really so absolutely inviolable that interpolation (clearly marked as such by square brackets) of necessary information into a descriptive element that is not complete, and which is a minor element in forming a citatioin for a document, really transgresses it? I rate the principle of user convenience higher, and judge that bracketed information, if useful, should be supplied. *_The Intellectual Foundation of Information Organization_. Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, 2000. (p. 71) Hal Cain Melbourne, Australia hec...@dml.vic.edu.au This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: [RDA-L] Dr. Snoopy
2 personae of the same fictional character need not be the same Person. One could even state that Dr. Snoopy needs to be filed under D, instead of S (it's not a title associated with a name but the name itself). Then again, it won't cause problems as long as manifestations by Joe Cool and Flashbeagle are presented as such, because even fictional characters are entitled to their own Personae. Peter Schouten -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access namens Adger Williams Verzonden: wo 27-4-2011 13:42 Aan: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Onderwerp: Re: [RDA-L] Where to Direct Questions about RDA Examples? I think we've missed something important in this discussion. Deborah brought up other works by Snoopy, and, as Adam quotes, we are to look for preferred access points in resources associated with the person. There is a work called The wit and wisdom of Snoopy. (OCLC #6910980). I assume this might count as a resource associated with the person. That said, it seems fair to consider her concerns that Snoopy is not always presented as a doctor, and should not be entered as such. snip 9.2.2.2 Determine the preferred name for a person from the following sources (in order of preference): a) the preferred sources of information (see 2.2.2 rdalink) in resources associated with the person snip It was very instructive to have Adam's careful walk-through of the process of preferred access point choice with all its delightful wrinkles. This is where understanding comes from. -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Place of publication in RDA (fwd)
Alan Danskin said:
It is not clear what benefit you perceive is derived from the addition of
information about the larger jurisdiction.
It seems to me the distinction between London England and London
Ontario is an important one, and that the distinction is needed for
identification. For decades London alone has been taken to mean the
one in England, and Vancouver to be the one in British Columbia, not
Washington State.
With our international client base, we find cities known in North
America may not be on other continents. We now *always* provide
jurisdiction, and will continue to do so. I see no justification for
following a made up principle which hurts patron identification of
resources. It takes more time to keep track of exceptions in AACR2
dating from limited space on cards. than to just do it. In RDA,
presence or absence on the resource should not cause such
inconsistency in discription. It takes less time to provide
jurisdiction where needed, than to create a note.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Dr. Snoopy
The point of my comment yesterday was that there was no proof that Dr. Snoopy was in fact a different person from Snoopy. The existence of a title means nothing. Sometimes I use my Dr. or Professor, sometimes I do not. P.S. Please do not call Joe Cool and Flashbeagle manifestations. We have enough issues with that FRBR term as it is. :-) -- Laurence S. Creider Special Collections Librarian New Mexico State University Las Cruces, NM 88003 Work: 575-646-7227 Fax: 575-646-7477 lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu On Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Peter Schouten wrote: 2 personae of the same fictional character need not be the same Person. One could even state that Dr. Snoopy needs to be filed under D, instead of S (it's not a title associated with a name but the name itself). Then again, it won't cause problems as long as manifestations by Joe Cool and Flashbeagle are presented as such, because even fictional characters are entitled to their own Personae. Peter Schouten -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access namens Adger Williams Verzonden: wo 27-4-2011 13:42 Aan: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Onderwerp: Re: [RDA-L] Where to Direct Questions about RDA Examples? I think we've missed something important in this discussion. Deborah brought up other works by Snoopy, and, as Adam quotes, we are to look for preferred access points in resources associated with the person. There is a work called The wit and wisdom of Snoopy. (OCLC #6910980). I assume this might count as a resource associated with the person. That said, it seems fair to consider her concerns that Snoopy is not always presented as a doctor, and should not be entered as such. snip 9.2.2.2 Determine the preferred name for a person from the following sources (in order of preference): a) the preferred sources of information (see 2.2.2 rdalink) in resources associated with the person snip It was very instructive to have Adam's careful walk-through of the process of preferred access point choice with all its delightful wrinkles. This is where understanding comes from.
Re: [RDA-L] Where to Direct Questions about RDA Examples?
Others have made many points in this discussion that I agree with, which I'd just like to summarize and reiterate; my opinion that the heading should be constructed as simply Snoopy remains unchanged. If one consults the OCLC bib file and other reference resources for the predominant form of name for Snoopy, the unadorned name clearly wins. Therefore, based on RDA 9.2.2.2a/c, the preferred form of the name should be Snoopy, without any mention of doctorness. As Mr. Creider has stated: The existence of the title 'Dr.' does not, by itself, imply two distinct identities; we've certainly seen resources before where name forms have varied, and included professional criteria on only some preferred sources of information. Unless one assumes that Dr. Snoopy is somehow different from plain Snoopy, and would advocate a series of maybe linked authorities for each differing guise of a character. Mr. Schouten, for example, claims that: even fictional characters are entitled to their own Personae. But I would argue against this route for multiple reasons. Fictitious character cannot truly have professions, so they aren't really different persons despite the guise; moreover, because of their fluid, unreal nature, they can have a plethora of possible guises, much more so than a real person, which would make creating authorities a nightmare. Do we really want to go down the route of providing linked (and constantly changing) authorities for characters like superheroes, who change aliases depending on storyline (like Spider Man, who for a brief period was Ben Reilly instead of Peter Parker--until it was determined that Ben Reilly was a clone, who is now the Scarlet Spider in a different series), or include personae created in one-off graphic novels exploring aspects of a character but intended to be part of a character's continuity? I believe that insisting on following real person rules too strictly for fictitious characters, without allowing common sense to influence the decision about headings, does a disservice to users, who would certainly not expect, need, or desire, to find information about Snoopy under Snoopy, Dr. Particularly since LC may void subject headings in favor of created name headings for fictitious characters, I believe it behooves catalogers to be conservative, and general, in their creation of such headings. It does not benefit access to force users to use multiple/related searches, with the dreaded attendant mouse clicks, to find everything about Snoopy under his supposed different personae. As Mr. Weinheimer has pointed out, headings and changes to headings should be made only because it has been demonstrated that these are the kinds of changes that will help our patrons find the materials they need. For all the reasons above, I still believe that the heading example should be changed to simply Snoopy, and I will be forwarding my requests to the appropriate channels. Deborah Tomaras, NACO Coordinator Librarian II Western European Languages Team New York Public Library Library Services Center 31-11 Thomson Ave. Long Island City, N.Y. 11101 (917) 229-9561 dtoma...@nypl.org Disclaimer: Alas, my ideas are merely my own, and not indicative of New York Public Library policy.
