Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 7:01 AM, Hal Cain wrote: snip However, once I began to see how competent systems handled MARC, it became plain that what they were doing was basically to create a matrix and populate it with the tag values, the indicator values, and the subfield data prefixed by the subfield code. Then the indexing routines read the matrix (not the raw MARC ISO2709 data) and distributed the data into the appropriate areas of the system's internal table structure. From those tables, I was able, when required, to obtain what I wanted by direct query on the appropriate part of the database. When it was necessary to export a single MARC record, a group of them, or indeed the whole database, the system had routines which reversed the process (and, last of all, counted the number of characters in order to fill in the record length element of the MARC leader). This was extremely burdensome to programmers who came to the game in the 1990s and had no background in early data processing, chiefly of text rather than numbers, but in its time it was pure genius. Nowadays it's a very special niche, and the foreignness to programmers and designers of the processes involved probably plays a part in keeping us from having really good cataloguing modules and public catalogues; and I can understand the frustration entailed for those who expect to interrogate a database directly. Bear in mind, though, that using a modern cataloguing module (Horizon is the one I'm most familiar with), I can search for a record on a remote system, e.g. the LC catalog, through Z39.50, and have the record on my screen, in editable form, in a second or two, indistinguishable from a record in the local database. The system's internal routines download the record in MARC format (ISO 2709, hated by Jim) and build the matrix which feeds the screen display. /snip This is really a nice description of the problems of ISO2709, Hal. Thanks a lot. I would like to clarify one point however: do I hate ISO2709 format? I can answer that honestly: no. It served its purpose well for the environment it was born into. That environment changed however, and we need to face up to that. If our modern systems (i.e. modern web browsers) worked with the ISO2709 format, i.e. the files that the machine actually receives, then I would be all for it. Yet, this is not the reality of the situation. Browsers work with a variety of formats, but they work with XML, which gives us some options. Browsers do not work with ISO2709, and I don't believe they ever will. Therefore, the only systems that can work with ISO2709 records (which is how libraries exchange their cataloging information) are other catalogs, and that automatically restrains us from participating in the wider information universe. As a result, in my own opinion, hanging on to ISO2709 borders on the irrational since we automatically limit the utility of our records, thereby limiting ourselves. MARCXML has many limitations that I won't discuss here, but *at least* it is in XML which *can* be used in the new environment. It is much more flexible than ISO2709. For instance, I have mentioned before that I believe we should get away from a *single* main entry--that while a single main entry made sense in the card catalog, it makes no sense in a computerized catalog. Others disagree, but no matter what, I think it is vital that we should have that kind of flexibility. Getting rid of a *single* main entry would be the equivalent of DC's creator and contributor where creator is repeatable, thereby creating multiple main entries. It turns out this is much more difficult than merely making 1xx repeatable, since you also have to allow it in the 6xx, 7xx and 8xx, for books *by* Masters and Johnson, for books *about the books* written by Masters and Johnson, for analytical and series treatments as well. You could do this without too much difficulty in XML, even in MARCXML, but in ISO2709, it would be a relative nightmare because you would have to rework the entire structure, from the directory on down. (This is why the MARCXML principle of roundtripability--what a word!--needs to be dropped. Otherwise, we remain trapped in the ISO2709 format anyway!) Anyway, while it may be possible to rework ISO2709 to such an extent, would it be worthwhile to do it on such an old format? This is just one example of the relative inflexibility of ISO2709, but there are many more. Still, I don't hate ISO2709. It served its purpose admirably, but it's like the horse and buggy. I'm sure nobody hated horses and buggies after the automobile came out, but eventually, if it turned out that Dad and Grandpa refused to get a car when everybody else had one and the advantages were plain for all to see, Junior very possibly would have wound up hating the horse and buggy he was forced to use. -- James L. Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ Cooperative
Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement
08.11.2011 07:01, Hal Cain: However, once I began to see how competent systems handled MARC, it became plain that what they were doing was basically to create a matrix and populate it with the tag values, the indicator values, and the subfield data prefixed by the subfield code. This is only one possible way. There are other ways; I programmed one that is not decidedly MARC specific but handles MARC/ISO anyway. It is scriptable, not hard- wired to do just this job and nothing else. The ISO7209 structure (later renamed Z39.2) was an incredibly fussy concoction that presumedly allowed for some efficiency in the days of magnetic tape based processing. (To know in advance, inside the program, how long a field would be, was an advantage then.) Today, fussing around like that is ridiculous, it would be full well possible and economical to use something like the MarcEdit external structure: =LDR 01234cam a22002771a 45e0 =001 438554701 =008 100412s1975n\\\eng\d =020 \\$a0913896039 =050 \0$aPN3377.5.S3 =082 00$a808.3876 =090 \\$aQ2'Fdg-150 =100 1\$aDe Camp , Lyon Sprague =245 00$aScience fiction handbook /$cL. Sprague de Camp and Catherine Crook de Camp =250 \\$aRevised ed. =260 \\$aPhiladelphia :$bOwlswick Press,$c1975 =300 \\$aVIII, 220 S. ; 8 =500 \\$aLiteraturverz. S. 203 - 212 =650 \0$aScience fiction Authorship =650 \0$aScience fiction History and criticism =700 12$aDe Camp , Catherine Crook =700 12$aCamp, Catherine Crook de It can be editied as a simple text file, sent by e-mail or ftp, or magnetic tape. It can use UTF-8 or any other encodings. For those few systems that still can ingest only ISO data, there's MarcEdit to convert it back and forth. It is therefore beside the point to talk about ISO2709 when discussing whether MARC must die or not. From a programmer's POV, this matter can be considered closed. MARC has other flaws that are much more serious and not all of them solvable algorithmically. Maybe the problem is that there's no universal bibliographic database that isn't MARC-based? There certainly are such databases. One of them is Pica, widely used in Europe, and now owned by OCLC. Another one is the system programmed by myself, also widely used. Both can handle MARC, in whichever ways it comes. But internally, they go their own ways. If needed, they deliver MARC records or whatever, via web services or as simple files. B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement
I'm posting this to the BIBFRAME list as well since it seemed relevant...
To me, the original main entry concept could more usefully be thought about
in a larger context of for any field that is repeatable in a set of
bibliographic description fields, is it useful to be able to designate one such
fields as primary for purposes of selection for display, categorization
(where a particular application requires one to select one box to
characterize a resource) or other functionalities? If so, should the
designation be stored with the field, or separately from it?
Other MARC approaches that serve that function include choice of format
(which one goes in Leader byte 6, which one gets reflected in an 006, when a
resource has characteristics of two formats?).
For fields like subject, I believe there was a convention that the most
important subject (the one upon which the primary classification number was
based) had the first position in the record. Since many modern systems permit
or even force re-ordering tags in numerical order, that positional value can
and often is easily lost. Many of us stopped lamenting this a long time ago,
but was it valuable?
What I don't think is valuable, is having to pick one author of a work with
multiple authors and designate that person as the main one, based on the
almost arbitrary factor of position of the name on the title page, (which is
often alphabetical), and ending up deeming this person Creator and relegating
the other author(s) to Contributor status. (Nor do I think that dichotomy is
particularly useful.)
Laura
Laura Akerman
Technology and Metadata Librarian
Room 128, Robert W. Woodruff Library
Emory University, Atlanta, Ga. 30322
(404) 727-6888
lib...@emory.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, November 08, 2011 11:24 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework
statement
Jim said:
Getting rid of a *single* main entry would be the equivalent of DC's
creator and contributor where creator is repeatable, thereby
creating multiple main entries.
How would you produce single entry bibliographies? How would scholars cite in
footnotes? How would cataloguers construct subject and added entries for works?
Libraries are part of a larger bibliographic universe, and should adhere to its
standards and practices, which would include returning to compiler main entry.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please contact
the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the
original message (including attachments).
Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement
For fields like subject, I believe there was a convention that the most important subject (the one upon which the primary classification number was based) had the first position in the record. Since many modern systems permit or even force re-ordering tags in numerical order, that positional value can and often is easily lost. Many of us stopped lamenting this a long time ago, but was it valuable? Yes. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement
And it is still the rule if you are following the LCSH conventions as specified in its rulebook, the Subject Headings Manual. The first subject heading is also tied closely to the classification number assigned. 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 Tue, 8 Nov 2011, Mike Tribby wrote: For fields like subject, I believe there was a convention that the most important subject (the one upon which the primary classification number was based) had the first position in the record. Since many modern systems permit or even force re-ordering tags in numerical order, that positional value can and often is easily lost. Many of us stopped lamenting this a long time ago, but was it valuable? Yes. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement
Laura Akerman said:
What I don't think is valuable, is having to pick one author of a
work with multiple authors and designate that person as the main
one ...
As I asked Jim, how would you construct at 600$a$t subject or 700$a$t
added entry for a manifestation, if there were no main entry? How
would a scholar construct a footnote citation? How would you list it
in a single entry bibliography?
