Re: [RDA-L] Location of Conference and MARC Authority 370 (fwd)
RDA and MARC always seem to be slightly out of step with each other, I think this is part of the issue. MARC is ambiguous in that it has a specific subfield for related countries ($c), but the definition of $f allows associated places at any level. $f purports to be for Other or additional places, but $c is repeatable anyway. These broad definitions give us more than one possible way to apply them, but I think our actual usage needs to be more focussed. In the interests of collocation at the country level, we've preferred to use $c for all associated places that are countries, $f for other associated places that aren't, and $e for places where people, bodies and conferences are located. That makes sense to me, and should also for a machine. We all know that RDA wasn't written with MARC in mind, and sometimes the mappings are strained. Sometimes the text of RDA too needs a bit of interpretation. The only kinds of place described in detail in 11.3 are the locations of conferences and of headquarters; it's only because they are preceded in 11.3.1.1 by e.g. that we infer other kinds of related places and countries at all. Though I think we're right to infer them, and to record them. And if we do, an associated country is an associated country, whatever the entity, and ought always to go in the same subfield ($c). Likewise a specific location of any kind ought always to go in $e. Instructions on places are structured differently in Chapter 9 and Chapter 11, which is an unfortunate inheritance from FRAD, where associated places are given inconsistently for persons and for corporate bodies. FRAD 4.3, Attributes of a Corporate Body, lumps them all together as Place associated with the corporate body, which includes the things given as e.g. in RDA 11.3.1.1, whereas FRAD 4.1, Attributes of a Person, lists Place of birth, Place of death, Country and Place of residence, separately and exclusively. I can't see any particular reason why both sections could not have been structured in the same way. FRAD is also the reson why we don't, technically, have a place in RDA for Other place associated with the person (370 $f), and is why we made the proposal 6JSC/BL/6 at http://www.rda-jsc.org/workingnew.html (we are inclined to accept LC's suggested revsion of this proposal, in their response). Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: 10 September 2012 23:06 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Location of Conference and MARC Authority 370 (fwd) Adam Schiff wrote: It does concern me that sometimes an associated place will go in $e and other times in $f. Without clear definitions of these subfields, I don't see how a machine would know how to create an access point on the fly for display. But perhaps that isn't a real future goal of these data, since maybe some day we won't need access points at all. The problem now as I see it is that some things in 370 $e are additions to the preferred name to distinguish that name from others with the same name, while in other cases what is in 370 $e would be the location of the conference while the place needed to distinguish the name from another would be in $f. It's an inconsistent use of the same subfield. It seems there should really be a separate subfield in 370 for location of the conference (or maybe it could be more general, like location of an event?). When constructing headings, that element is handled very differently than other associated places. It goes into subfield $c of the heading field, whereas other associated places (if used in the heading) go into subfield $a of the heading. All that being said, according to the LC workshop slideshow, Governors Conference on Aging (Fla.) (3rd : 1992 : Tallahassee, Fla.) would have the following relevant tags: 111 2# $a Governors Conference on Aging (Fla.) $n (3rd : $d 1992 : $c Tallahassee, Fla.) 370 ## $e Tallahassee, Fla. $f Fla. A record for the series of conferences would have: 111 2# $a Governors Conference on Aging (Fla.) 370 ## $f Fla. By the way, while MARC defines 370 $c as Associated country - A country with which the person, corporate body, family, or work is identified, I don't see any justification *in RDA* for using 370 $c in a record for a corporate body or family. There is an element country associated with the person defined in 9.10.1.1, and it is only at the country level. But there is no associated country element defined for corporate bodies or families that I can see; there are associated PLACES that can be at any level of
Re: [RDA-L] Location of Conference and MARC Authority 370 (fwd)
10.09.2012 21:31, Adam L. Schiff: ... It does concern me that sometimes an associated place will go in $e and other times in $f. Without clear definitions of these subfields, I don't see how a machine would know how to create an access point on the fly for display. But perhaps that isn't a real future goal of these data, since maybe some day we won't need access points at all. With an authoritative, worldwide registry in place for conferences and all sorts of other publishable events, indeed, why shouldn't we have software figuring out for us whereabouts this or that meeting took place, on what dates this exhibition or Olympic games were on, what Shakespeare-related conferences were held in Australia after 1999, and a whole lot more, including organizers and sponsors. Link that up with the catalog and be done then. Meanwhile, since any event can have more than one location and date (think of exhibitions), we need a repeateable and comprehensive field for all information regarding place and date and responsibilities pertaining to the event. And everything needs to be software actionable for retrieval and collocation and navigation and linking. These are the real issues, or a few of them, and BibFrame can certainly be counted on to solve them. MARC21, I'm afraid, not. B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] Location of Conference and MARC Authority 370 (fwd)