Re: [RDA-L] Dr. Snoopy
On 4/27/2011 11:40 AM, Laurence Creider wrote: The point of my comment yesterday was that there was no proof that Dr. Snoopy was in fact a different person from Snoopy. The existence of a title means nothing. Sometimes I use my Dr. or Professor, sometimes I do not. Let me start with a disclaimer. I am not speaking authoritatively about the intentions of the authors of RDA. I think that this thread raises some issues that are not completely clear in RDA and which require discussion about how to apply the instructions. As the JSC was reviewing the drafts of the section of RDA that dealt with multiple identities or personae, it struck me that a literal reading of RDA would suggest that the simple use of different names (but not different forms of the same name or changes of name) was sufficient evidence of the intent to establish a separate bibliographic identity. If that is true, then Larry's point above is not relevant: you don't need proof that Dr. Snoopy is a different person, you only need evidence of the use of a distinct name -- and a decision that this is a different name rather than a different form of the same name (which I suppose one could argue). The implications of this frighten me somewhat, particularly when I think of the conventions of pseudonymous publication (under initials or phrases) common before the nineteenth century. For such persons, at least the cataloger can take account of current scholarship in attributing works to an author under his/her real name -- and of all the modern publications issued under that real name. This is much more difficult for what we used to call contemporary authors. In practice, we may still need to make such distinctions. It also occurs to me that this example illustrates the different purposes of access points. The access point for Dr. Snoopy is based on the association of this particular name with the particular work in question; in this case, it allows access to this particular identity, distinct from other identities such as Captain Snoopy or Joe Cool or Flashbeagle; a reference structure of related persons should allow navigation among these different access points. The real creator of these works is Charles Schulz and an access point should be provided under his name which will collocate all the works he created. And there is another common element, the *character* Snoopy, for whom a descriptive or subject access point might also be provided, which would bring together all the works in which Snoopy appeared. All of these possible access points do not perform the same function. It seems to me that access by the specific name used for each work (e.g., Dr. Snoopy) does serve a useful function, but that this access point need not serve all of the collocation functions that I described above for other access points. The right tool for the job . . . Again, these are tentative thoughts, not authoritative pronouncements. This is definitely (in my opinion) a gray area in RDA, and one worth further discussion. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Dr. Snoopy
Unless one assumes that Dr. Snoopy is somehow different from plain Snoopy, and would advocate a series of maybe linked authorities for each differing guise of a character. Mr. Schouten, for example, claims that: even fictional characters are entitled to their own Personae. But I would argue against this route for multiple reasons. Fictitious character cannot truly have professions, so they aren't really different persons despite the guise; But in this example, the publication presents Dr. Snoopy as the author, which causes the fictional character to have the profession of author. Would you also have 1 heading for both Clark Kent and Superman? Peter Schouten
Re: [RDA-L] Where to Direct Questions about RDA Examples?
Sorry, guys; I just can't resist: http://www.aardvarknet.info/access/number45/monthnews.cfm?monthnews=01 Nannette Naught nnau...@imteaminc.com 4/26/2011 4:45 PM Okay, are you laughing yet? -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Deborah Tomares Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 12:53 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Where to Direct Questions about RDA Examples? I'm wondering where to send questions about RDA examples that I believe need changing. Under 19.2.1.3 (Recording Creators), in the Examples of Two or More Persons, Families, or Corporate Bodies Responsible for the Creation of the Work Performing Different Roles we find Snoopy, Dr. listed as the author of a work, with Charles Schulz as the illustrator. The Snoopy choice is suspect to me for various reasons. Leaving aside the philosophical problems of creating person entries for fictitious characters, my problems are twofold. First, I've read that Dr. will no longer be allowed, under RDA, to disambiguate headings. So perhaps the heading should be Snoopy, Doctor. Except that--as a second consideration--if we're going to go ahead and create a record for Snoopy, wouldn't it make more sense to create a generic one? That way, if we have a military manual by Captain Snoopy later, or a philosophical treatise by Professor Snoopy, we won't need to create new Snoopy headings, or be forced to use the Dr. one everywhere. Particularly since a fictitious character can't actually BE a doctor, etc., it seems foolish to qualify things this way. And if these will be replacing subject headings, as the LCPS for RDA 9.0 seems to imply, it would behoove us to make the headings as generic as possible, so that books about Snoopy don't have to be about Snoopy, Dr. So, I would suggest the entry by changed to simply Snoopy, as I doubt there is an authority conflict. Who do I need to send my arguments to? Thanks in advance for information and help, or for alternate opinions if there are any. Deborah Tomaras, NACO Coordinator Librarian II Western European Languages Team New York Public Library Library Services Center 31-11 Thomson Ave. Long Island City, N.Y. 11101 (917) 229-9561 dtoma...@nypl.org Disclaimer: Alas, my ideas are merely my own, and not indicative of New York Public Library policy., ___ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message from Hamilton East Public Library (including all attachments) is for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, copying or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Updated April 14, 2011
Re: [RDA-L] Dr. Snoopy
Given the discussions over time on this list about revealing personal information, I would be hesitant to link Clark Kent and Superman on an authority record. -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Peter Schouten Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 9:50 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Dr. Snoopy Unless one assumes that Dr. Snoopy is somehow different from plain Snoopy, and would advocate a series of maybe linked authorities for each differing guise of a character. Mr. Schouten, for example, claims that: even fictional characters are entitled to their own Personae. But I would argue against this route for multiple reasons. Fictitious character cannot truly have professions, so they aren't really different persons despite the guise; But in this example, the publication presents Dr. Snoopy as the author, which causes the fictional character to have the profession of author. Would you also have 1 heading for both Clark Kent and Superman? Peter Schouten
Re: [RDA-L] Where to Direct Questions about RDA Examples?