It seems to me main entry (by any other term) is a vital concept in
the bibliographic universe.
For fields like subject, I believe there was a convention that the
most important subject (the one upon which the primary classification
Ynumber was based) had the first position in the record. Since many
modern systems permit or even force re-ordering tags in numerical
order, that positional value can and often is easily lost. Many of
us stopped lamenting this a long time ago, but was it valuable?
Agreed. We do try to make the first 650 (as opposed to the first 6XX)
agree with the class number. But I suspect 6XX order is as
unimportant as note order to patrons.
There was a way of coding in UTLAS to bring a particular 6XX first,
one of many features lost with its demise. There was no wayy of
coding to bring a particular 5XX first.
For note order, we use more exact coding than most, e.g., 501 DVD
special features, 503 (which we refuse to give up) for Originally
issued ..., 508 for all non cast credits, 511 for cast credets, DVD
in 300 rather than 538, 588 for source (e.g., IMDb). It's much less
labour intensive than arranging a bunch of 5XXs. (DVDs tend to have
more notes than many library resources.)
As mentioned in my list of requirements for a replacement coding
scheme, it should arrange data in optimum display order, without a lot
of manipulation at data entry, or complicated OPAC programming.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement
On 08/11/2011 17:23, J. McRee Elrod wrote: snip Jim said: Getting rid of a *single* main entry would be the equivalent of DC's creator andcontributor wherecreator is repeatable, thereby creating multiple main entries. How would you produce single entry bibliographies? How would scholars cite in footnotes? How would cataloguers construct subject and added entries for works? Libraries are part of a larger bibliographic universe, and should adhere to its standards and practices, which would include returning to compiler main entry. /snip Could you point me in the direction of a bibliographic citation format that demands someone choosing a *single* main entry? I have worked a lot with them and have never found anything resembling a single main entry. While the practices vary, the main rule is, copy the authors in the order they appear on the title page. Some stop at a maximum of four, none more than seven. Some want the forms of names as spelled out on the item, others say to abbreviate first and middle names. These formats mostly want people to differentiate between authors and others, e.g. editors, compilers, and translators, by putting in (ed.) or mentioning translations. Here is the Chicago format http://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/DocChi_WC_book.html. Another nice page is from Ursinus http://myrin.ursinus.edu/help/resrch_guides/cit_style_mla.htm. Here is a guide for the Harvard rules http://libweb.anglia.ac.uk/referencing/harvard.htm For books with two, three or four authors of equal status the names should all be included in the order they appear in the document. Use an *and* to link the last two multiple authors. These rules, and others, actually use et al.! I admit that these considerations would provide a reason to go back to the practice of adding relator codes (which I do *not* think is the right thing to do, by the way). Now, as far as cataloging items for subject or added entries for works with two or more main entries, it can be done in XML quite easily, but more difficult with ISO2709. With XML, for a subject entry for Masters and Johnson (two main entries), you could have (an abbreviated MARCXML record. I think catalogers can follow): record 100 aSmith, John/ad1960-/d /100 245 aThe book by Masters and Johnson/a bsome thought/b cby John Smith/c /245 260 aNew York/a bRandom/b c2011/c /260 subjectUniformTitle 100 aMasters, William Howell/a d1915-2001/d /100 100 aJohnson, Virginia/a d1925-/d /100 240 aHuman Sexual Response///a /240 /subjectUniformTitle /record The same could be done with an analytic or series, just replacing subjectUniformTitle with analyticUniformTitle or seriesUniformTitle. How this could be done in ISO2709, I do not know, but I won't say that it cannot be done because somebody may figure out a way, but I can't imagine why anyone should want to. XML can do it right now and it could be utilized by browsers the world over--right now. Once we get away from ISO2709, there will be all kinds of novel bibliographic structures that can be implemented. ISO2709 leads catalogers to think in certain ways about how information in structures. There is no need for that any longer. -- James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement
Kind of off topic, but curious why you don't think relator codes are the right thing to do. If we're listing 3 or 5 or 10 people or entities 'responsible' for an artistic work, why wouldn't we want to be able to say the nature/role of each entities responsibility? Or, if we do, but relator codes are a poor device for this, why? On 11/8/2011 3:25 PM, James Weinheimer wrote: On 08/11/2011 17:23, J. McRee Elrod wrote: snip Jim said: Getting rid of a *single* main entry would be the equivalent of DC's creator andcontributor wherecreator is repeatable, thereby creating multiple main entries. How would you produce single entry bibliographies? How would scholars cite in footnotes? How would cataloguers construct subject and added entries for works? Libraries are part of a larger bibliographic universe, and should adhere to its standards and practices, which would include