Richard, There is no current place in MARC to separately record the element Number of a Conference. While I've been informed by John Attig that that was a deliberate decision not to propose a field for that bit of data, I hope that there will be a separate place for it when we move to the new data framework. Adam ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Moore, Richard wrote: RDA and MARC always seem to be slightly out of step with each other, I think this is part of the issue. MARC is ambiguous in that it has a specific subfield for related countries ($c), but the definition of $f allows associated places at any level. $f purports to be for Other or additional places, but $c is repeatable anyway. These broad definitions give us more than one possible way to apply them, but I think our actual usage needs to be more focussed. In the interests of collocation at the country level, we've preferred to use $c for all associated places that are countries, $f for other associated places that aren't, and $e for places where people, bodies and conferences are located. That makes sense to me, and should also for a machine. We all know that RDA wasn't written with MARC in mind, and sometimes the mappings are strained. Sometimes the text of RDA too needs a bit of interpretation. The only kinds of place described in detail in 11.3 are the locations of conferences and of headquarters; it's only because they are preceded in 11.3.1.1 by e.g. that we infer other kinds of related places and countries at all. Though I think we're right to infer them, and to record them. And if we do, an associated country is an associated country, whatever the entity, and ought always to go in the same subfield ($c). Likewise a specific location of any kind ought always to go in $e. Instructions on places are structured differently in Chapter 9 and Chapter 11, which is an unfortunate inheritance from FRAD, where associated places are given inconsistently for persons and for corporate bodies. FRAD 4.3, Attributes of a Corporate Body, lumps them all together as Place associated with the corporate body, which includes the things given as e.g. in RDA 11.3.1.1, whereas FRAD 4.1, Attributes of a Person, lists Place of birth, Place of death, Country and Place of residence, separately and exclusively. I can't see any particular reason why both sections could not have been structured in the same way. FRAD is also the reson why we don't, technically, have a place in RDA for Other place associated with the person (370 $f), and is why we made the proposal 6JSC/BL/6 at http://www.rda-jsc.org/workingnew.html (we are inclined to accept LC's suggested revsion of this proposal, in their response). Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: 10 September 2012 23:06 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Location of Conference and MARC Authority 370 (fwd) Adam Schiff wrote: It does concern me that sometimes an associated place will go in $e and other times in $f. Without clear definitions of these subfields, I don't see how a machine would know how to create an access point on the fly for display. But perhaps that isn't a real future goal of these data, since maybe some day we won't need access points at all. The problem now as I see it is that some things in 370 $e are additions to the preferred name to distinguish that name from others with the same name, while in other cases what is in 370 $e would be the location of the conference while the place needed to distinguish the name from another would be in $f. It's an inconsistent use of the same subfield. It seems there should really be a separate subfield in 370 for location of the conference (or maybe it could be more general, like location of an event?). When constructing headings, that element is handled very differently than other associated places. It goes into subfield $c of the heading field, whereas other associated places (if used in the heading) go into subfield $a of the heading. All that being said, according to the LC workshop slideshow, Governors Conference on Aging (Fla.) (3rd : 1992 : Tallahassee, Fla.) would have the following relevant tags: 111 2# $a Governors Conference on Aging (Fla.) $n (3rd : $d 1992 : $c Tallahassee, Fla.) 370 ## $e Tallahassee, Fla. $f Fla. A record for the series of conferences would have: 111 2# $a Governors Conference on Aging (Fla.) 370 ## $f Fla. By the way, while MARC
[RDA-L] NISO Publishes Themed Issue of Information Standards Quarterly on Linked Data for Libraries, Archives, and Museums - available in open access