Dear Adam, Thank you for showing you the thought process that we might follow in trying to come to a determination on such an access point. This is very helpful! Julie On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.eduwrote: The resource being cataloging has this manifestation: Dr. Snoopy's advice to pet owners / by Dr. Snoopy ; illustrations by Charles M. Schulz. The author of it is clearly stated in both the title and the statement of responsibility as Dr. Snoopy. This is the usage that we have to work with. In RDA, it matters not that Dr. Snoopy is fictitious: 9.0 Purpose and scope. Persons include fictitious entities. Given the usage that we have, we then apply the instructions in RDA. 9.2.2.1 The preferred name for the person is the name or form of name chosen as the basis for the authorized access point representing that person. 9.2.2.2 Determine the preferred name for a person from the following sources (in order of preference): a) the preferred sources of information (see 2.2.2 rdalink) in resources associated with the person b) other formal statements appearing in resources associated with the person c) other sources (including reference sources). 9.2.2.3 In general, choose the name by which the person is commonly known as the preferred name for that person. The name chosen may be the persons real name, pseudonym, title of nobility, nickname, initials, or other appellation. The appellation for this person is Dr. Snoopy. Now you have to figure out which of the following instructions in RDA apply, 9.2.2.9.3, 9.2.2.18, 9.2.2.22, or 9.2.2.23: 9.2.2.9.3 Persons Known by a Surname Only If the name by which a person is known consists of a surname only, treat the word or phrase associated with the name in resources associated with the person or in reference sources as an integral part of the name. Deidier, abbe Read, Miss Seuss, Dr. Nichols, Grandma 9.2.2.18 General Guidelines on Recording Names Containing Neither a Surname nor a Title of Nobility Record a name that does not include a surname and that is borne by a person who is not identified by a title of nobility applying the general guidelines on recording names given under 8.5. Charles Nelly Riverbend Record as the first element the part of the name under which the person is listed in reference sources. In case of doubt, record the last part of the name as the first element, applying the instructions given under 9.2.2.9.2. Include as an integral part of the name any words or phrases denoting place of origin, domicile, occupation, or other characteristics that are commonly associated with the name in resources associated with the person or in reference sources. Precede such words or phrases by a comma. Paul, the Deacon Eric, the Red Rafa, el Tuerto Judah, ha-Levi Chayim, the Priest, of Hebron Iolo, Goch Feofan, Grek 9.2.2.22 General Guidelines on Recording Names Consisting of a Phrase Record a name consisting of: a) a phrase or appellation that does not contain a forename or b) a phrase that consists of a forename or forenames preceded by words other than a term of address or a title of position or office applying the general guidelines on recording names given under 8.5. Record the name in direct order. Dr. X Mother Hen Every Other Dad Sister Friend Poor Old No. 3 Buckskin Bill Boy George Little Richard Miss Piggy Happy Harry Special Ed D.J. Jazzy Jeff 9.2.2.23 Phrase Consisting of a Forename or Forenames Preceded by a Term of Address, Etc. Record a phrase consisting of a forename preceded by a term of address (e.g., a word indicating relationship) or a title of position or office (e.g., a professional appellation) applying the general guidelines on recording names given under 8.5. Record the forename as the first element. Record words or phrases denoting place of origin, domicile, occupation, or other characteristics that are commonly associated with the name applying the instructions given under 9.2.2.18. Jemima, Aunt Claire, Tante Sam, Cousin Fez, Uncle Robert, Chef Vittoria, Signora I believe that Snoopy is a forename rather than a surname. I would assert that Dr. is a term of address (specifically, a professional title).* Therefore, I believe that 9.2.2.22b) is excluded and that 9.2.2.23 applies and the name would be recorded as Snoopy, Dr. (authorized access point in MARC 21: 100 0_ $a Snoopy, $c Dr.). The abbreviated form is used because that is what the person uses in his name. * The American system of address is generally described as a choice between first names and Mr./Mrs./Miss/Ms. with last names. In a job situation,
Re: [RDA-L] Dr. Snoopy
Here's the thing, though. Snoopy doesn't have the profession of author, because as we all know, he didn't really write the book. He is a fictitious dog, lacking in digits and English language necessary to put out the work he authored (even in the cartoons, he never speaks). So I don't believe we can, or should, apply the same rules and standards to him that we do to real, live, preferably human authors. And yes--I would have one heading for both Superman and Clark Kent. And it would be a subject heading, not a personal name heading. That's where I believe fictitious characters belong, and where most users would expect to find them. As in my Spiderman example before, I don't think it would benefit anyone, cataloger or user, to have to constantly revise and sift through the changeable natures/personae/call-them-what-you-will of fictitious characters. Because they aren't real, so aren't bound by rules of reality, to attempt to impose reality upon them seems to me wrong and not useful. Deborah Tomaras, NACO Coordinator Librarian II Western European Languages Team New York Public Library Library Services Center 31-11 Thomson Ave. Long Island City, N.Y. 11101 (917) 229-9561 dtoma...@nypl.org Disclaimer: Alas, my ideas are merely my own, and not indicative of New York Public Library policy. From: Peter Schouten pschou...@ingressus.nl To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Date: 04/27/2011 12:51 PM Subject:Re: [RDA-L] Dr. Snoopy Sent by:Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Unless one assumes that Dr. Snoopy is somehow different from plain Snoopy, and would advocate a series of maybe linked authorities for each differing guise of a character. Mr. Schouten, for example, claims that: even fictional characters are entitled to their own Personae. But I would argue against this route for multiple reasons. Fictitious character cannot truly have professions, so they aren't really different persons despite the guise; But in this example, the publication presents Dr. Snoopy as the author, which causes the fictional character to have the profession of author. Would you also have 1 heading for both Clark Kent and Superman? Peter Schouten
Re: [RDA-L] Dr. Snoopy
If the cataloger is pretty confident that this book is REALLY written by Charles Schultz, is there any reason (in priniciple or in code) that she can't simply add Schultz, Chares... as the controlled heading/access point/1xx? Snoopy would still be in the transcribed 245 statement of responsibility of course. There will of course be occasions where the cataloger has no way of knowing that the title page statement of responsibility is fictitious, and will then go through the ordinary procedures for establishing a controlled heading, the procedures Adam et al helpfully clarified. That's how it goes, this will inevitably sometimes happen. But in cases where it is obvious what's going on it seems to me it would be preferable for the cataloger to act upon that. I am not a cataloger. What would they have do under AACR2? Is there anything in RDA to make it either easier or harder (more or less 'legal') for the cataloger to just use this obvious knowledge, and assign Charles Schultz's heading. (Ie, establish the relationship to a Charles Schultz authority). In my idea world, we'd also all be using a cooperative database, such that if the initial cataloger didn't realize Dr. Snoopy was really Charles Schultz, a later cataloger could always improve the record to be so too, and everyone else would get those improvements back in their databases too. Jonathan On 4/27/2011 1:01 PM, Deborah Tomares wrote: Here's the thing, though. Snoopy doesn't have the profession of author, because as we all know, he didn't really write the book. He is a fictitious dog, lacking in digits and English language necessary to put out the work he authored (even in the cartoons, he never speaks). So I don't believe we can, or should, apply the same rules and standards to him that we do to real, live, preferably human authors. And yes--I would have one heading for both Superman and Clark Kent. And it would be a subject heading, not a personal name heading. That's where I believe fictitious characters belong, and where most users would expect to find them. As in my Spiderman example before, I don't think it would benefit anyone, cataloger or user, to have to constantly revise and sift through the changeable natures/personae/call-them-what-you-will of fictitious characters. Because they aren't real, so aren't bound by rules of reality, to attempt to impose reality upon them seems to me wrong and not useful. Deborah Tomaras, NACO Coordinator Librarian II Western European Languages Team New York Public Library Library Services Center 31-11 Thomson Ave. Long Island City, N.Y. 11101 (917) 229-9561 dtoma...@nypl.org Disclaimer: Alas, my ideas are merely my own, and not indicative of New York Public Library policy. From: Peter Schoutenpschou...@ingressus.nl To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Date: 04/27/2011 12:51 PM Subject:Re: [RDA-L] Dr. Snoopy Sent by:Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and AccessRDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Unless one assumes that Dr. Snoopy is somehow different from plain Snoopy, and would advocate a series of maybe linked authorities for each differing guise of a character. Mr. Schouten, for example, claims that: even fictional characters are entitled to their own Personae. But I would argue against this route for multiple reasons. Fictitious character cannot truly have professions, so they aren't really different persons despite the guise; But in this example, the publication presents Dr. Snoopy as the author, which causes the fictional character to have the profession of author. Would you also have 1 heading for both Clark Kent and Superman? Peter Schouten
Re: [RDA-L] Dr. Snoopy
John, What you say is well thought, and made me realize that I should have been clearer in saying that I consider Dr. Snoopy to be a form of a name and not a different name until proven otherwise, particularly given the presumed character depicted in the illustrations and the name of the illustrator. Joe Cool presents a different case, of course. As you say, RDA may need some revision here, as AACR2 certainly did for some of its unintended consequences. Larry -- Laurence S. Creider Special Collections Librarian New Mexico State University Las Cruces, NM 88003 Work: 575-646-7227 Fax: 575-646-7477 lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu On Wed, 27 Apr 2011, John Attig wrote: On 4/27/2011 11:40 AM, Laurence Creider wrote: The point of my comment yesterday was that there was no proof that Dr. Snoopy was in fact a different person from Snoopy. The existence of a title means nothing. Sometimes I use my Dr. or Professor, sometimes I do not. As the JSC was reviewing the drafts of the section of RDA that dealt with multiple identities or personae, it struck me that a literal reading of RDA would suggest that the simple use of different names (but not different forms of the same name or changes of name) was sufficient evidence of the intent to establish a separate bibliographic identity. If that is true, then Larry's point above is not relevant: you don't need proof that Dr. Snoopy is a different person, you only need evidence of the use of a distinct name -- and a decision that this is a different name rather than a different form of the same name (which I suppose one could argue).