returning to compiler main entry. /snip Could you point me in the direction of a bibliographic citation format that demands someone choosing a *single* main entry? I have worked a lot with them and have never found anything resembling a single main entry. While the practices vary, the main rule is, copy the authors in the order they appear on the title page. Some stop at a maximum of four, none more than seven. Some want the forms of names as spelled out on the item, others say to abbreviate first and middle names. These formats mostly want people to differentiate between authors and others, e.g. editors, compilers, and translators, by putting in (ed.) or mentioning translations. Here is the Chicago format http://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/DocChi_WC_book.html. Another nice page is from Ursinus http://myrin.ursinus.edu/help/resrch_guides/cit_style_mla.htm. Here is a guide for the Harvard rules http://libweb.anglia.ac.uk/referencing/harvard.htm For books with two, three or four authors of equal status the names should all be included in the order they appear in the document. Use an *and* to link the last two multiple authors. These rules, and others, actually use et al.! I admit that these considerations would provide a reason to go back to the practice of adding relator codes (which I do *not* think is the right thing to do, by the way). Now, as far as cataloging items for subject or added entries for works with two or more main entries, it can be done in XML quite easily, but more difficult with ISO2709. With XML, for a subject entry for Masters and Johnson (two main entries), you could have (an abbreviated MARCXML record. I think catalogers can follow): record 100 aSmith, John/ad1960-/d /100 245 aThe book by Masters and Johnson/a bsome thought/b cby John Smith/c /245 260 aNew York/a bRandom/b c2011/c /260 subjectUniformTitle 100 aMasters, William Howell/a d1915-2001/d /100 100 aJohnson, Virginia/a d1925-/d /100 240 aHuman Sexual Response/a /240 /subjectUniformTitle /record The same could be done with an analytic or series, just replacing subjectUniformTitle with analyticUniformTitle or seriesUniformTitle. How this could be done in ISO2709, I do not know, but I won't say that it cannot be done because somebody may figure out a way, but I can't imagine why anyone should want to. XML can do it right now and it could be utilized by browsers the world over--right now. Once we get away from ISO2709, there will be all kinds of novel bibliographic structures that can be implemented. ISO2709 leads catalogers to think in certain ways about how information in structures. There is no need for that any longer. -- James weinheimerweinheimer.ji...@gmail.com mailto:weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com First Thus:http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ Cooperative Cataloging Rules:http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement
Jim said:
Could you point me in the direction of a bibliographic citation format
that demands someone choosing a *single* main entry?
See Chicago Manual of Style 14th ed. 16.35-38. Up to three authors
may be given, but only the first is given in inverted order. Sounds
like a main entry to me. One has to choose one to invert. Beyond
three, only the first is given. (Entry under first of more than three
is closer to RDA than AACR2, but like AACR2 in substituting et al.
for additional authors.)
Am I the only one old enough to remember more than one author at the
top of the unit card? But *one* was first.
Now, as far as cataloging items for subject or added entries for
works with two or more main entries ...
One still has to be first. I don't see the advantage of having more
than one with one first, as opposed to having one. See the statement
of responsibility if you want all.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement
Someone pointed out to me that I should clarify my last remark, talking about
the separating of people into Creator and Contributor I was thinking about
what happens when mapping MARC to the Dublin Core Creator or Contributor
elements, which are loosely defined - not to the RDA concepts which have a
different and more distinct definition:
Creator - A person, family, or corporate body responsible for the creation of a
work.
Contributor - A person, family or corporate body contributing to the
realization of a work through an expression. Contributors include editors,
translators, arrangers of music, performers, etc.
Is there any way to determine the RDA distinctions within the current MARC21?
Without the use of relators, I can't see how...
Laura
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Akerman, Laura
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 2:00 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework
statement
I'm posting this to the BIBFRAME list as well since it seemed relevant...
To me, the original main entry concept could more usefully be thought about
in a larger context of for any field that is repeatable in a set of
bibliographic description fields, is it useful to be able to designate one such
fields as primary for purposes of selection for display, categorization
(where a particular application requires one to select one box to
characterize a resource) or other functionalities? If so, should the
designation be stored with the field, or separately from it?
Other MARC approaches that serve that function include choice of format
(which one goes in Leader byte 6, which one gets reflected in an 006, when a
resource has characteristics of two formats?).