Re: [RDA-L] Dr. Snoopy
Jonathan Rochkind wrote: snip But in cases where it is obvious what's going on it seems to me it would be preferable for the cataloger to act upon that. I am not a cataloger. What would they have do under AACR2? /snip The rules are not in AACR2 since fictitious characters were/are set up as subjects. The current rule is in SCM H1610 at http://www.loc.gov/cds/PDFdownloads/scm/SCMSH_2007-02.pdf. This is we see the example of Doctor Doolittle, 150 __ $aDolittle, Doctor (Fictitious character). The rules for Cartoons are in SCM H1430, which I cannot find online unfortunately. By definition, at least in AACR2, only real people or groups of people can author something. Otherwise, they are considered to be as a subject that cannot author anything, similar to events such as WWII, or other topics, such as Love. This is different from a real human being writing under an assumed name, which could be a possibility for Charles Schultz writing under the pseudonym of Snoopy, but with a pseudonym, there is normally some attempt to hide the real author's name, not as in this case where his name appears on the chief source. Again, why have this change? Where is the utility either to librarians or the users? The reasoning for such a change, along with so much of RDA, escapes me. Switching to an entity-attribute-relationship model is fine and I am all for it, although I have my problems with WEMI. Nevertheless, these sorts of changes have nothing to do with that and certainly add no utility to anyone that I can see. I have nothing against change, but change for the better is what should be the aim instead of change simply to do something. -- James L. Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Re: [RDA-L] Dr. Snoopy
What is the actual rule change in RDA? Does it now _require_ you to list characters you know to be fictitious but listed on the title-page as controlled access points/authorities/entities? Or just make it an option? Still confused about that despite this lengthy thread. Making it an option does not seem disastrous to me, especially considering that there will be many cases where the cataloger does not know for sure or is not certain if if the statement of responsibility is a fictitious person or not. And it's not entirely true that we've never listed fake people in controlled access points in AACR2. We have indeed listed pseudonyms. Mark Twain. Ellery Queen. Nicholas Bourbaki. Hakim Bey (who is the same person as Peter Lamborn Wilson, but he publishes under both names, and they're two seperate authorities. Which are correctly linked with auth 5xx's.). These are all slightly different types of 'fake people', some of them actually representing more than one real person. And they've all got authorities created under AACR2. bibliographic identity for pseudonyms is nothing new. And also does not seem to be a terrible idea to me, I understand what purpose it serves. And is Dr. Snoopy a pseudonym? I think in the end some of this stuff HAS to be left up to cataloger judgement, ESPECIALLY since sometimes the cataloger will not know (for sure) if the statement of responsibility is a fake name, a commonly used pseudonym, or a legal identity, or what. Fictitious characters _will_ end up having controlled headings created for them using the ordinary rules (accidentally or not) either way. But did RDA really _remove_ the option of using the person the cataloger knows is the real primary contributor as the 1xx (ie linked entity?). if so, that would seem potentially a mistake, possibly. On 4/27/2011 2:18 PM, James Weinheimer wrote: Jonathan Rochkind wrote: snip But in cases where it is obvious what's going on it seems to me it would be preferable for the cataloger to act upon that. I am not a cataloger. What would they have do under AACR2? /snip The rules are not in AACR2 since fictitious characters were/are set up as subjects. The current rule is in SCM H1610 at http://www.loc.gov/cds/PDFdownloads/scm/SCMSH_2007-02.pdf. This is we see the example of Doctor Doolittle, 150 __ $aDolittle, Doctor (Fictitious character). The rules for Cartoons are in SCM H1430, which I cannot find online unfortunately. By definition, at least in AACR2, only real people or groups of people can author something. Otherwise, they are considered to be as a subject that cannot author anything, similar to events such as WWII, or other topics, such as Love. This is different from a real human being writing under an assumed name, which could be a possibility for Charles Schultz writing under the pseudonym of Snoopy, but with a pseudonym, there is normally some attempt to hide the real author's name, not as in this case where his name appears on the chief source. Again, why have this change? Where is the utility either to librarians or the users? The reasoning for such a change, along with so much of RDA, escapes me. Switching to an entity-attribute-relationship model is fine and I am all for it, although I have my problems with WEMI. Nevertheless, these sorts of changes have nothing to do with that and certainly add no utility to anyone that I can see. I have nothing against change, but change for the better is what should be the aim instead of change simply to do something.
[RDA-L] RDA capitalization and edition question (basic)
LCCN 2010044821 OCLC 671710698 Metal Forming. The t.p. reads: METAL FORMING Mechanics and Metallurgy FOURTH EDITION 1. What rule in RDA says to transcribe the title as Metal Forming : Mechanics and Metallurgy and not Metal forming : mechanics and metallurgy ? Doesn't appendix A4 apply here to make the transcription the same as AACR2? The LCPS for A.1 does say to take what you see, but if that were the case, I would expect a mechanical transcription of METAL FORMING. 2. What rule in RDA says to transcribe the edition as Fourth and not 4th, as 1.8.5 seems to say, if I have interpreted correctly? Jay Shorten Cataloger, Monographs and Electronic Resources Associate Professor of Bibliography Catalog Department University Libraries University of Oklahoma jshor...@ou.edumailto:jshor...@ou.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Dr. Snoopy
One point of having authority records is to recognize that entities can have a coherent presence--an identity--that goes beyond what is found on one book. In the case of Snoopy, that identity is primarily iconic--we recognize his various images as Snoopy, regardless of what he's sometimes wearing. Knowing that, when I encounter Dr. Snoopy, I see it as Snoopy--Snoopy in one of his many personae, but primarily as Snoopy. The fact that Snoopy's existence is primarily visual and that he remains recognizable as Snoopy across so many personae says to me that these personae are not equivalent to pseudonyms, which tend to hide the fact that two authorial names are the same. They're more like different forms of the same iconographic identity. That being the case, I'd establish the authorial Snoopy as just Snoopy, and give Dr. Snoopy, Joe Cool, etc. as 400s, if they ever turn up as authors. The question is, what level of granularity is most appropriate for collocation and will best match users' expectations and needs. I find it dubious that most users would prefer to have to track down all the Snoopy personae under their individual names when they're looking for stuff by or about Snoopy. We have only one subject heading for him. Would a new subject heading be needed to catalog a poster of Joe Cool, or would Snoopy (Fictitious character) still apply? Three minor notes: it's Schulz, not Schultz. I don't think anyone would argue that the book by Dr. Snoopy should also have Schulz as an access point. And let's not forget spirits, who can also be authors under AACR2 (e.g., Seth (Spirit)). Stephen On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Laurence Creider lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu wrote: John, What you say is well thought, and made me realize that I should have been clearer in saying that I consider Dr. Snoopy to be a form of a name and not a different name until proven otherwise, particularly given the presumed character depicted in the illustrations and the name of the illustrator. Joe Cool presents a different case, of course. As you say, RDA may need some revision here, as AACR2 certainly did for some of its unintended consequences. Larry -- Laurence S. Creider Special Collections Librarian New Mexico State University Las Cruces, NM 88003 Work: 575-646-7227 Fax: 575-646-7477 lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu On Wed, 27 Apr 2011, John Attig wrote: On 4/27/2011 11:40 AM, Laurence Creider wrote: The point of my comment yesterday was that there was no proof that Dr. Snoopy was in fact a different person from Snoopy. The existence of a title means nothing. Sometimes I use my Dr. or Professor, sometimes I do not. As the JSC was reviewing the drafts of the section of RDA that dealt with multiple identities or personae, it struck me that a literal reading of RDA would suggest that the simple use of different names (but not different forms of the same name or changes of name) was sufficient evidence of the intent to establish a separate bibliographic identity. If that is true, then Larry's point above is not relevant: you don't need proof that Dr. Snoopy is a different person, you only need evidence of the use of a distinct name -- and a decision that this is a different name rather than a different form of the same name (which I suppose one could argue). -- Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist Technical Services, University Libraries University of Minnesota 160 Wilson Library 309 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 Ph: 612-625-2328 Fx: 612-625-3428
Re: [RDA-L] Fictitious persons (was: Dr. Snoopy)
Deborah Tomares said:
And yes--I would have one heading for both Superman and Clark Kent. And it
would be a subject heading, not a personal name heading. That's where I
believe fictitious characters belong, and where most users would expect to
find them.
I'm not so sure. For some there is question, e.g., Paul Bunyan. The
line between Jesus Christ as a 600, and God as a 650, is a fine one. I'm
surprised some fundamentalist Christians have not objected to God
being so coded.
All persons as 100 authorities is fine with me, but again, an AACR2
revision page could have accomplished this.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
Jay Shorten said on Autocat:
OCLC 670190952 (no LC number), has 260c 2010, (c)2010. Is it really
necessary to code this in the fixed fields as t 2010 2010? Wouldn't s
2010 be better?
In RDA publication date is a core element, but copyright date is not.
I expect to see more [2011], (c)2011 when the item has only copyright
date. A subfield code is needed for copyright date.
I would code 008 s with a single date.
Also, shouldn't the 300 end in a period?
Under RDA ISBD practice, only when a 490 follows. We are still using
the ISBD fiction that the ending mark of punctuation *introduces* the
next field. As OPAC displays more and more deconstruct the ISBD
display, it is time to abandon this fiction, and standardize ending
punctuation of RDA elements and MARC fields. Field 246 needs one for
example, to agree with 730/740, and to have a period on notes created
by 246.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] RDA capitalization and edition question (basic)
1.7 governs transcription. The basic rule is to apply the capitalization guidelines of 1.7.2 (which direct us to Appendix A). These guidelines are basically the same as AACR2. So following appendix A we'd get Metal forming : mechanics and metallurgy. 1.7.1 alternative 1 allows agencies to follow other transcription conventions, however, if that's their policy-e.g. Chicago manual of style. If such a convention calls for capitalization of all nouns, you could legitimately wind up with Metal Forming : Mechanics and Metallurgy. 1.7.1 alternative 2 allows data derived from a digital source (e.g. the cataloger cuts and pastes from the publisher's website) to be left as is, without modification. This would allow the transcription METAL FORMING : Mechanics and Metallurgy I believe the answer to the question about 1.8.5 is that the language there is about recording not transcribing. RDA makes a distinction between elements that are transcribed and elements that are recorded. So all portions of the edition statement are transcribed (2.5.1.4) but the number in the numbering of serials element (2.6.1.4). (The last two sentences of 2.6.1.4 state that non-numeric parts of this element are transcribed.) Robert L. Maxwell Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept. 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Shorten, Jay Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 12:39 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] RDA capitalization and edition question (basic) LCCN 2010044821 OCLC 671710698 Metal Forming. The t.p. reads: METAL FORMING Mechanics and Metallurgy FOURTH EDITION 1. What rule in RDA says to transcribe the title as Metal Forming : Mechanics and Metallurgy and not Metal forming : mechanics and metallurgy ? Doesn't appendix A4 apply here to make the transcription the same as AACR2? The LCPS for A.1 does say to take what you see, but if that were the case, I would expect a mechanical transcription of METAL FORMING. 2. What rule in RDA says to transcribe the edition as Fourth and not 4th, as 1.8.5 seems to say, if I have interpreted correctly? Jay Shorten Cataloger, Monographs and Electronic Resources Associate Professor of Bibliography Catalog Department University Libraries University of Oklahoma jshor...@ou.edumailto:jshor...@ou.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Dr. Snoopy