For fields like subject, I believe there was a convention that the most
important subject (the one upon which the primary classification number was
based) had the first position in the record. Since many modern systems permit
or even force re-ordering tags in numerical order, that positional value can
and often is easily lost. Many of us stopped lamenting this a long time ago,
but was it valuable?
What I don't think is valuable, is having to pick one author of a work with
multiple authors and designate that person as the main one, based on the
almost arbitrary factor of position of the name on the title page, (which is
often alphabetical), and ending up deeming this person Creator and relegating
the other author(s) to Contributor status. (Nor do I think that dichotomy is
particularly useful.)
Laura
Laura Akerman
Technology and Metadata Librarian
Room 128, Robert W. Woodruff Library
Emory University, Atlanta, Ga. 30322
(404) 727-6888
lib...@emory.edumailto:lib...@emory.edu
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA]mailto:[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA]
On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 11:24 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework
statement
Jim said:
Getting rid of a *single* main entry would be the equivalent of DC's
creator and contributor where creator is repeatable, thereby
creating multiple main entries.
How would you produce single entry bibliographies? How would scholars cite in
footnotes? How would cataloguers construct subject and added entries for works?
Libraries are part of a larger bibliographic universe, and should adhere to its
standards and practices, which would include returning to compiler main entry.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.camailto:m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message
(including any attachments) is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply
e-mail message and destroy all copies of the original message (including
attachments).
Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement
Jonathan asked:
Kind of off topic, but curious why you don't think relator codes are the
right thing to do.
Whatever Jim's objections, I can tell you why our clients wish them
removed:
1) They may create separate hitlists for the same person.
2) If one hitlist, the relation of the person to the first title
listed may differ from other titles in the hitlist.
3) Although a greater problem with $i before $a, they may complicate
searching.
4) They create problems (see 1 2) for print products such as
acquisitions lists and subject bibliographies.
5) They do not include all the complexities expressed in 245/$c.
6) Some of the terms in the RDA list are long and cumbersome, taking
up too much display space.
7) They represent a departure from legacy records; patrons will not
understand why some entries have them and some don't.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement
Yep, I understand those issues that you've mentioned before. They are
all (with the possible exception of #7) cases of software being broken.
If you have to mangle data to meet the expectations of broken software,
well, then you have to. But it doesn't mean the data is broken. You are
certainly free to strip out any data that your broken software is unable
to handle appropriately, but I don't think it's an argument for those
elements to not be in the data in the first place.
Well, #5 is different too. It's obviously not possible for a coded
vocabulary to ever express everything possible by freely entered human
language text. But that's not an argument against using coded
vocabularies to supplement transcribed or freely entered text either. If
it were, that argument would apply to just about any of our coded values
or fixed fields, and we'd have no coded or fixed fields at all, all we'd
have is transcribed or free text entered.
But this is surely a boring argument we've had before.
On 11/8/2011 4:48 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Jonathan asked:
Kind of off topic, but curious why you don't think relator codes are the
right thing to do.
Whatever Jim's objections, I can tell you why our clients wish them
removed:
1) They may create separate hitlists for the same person.
2) If one hitlist, the relation of the person to the first title
listed may differ from other titles in the hitlist.
3) Although a greater problem with $i before $a, they may complicate
searching.
4) They create problems (see 1 2) for print products such as
acquisitions lists and subject bibliographies.
5) They do not include all the complexities expressed in 245/$c.
6) Some of the terms in the RDA list are long and cumbersome, taking
up too much display space.
7) They represent a departure from legacy records; patrons will not
understand why some entries have them and some don't.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement
Laura Akerman posted;
Creator - A person, family, or corporate body responsible for the creation =
of a work.
100/110/111 (you forgot conference). Family coding will change with RDA.
Contributor - A person, family or corporate body contributing to the realiz=
ation of a work through an expression. Contributors include editors, trans=
lators, arrangers of music, performers, etc.
700/710/711, if you add joint authors beyond the first to your list above.
Beyond that, I so not see the need for the distinction. Of course
245/$c, 508, 511, etc. express these relationships in the words of the
item.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement
Quoting Akerman, Laura lib...@emory.edu:
To me, the original main entry concept could more usefully be
thought about in a larger context of for any field that is
repeatable in a set of bibliographic description fields, is it
useful to be able to designate one such fields as primary for
purposes of selection for display, categorization
I have to say that I really like this idea. I've been thinking of how
we might employ primary secondary and everything else in subject
analysis. I know that the first subject heading is supposed to be
primary, but I also know that the order gets lost in many cases.