Of course Superman and Clark Kent are only subject headings. Have they created any resources like Dr. Snoopy has? ;-) ^^ 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 ~~ On Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Deborah Tomares wrote: Here's the thing, though. Snoopy doesn't have the profession of author, because as we all know, he didn't really write the book. He is a fictitious dog, lacking in digits and English language necessary to put out the work he authored (even in the cartoons, he never speaks). So I don't believe we can, or should, apply the same rules and standards to him that we do to real, live, preferably human authors. And yes--I would have one heading for both Superman and Clark Kent. And it would be a subject heading, not a personal name heading. That's where I believe fictitious characters belong, and where most users would expect to find them. As in my Spiderman example before, I don't think it would benefit anyone, cataloger or user, to have to constantly revise and sift through the changeable natures/personae/call-them-what-you-will of fictitious characters. Because they aren't real, so aren't bound by rules of reality, to attempt to impose reality upon them seems to me wrong and not useful. Deborah Tomaras, NACO Coordinator Librarian II Western European Languages Team New York Public Library Library Services Center 31-11 Thomson Ave. Long Island City, N.Y. 11101 (917) 229-9561 dtoma...@nypl.org Disclaimer: Alas, my ideas are merely my own, and not indicative of New York Public Library policy. From: Peter Schouten pschou...@ingressus.nl To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Date: 04/27/2011 12:51 PM Subject:Re: [RDA-L] Dr. Snoopy Sent by:Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Unless one assumes that Dr. Snoopy is somehow different from plain Snoopy, and would advocate a series of maybe linked authorities for each differing guise of a character. Mr. Schouten, for example, claims that: even fictional characters are entitled to their own Personae. But I would argue against this route for multiple reasons. Fictitious character cannot truly have professions, so they aren't really different persons despite the guise; But in this example, the publication presents Dr. Snoopy as the author, which causes the fictional character to have the profession of author. Would you also have 1 heading for both Clark Kent and Superman? Peter Schouten
Re: [RDA-L] Dr. Snoopy
Mr. Rochkind: The change is here: AACR2 21.4C1 If responsibility for a work is known to be erroneously or fictitiously attributed to a person, enter under the actual personal author or under title if the actual personal author is not known. Make an added entry under the heading for the person to whom the authorship is attributed, unless he or she is not a real person. [in which case they get no entry at all as authors] RDA 9.0 Identifying Persons. Persons include fictitious entities. [i.e., required to be created as persons if on the work, not optional] In RDA 19.2.1.3, Recording Creators, there are examples given for both Kermit the Frog and Snoopy. In both of these cases, they are known as the creator of the work (i.e., main entry), even in the case where we all know Charles Schulz is the author. So it seems that RDA has indeed removed the option of listing the real author as the main entry. The LCPS for RDA 9.0 says: Apply this chapter to fictitious entities and real non-human entities having roles as creators or contributors. To avoid changes in LCSH during the RDA Test, LC testers and non-LC testers who are NACO participants should create name authority records for such entities and tell the Policy and Standards Division (PSD) when there is a counterpart heading in LCSH; PSD will compile a list of subject headings for possible deletion, once a decision is made regarding implementation of RDA. This would seem to imply that once a name heading is made for any fictitious entity, the corresponding subject heading will be voided. Because of this, it seems especially important to be conservative and general in creating names for fictitious characters, as this name would be the one everyone would need to flip their defunct subject headings to. Deborah Tomaras, NACO Coordinator Librarian II Western European Languages Team New York Public Library Library Services Center 31-11 Thomson Ave. Long Island City, N.Y. 11101 (917) 229-9561 dtoma...@nypl.org Disclaimer: Alas, my ideas are merely my own, and not indicative of New York Public Library policy.
Re: [RDA-L] Dr. Snoopy
James Weinheimer said:
Again, why have this change? Where is the utility either to librarians
or the users? The reasoning for such a change ...
This is one change I would like to see, but as an AACR2 revision
rather than requiring a new set of rules.
It would be advantageous to have a single main entry for Geronimo
Stilton works, and have works produced under that pseudonym brought
together in the catalogue and on the shelf.
That the pseudonym is personified as a mouse or cockroach is beside
the point. The author is writing under than name.
I've still seen to answer to what we are to do with Anne Rice writing
as Anne Rampling.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] RDA capitalization and edition question (basic)
Jay Shorten said:
1. What rule in RDA says to transcribe the title as Metal Forming : Mechan=
ics and Metallurgy and not Metal forming : mechanics and metallurgy ? =
RDA has as options upper case for the first letter of each word (if
that way on the title page) or all caps if that way on the title page
or captured (e.g., Onix) that way, or following a style manual.
In the case you cite, it would seem the style manual of title
caplitalization was followed. It would be interesting to know of all
titles done by that agency were so capitalized. If observing
transcription as found, they goofed.
SLC is sticking with sentence capitalization. I think the variety
would make for ugly and confusing hitlists. This lack of a consistent
standard for transcription is one of my major beefs with RDA, second
only to its bad writing style.
2. What rule in RDA says to transcribe the edition as Fourth and
not 4th ...
Nothing is to be abbreviated in a transcribed field unless the
abbreviation is on the item. Few abbreviations are used outside
transcibed fields, with a few exceptions, e.g., min.; cm and other
metric terms are considered symbols, not abbreviations.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] RDA capitalization and edition question (basic)
On 04/27/2011 10:56 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote: snip RDA has as options upper case for the first letter of each word (if that way on the title page) or all caps if that way on the title page or captured (e.g., Onix) that way, or following a style manual. /snip According to the Onix Best Practices http://www.bisg.org/docs/Best_Practices_Document.pdf, p. 11 Titles should be presented in the appropriate title case for the language of the title. on p. 12, they are more explicit: Titles should never be presented in all capital letters as a default. The only times that words in titles should be presented in all capital letters is when such a presentation is correct for a given word. Acronyms (e.g. UNESCO, NATO, UNICEF, etc.) are an example of a class of words that are correctly presented in all uppercase letters. -- James L. Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
Expect to see a MARBI Proposal for ALA Annual in New Orleans that proposes
specific subfields for copyright and phonogram dates.
I would code the separate elements of publication date and copyright date in
the fixed field as they appear in OCLC #670190952. MARC already enables us to
separately encode publication date and copyright date in the fixed fields.
Since these are separate elements, I can see no reason not to record both dates
in the fixed fields, even if their character strings are identical.
Kathy Glennan
Head, Special Resources Cataloging / Music Cataloger
University of Maryland
kglen...@umd.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: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 2:32 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
Jay Shorten said on Autocat:
OCLC 670190952 (no LC number), has 260c 2010, (c)2010. Is it really
necessary to code this in the fixed fields as t 2010 2010? Wouldn't s
2010 be better?
In RDA publication date is a core element, but copyright date is not.
I expect to see more [2011], (c)2011 when the item has only copyright date. A
subfield code is needed for copyright date.
I would code 008 s with a single date.
Also, shouldn't the 300 end in a period?
Under RDA ISBD practice, only when a 490 follows. We are still using the ISBD
fiction that the ending mark of punctuation *introduces* the next field. As
OPAC displays more and more deconstruct the ISBD display, it is time to abandon
this fiction, and standardize ending punctuation of RDA elements and MARC
fields. Field 246 needs one for example, to agree with 730/740, and to have a
period on notes created by 246.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Dr. Snoopy
So under RDA, the authority record for Rita Mae Brown gets changed and one 400 for Sneaky Pie Brown becomes a 500 because we now need a new authority record for her cat, since they co-wrote the Mrs. Murphy mysteries together. The other 400 would be moved from Rita Mae's record to the new one for Sneaky Pie. Right? And on all of the bib records, they'd still be entered under Rita Mae, since her name comes first on the title page, and Sneaky Pie gets an added entry.. Keith Trimmer Head, Serials, Music and Japanese Cataloging Section USC Libraries Los Angeles On Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Adam L. Schiff wrote: Of course Superman and Clark Kent are only subject headings. Have they created any resources like Dr. Snoopy has? ;-) ^^ 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 ~~ On Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Deborah Tomares wrote: Here's the thing, though. Snoopy doesn't have the profession of author, because as we all know, he didn't really write the book. He is a fictitious dog, lacking in digits and English language necessary to put out the work he authored (even in the cartoons, he never speaks). So I don't believe we can, or should, apply the same rules and standards to him that we do to real, live, preferably human authors. And yes--I would have one heading for both Superman and Clark Kent. And it would be a subject heading, not a personal name heading. That's where I believe fictitious characters belong, and where most users would expect to find them. As in my Spiderman example before, I don't think it would benefit anyone, cataloger or user, to have to constantly revise and sift through the changeable natures/personae/call-them-what-you-will of fictitious characters. Because they aren't real, so aren't bound by rules of reality, to attempt to impose reality upon them seems to me wrong and not useful. Deborah Tomaras, NACO Coordinator Librarian II Western European Languages Team New York Public Library Library Services Center 31-11 Thomson Ave. Long Island City, N.Y. 11101 (917) 229-9561 dtoma...@nypl.org Disclaimer: Alas, my ideas are merely my own, and not indicative of New York Public Library policy. From: Peter Schouten pschou...@ingressus.nl To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Date: 04/27/2011 12:51 PM Subject:Re: [RDA-L] Dr. Snoopy Sent by:Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Unless one assumes that Dr. Snoopy is somehow different from plain Snoopy, and would advocate a series of maybe linked authorities for each differing guise of a character. Mr. Schouten, for example, claims that: even fictional characters are entitled to their own Personae. But I would argue against this route for multiple reasons. Fictitious character cannot truly have professions, so they aren't really different persons despite the guise; But in this example, the publication presents Dr. Snoopy as the author, which causes the fictional character to have the profession of author. Would you also have 1 heading for both Clark Kent and Superman? Peter Schouten
Re: [RDA-L] Dr. Snoopy
Yes, that sounds about right to me Keith. Unless the books somehow indicate that Sneaky Pie is the predominant creator (through typography for example), the first named creator would be used as part of the authorized access point for the work, which would translated into a 100 field for Rita Mae and a 700 added entry for Sneaky Pie. Whether the authority record for Rita Mae gets linked via a 500 to the authority record for Sneaky Pie (and vice versa) is an interesting question, but I think the answer is no. We don't normally link authority records for two persons who co-author a work. And this is not a case where Sneaky Pie is an alternate identity of Rita Mae. Sneaky's an actual non-human being. There IS a relationship between the two but at present we don't have relationship designators establish to record the relationship between owner and pet. (Neither do we record relationships between spouses, siblings, parents/children, etc. in our authority records). So I think the answer to you question is that Sneaky Pie gets removed from the name authority for Rita Mae, and gets his (her?) own authority record with no 500 references between them. Adam ^^ 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 ~~ On Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Keith R. Trimmer wrote: So under RDA, the authority record for Rita Mae Brown gets changed and one 400 for Sneaky Pie Brown becomes a 500 because we now need a new authority record for her cat, since they co-wrote the Mrs. Murphy mysteries together. The other 400 would be moved from Rita Mae's record to the new one for Sneaky Pie. Right? And on all of the bib records, they'd still be entered under Rita Mae, since her name comes first on the title page, and Sneaky Pie gets an added entry.. Keith Trimmer Head, Serials, Music and Japanese Cataloging Section USC Libraries Los Angeles On Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Adam L. Schiff wrote: Of course Superman and Clark Kent are only subject headings. Have they created any resources like Dr. Snoopy has? ;-) ^^ 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 ~~ On Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Deborah Tomares wrote: Here's the thing, though. Snoopy doesn't have the profession of author, because as we all know, he didn't really write the book. He is a fictitious dog, lacking in digits and English language necessary to put out the work he authored (even in the cartoons, he never speaks). So I don't believe we can, or should, apply the same rules and standards to him that we do to real, live, preferably human authors. And yes--I would have one heading for both Superman and Clark Kent. And it would be a subject heading, not a personal name heading. That's where I believe fictitious characters belong, and where most users would expect to find them. As in my Spiderman example before, I don't think it would benefit anyone, cataloger or user, to have to constantly revise and sift through the changeable natures/personae/call-them-what-you-will of fictitious characters. Because they aren't real, so aren't bound by rules of reality, to attempt to impose reality upon them seems to me wrong and not useful. Deborah Tomaras, NACO Coordinator Librarian II Western European Languages Team New York Public Library Library Services Center 31-11 Thomson Ave. Long Island City, N.Y. 11101 (917) 229-9561 dtoma...@nypl.org Disclaimer: Alas, my ideas are merely my own, and not indicative of New York Public Library policy. From: Peter Schouten pschou...@ingressus.nl To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Date: 04/27/2011 12:51 PM Subject:Re: [RDA-L] Dr. Snoopy Sent by:Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Unless one assumes that Dr. Snoopy is somehow different from plain Snoopy, and would advocate a series of maybe linked authorities for each differing guise of a character. Mr. Schouten, for example, claims that: even fictional characters are entitled to their own Personae. But I would argue against this route for multiple reasons. Fictitious character cannot truly have professions, so they aren't really different persons despite the guise; But in this example, the publication presents Dr. Snoopy as the author, which causes the fictional character to have the profession of author. Would you also have 1 heading for both Clark Kent and Superman? Peter Schouten
[RDA-L] Sneaky Pie and Rita Mae Brown