Primary and not-primary could also be applied to facets: the resource
is mainly about, say, England, but some of the action takes place in
France and Italy. It seems it would be useful for the user to know the
weight of the assigned subjects or facets. In my mind these look
like tag clouds, with the most important ones being larger and bolder.
As for creators as main entries, to me, indicating the role of
creators and agents of all types allows you to make sensible choices
on output rather than having the catalog make one decision for all
situations. It's just a matter of giving more weight to, say, an
author over an illustrator for the purposes of some brief displays. I
also think that you could have more than one algorithm for selection
of displays. Surely some citation function would place an author in
the primary position but would place an editor as a mention after the
title, while others place them both as entry points. Or a book on 20th
century film directors would want its bibliography with the directors
as its main entry, while other citations would logically go under
title.
I think the questions about how you would manage 6xx or 7xx with $t is
a bit of a red herring -- you've got a primary display entry
selected, so it's no different from having a main entry for those
functions.
kc
(where a particular application requires one to select one box to
characterize a resource) or other functionalities? If so, should
the designation be stored with the field, or separately from it?
Other MARC approaches that serve that function include choice of
format (which one goes in Leader byte 6, which one gets reflected
in an 006, when a resource has characteristics of two formats?).
For fields like subject, I believe there was a convention that the
most important subject (the one upon which the primary
classification number was based) had the first position in the
record. Since many modern systems permit or even force re-ordering
tags in numerical order, that positional value can and often is
easily lost. Many of us stopped lamenting this a long time ago, but
was it valuable?
What I don't think is valuable, is having to pick one author of a
work with multiple authors and designate that person as the main
one, based on the almost arbitrary factor of position of the name on
the title page, (which is often alphabetical), and ending up deeming
this person Creator and relegating the other author(s) to
Contributor status. (Nor do I think that dichotomy is
particularly useful.)
Laura
Laura Akerman
Technology and Metadata Librarian
Room 128, Robert W. Woodruff Library
Emory University, Atlanta, Ga. 30322
(404) 727-6888
lib...@emory.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, November 08, 2011 11:24 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic
Framework statement
Jim said:
Getting rid of a *single* main entry would be the equivalent of DC's
creator and contributor where creator is repeatable, thereby
creating multiple main entries.
How would you produce single entry bibliographies? How would
scholars cite in footnotes? How would cataloguers construct subject
and added entries for works?
Libraries are part of a larger bibliographic universe, and should
adhere to its standards and practices, which would include returning
to compiler main entry.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please contact
the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the
original message (including attachments).
--
Karen Coyle
Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement
Karen Coyle said:
As for creators as main entries, to me, indicating the role of
creators and agents of all types allows you to make sensible choices
on output rather than having the catalog make one decision for all
situations. It's just a matter of giving more weight to, say, an
author over an illustrator ...
Hang on there. All our art libraries want exhibition catalogues with
main entry under artist. Usually the illustrations are more of the
content than the text, so AACR2 would agree. But there is a grey area
of divergence between rule and preference.
Cataloguer judgement is still required.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement
Quoting J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca:
Karen Coyle said:
As for creators as main entries, to me, indicating the role of
creators and agents of all types allows you to make sensible choices
on output rather than having the catalog make one decision for all
situations. It's just a matter of giving more weight to, say, an
author over an illustrator ...
Hang on there. All our art libraries want exhibition catalogues with
main entry under artist. Usually the illustrations are more of the
content than the text, so AACR2 would agree. But there is a grey area
of divergence between rule and preference.
That role is designated as artist not illustrator. And in RDA
artist is the creator of the Work, illustrator is related to the
Expression. RDA definition of illustrator:
A person, family, or corporate body contributing to an expression of
a work by supplementing the primary content with drawings, diagrams,
photographs, etc.
If we define our roles carefully, one can make choices based on
context and user preference. If we define them poorly, we lose that
choice. Someone may do a catalog of illustrators, and want those to be
primary for that purpose.
Cataloguer judgement is still required.
The cataloger needs to determine if a named person is an artist or an
illustrator, but cannot determine which is of primary interest to any
given user. That's what proper identification is about -- it's not
about taking away the user's ability to make choices.
And, yes, there will always be grey areas, which is where cataloger
judgment comes in. But if we focus on the grey areas we will be
missing a lot of slam-dunks. (I suppose that's a mixed metaphor.)
kc
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