Adam, Thanks for the comments. I immediately agreed with you about the 500s (I was thinking of pseudonymns like Ellery Queen), but wondering about users who under AACR2 are directed to Rita when they search for Sneaky, but under RDA would not be informed of any link between the two. In this instance, they would find Rita's name inside the actual books and on bib records, should they wish to explore other titles she has authored on her own, but the authority file would make no such connection.) Since the LCPS allows for establishing non-human entities as authors, then 'Millie's book / as dictated to Barbara Bush' would presumably be recataloged with Millie as 100 (and Barbara as 700), and Millie (Dog) would move out of the subject authority file where she's a 150 and into the name authority file. I presume that means all of the 129 other dogs currently established as 150s would need to be changed to 100s as well, yes? Surely if dogs and cats can be established as authors, then all headings for dogs and cats would need to move to the name authority file... Later, kt On Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Adam L. Schiff wrote: Yes, that sounds about right to me Keith. Unless the books somehow indicate that Sneaky Pie is the predominant creator (through typography for example), the first named creator would be used as part of the authorized access point for the work, which would translated into a 100 field for Rita Mae and a 700 added entry for Sneaky Pie. Whether the authority record for Rita Mae gets linked via a 500 to the authority record for Sneaky Pie (and vice versa) is an interesting question, but I think the answer is no. We don't normally link authority records for two persons who co-author a work. And this is not a case where Sneaky Pie is an alternate identity of Rita Mae. Sneaky's an actual non-human being. There IS a relationship between the two but at present we don't have relationship designators establish to record the relationship between owner and pet. (Neither do we record relationships between spouses, siblings, parents/children, etc. in our authority records). So I think the answer to you question is that Sneaky Pie gets removed from the name authority for Rita Mae, and gets his (her?) own authority record with no 500 references between them. Adam ^^ 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 ~~ On Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Keith R. Trimmer wrote: So under RDA, the authority record for Rita Mae Brown gets changed and one 400 for Sneaky Pie Brown becomes a 500 because we now need a new authority record for her cat, since they co-wrote the Mrs. Murphy mysteries together. The other 400 would be moved from Rita Mae's record to the new one for Sneaky Pie. Right? And on all of the bib records, they'd still be entered under Rita Mae, since her name comes first on the title page, and Sneaky Pie gets an added entry.. Keith Trimmer Head, Serials, Music and Japanese Cataloging Section USC Libraries Los Angeles On Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Adam L. Schiff wrote: Of course Superman and Clark Kent are only subject headings. Have they created any resources like Dr. Snoopy has? ;-) ^^ 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 ~~ On Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Deborah Tomares wrote: Here's the thing, though. Snoopy doesn't have the profession of author, because as we all know, he didn't really write the book. He is a fictitious dog, lacking in digits and English language necessary to put out the work he authored (even in the cartoons, he never speaks). So I don't believe we can, or should, apply the same rules and standards to him that we do to real, live, preferably human authors. And yes--I would have one heading for both Superman and Clark Kent. And it would be a subject heading, not a personal name heading. That's where I believe fictitious characters belong, and where most users would expect to find them. As in my Spiderman example before, I don't think it would benefit anyone, cataloger or user, to have to constantly revise and sift through the changeable natures/personae/call-them-what-you-will of fictitious characters. Because they aren't real, so aren't bound by rules of reality, to attempt to impose reality upon them seems to me wrong and not useful. Deborah Tomaras, NACO Coordinator Librarian II Western European Languages Team New York Public Library Library Services Center 31-11 Thomson Ave. Long Island City, N.Y. 11101 (917) 229-9561 dtoma...@nypl.org Disclaimer: Alas, my ideas are merely my own,
Re: [RDA-L] Place of publication in RDA (fwd)
Thank you so much for the wonderful discussion! I just put another star to this message. I agree that it's critical to have accurate and specific place name info in a record for various reasons. As far as I am concerned, that is the value-added library metadata services that a cataloger (a.k.a. informatics specialist) can provide. Obviously, the actual cataloging work can be assisted with some visualization tools for potential match(es) to the place name that she/he is going to assign to the publication. To save cataloger's time for researching the actual name of the larger jurisdiction or jurisdictions (state, province, etc., and/or country), I am just wondering why we can't inject some inference rules to the cataloging tools in the context of cataloging the publication. The tools may be augmented with: 1. controlled vocabularies, e.g. place name from Getty TGN, etc.; 2. publisher name from LC authority file, 3. top query expansion log files from Google Universal Search, and 4. additional tools from Google Map, Google Earth, etc. for larger jurisdiction name(s) verification at the time of record creation, etc. For example, an older publication from Cambridge University Press, in MARC 260 field is assigned as the following: *260* *##**$a*Cambridge [Cambridgeshire] :*$b* University of Cambridge Press,*$c*1980. How can we get this output? The cataloger is the gate keeper and domain expert on data quality for every field in a cataloging record. The visualized tool injected with inference rules for location name resolution will assist his/her decision making in the choice of the larger jurisdiction name(s) like the following: 1. Acquire data usage pattern(s) of the place name and publisher in the publication, e.g. Cambridge is used* in conjunction with** *University of Cambridge Press; 2. Lookup place name in place name thesaurus, e.g. TGN, and publisher name in name authority files, e.g. LC NAF, etc.; 3. Retrieve and suggest possible choice(s) it finds a match or more as the following: *S1: From Data Source TGN* * ID*:7010874 ... Cambridge (preferred, C, V) ... *Coordinates*: Lat: 52 12 00 N degrees minutes Long: 000 07 00 E degrees minutes Lat: 52.2000 *decimal degrees* Long: 0.1167 *decimal degrees* Hierarchical Position: Hierarchy of World (facet)World (facet) Hierarchy of Europe (continent) Europe (continent) (P) Hierarchy of United Kingdom (nation) United Kingdom (nation) (P) Hierarchy of England (country) England (country) (P) Hierarchy of Cambridgeshire (county) Cambridgeshire (county) (P) Cambridge (inhabited place) (P) *S2: From Data Source LCSH* ... 010 __* |a *n 50059133 110 2_* |a *Cambridge University Press 410 2_* |a *University of Cambridge.* |b *Press ... *S3: From Google Map or Google Earth API Plugin * ... *Fly to*: 52.2000, 0.1167 *AND* Cambridge University Press to obtain the potential address as: Cambridge University Press, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom ... OR if possible *S4: From Google Top Query Expansion Log Files* ... Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. United Kingdom ... *Inference rules* can be made as the following using plain English: Since *S2*, *S3*, or *S4* have associated Cambridge and Cambridge University Press with United Kingdom, AND *S2* indicates that the larger jurisdiction name of Cambridge is Cambridgeshire, therefore, the possible choice for 260$a is *Cambridge**[Cambridgeshire]. *To get detailed data flow diagram for controlled vocabulary movement at 5000 feet above the ground, please feel free to check* *slide # 26 of 32 DFD - Data Flow Diagram available from Vision of Library Technical Services (2009) * http://www.slideshare.net/elephantsmith/vision-of-libraries-technical-services . *In summary, for additional data application services that we would like to provide to our community, we have to have some good data of high quality to start with. External data sources and tools will assist catalogers with decision making in the choice of form when constructing a heading for a place name and its larger jurisdiction name. This is just a high level description of how to get there. Sincerely yours, Amanda Xu On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 6:42 AM, hec...@dml.vic.edu.au wrote: Quoting Danskin, Alan alan.dans...@bl.uk: It is not clear what benefit you perceive is derived from the addition of information about the larger jurisdiction. The benefit is to inform the catalogue user where the document was issued. There are many, many places which may appear in this element of a resource description, but which share a name with other places far distant. One of the FRBR things that seldom reaches our consciousness is context -- the set of conditions in which a work or an expression was created, or a manifestation published. Context