NISO Publishes Themed Issue of Information Standards Quarterly on Linked Data for Libraries, Archives, and Museums Contributed articles illustrate both challenges and innovations in implementing linked data The National Information Standards Organization (NISO) announces the publication of a special themed issue of the Information Standards Quarterly (ISQ) magazine on Linked Data for Libraries, Archives, and Museums. ISQ Guest Content Editor, Corey Harper, Metadata Services Librarian, New York University has pulled together a broad range of perspectives on what is happening today with linked data in cultural institutions. He states in his introductory letter, As the Linked Data Web continues to expand, significant challenges remain around integrating such diverse data sources. As the variance of the data becomes increasingly clear, there is an emerging need for an infrastructure to manage the diverse vocabularies used throughout the Web-wide network of distributed metadata. Development and change in this area has been rapidly increasing; this is particularly exciting, as it gives a broad overview on the scope and breadth of developments happening in the world of Linked Open Data for Libraries, Archives, and Museums. The feature article by Gordon Dunsire, Corey Harper, Diane Hillmann, and Jon Phipps on Linked Data Vocabulary Management describes the shift in popular approaches to large-scale metadata management and interoperability to the increasing use of the Resource Description Framework to link bibliographic data into the larger web community. The authors also identify areas where best practices and standards are needed to ensure a common and effective linked data vocabulary infrastructure. Four in practice articles illustrate the growth in the implementation of linked data in the cultural sector. Jane Stevenson in Linking Lives describes the work to enable structured and linked data from the Archives Hub in the UK. In Joining the Linked Data Cloud in a Cost-Effective Manner, Seth van Hooland, Ruben Verborgh, and Rik Van de Walle show how general purpose Interactive Data Transformation tools, such as Google Refine, can be used to efficiently perform the necessary task of data cleaning and reconciliation that precedes the opening up of linked data. Ted Fons, Jeff Penka, and Richard Wallis discuss OCLC's Linked Data Initiative and the use of Schema.org in WorldCat to make library data relevant on the web. In Europeana: Moving to Linked Open Data , Antoine Isaac, Robina Clayphan, and Bernhard Haslhofer explain how the metadata for over 23 million objects are being converted to an RDF-based linked data model in the European Union's flagship digital cultural heritage initiative. Jon Voss provides a status on Linked Open Data for Libraries, Archives, and Museums (LODLAM) State of Affairs and the annual summit to advance this work. Thomas Elliott, Sebastian Heath, John Muccigrosso Report on the Linked Ancient World Data Institute, a workshop to further the availability of linked open data to create reusable digital resources with the classical studies disciplines. Kevin Ford wraps up the contributed articles with a standard spotlight article on LC's Bibliographic Framework Initiative and the Attractiveness of Linked Data. This Library of Congress-led community effort aims to transition from MARC 21 to a linked data model. The move to a linked data model in libraries and other cultural institutions represents one of the most profound changes that our community is confronting, stated Todd Carpenter, NISO Executive Director. While it completely alters the way we have always described and cataloged bibliographic information, it offers tremendous opportunities for making this data accessible and usable in the larger, global web community. This special issue of ISQ demonstrates the great strides that libraries, archives, and museums have already made in this arena and illustrates the future world that awaits us. Institutions that are just starting to dip their toes in the waters of linked data will find much in this issue of ISQ to inspire and challenge them, said Cynthia Hodgson, ISQ Managing Editor. Those further along the implementation path can learn how others have addressed the common issues encountered in making the transition to a linked data model. ISQ is available in open access in electronic format on the NISO website. Both the entire issue and individual articles may be freely downloaded. Print copies are available by subscription and as print on demand. For more information and to access the free electronic version, visit: www.niso.org/publications/isq. About Information Standards Quarterly Information Standards Quarterly (ISQ) is NISO's print and electronic magazine for communicating standards-based technology and best practices in library, publishing, and information technology, particularly where these three areas overlap. ISQ reports on the progress of active
Re: [RDA-L] Transcription of more than one publisher
I would transcribe it as: New York : Vintage Books. Vintage Books is an established corporate body name. Vintage Departures seems to be something else instead of the corporate body name. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Snow, Karen ks...@dom.edu wrote: I am trying to determine what to transcribe in 264$b for the following publication information (on the title page of the work): Vintage Departures Vintage Books A Division of Random House, Inc. New York (Note: Vintage Departures is printed using slightly larger font than the other names and New York) Rule 2.8.4.5 says to transcribe publisher names in the order indicated by the sequence, layout, or typography of the names on the source of information. It does not mention anything about subsidiaries. Would this transcription of the above information be correct? 264 _1 $a New York : $b Vintage Departures : $b Vintage Books : $b A Division of Random House, Inc. Thank you in advance for your help. Karen Snow, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Graduate School of Library Information Science Dominican University 7900 West Division Street River Forest, IL 60305 ks...@dom.edumailto:ks...@dom.edu 708-524-6077 (office) 708-524-6657 (fax) -- Joan Wang Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Transcription of more than one publisher
RDA Toolkit says this information goes in the 260 field, but this isn't the first time I've seen the 264 field used. Could someone please clarify? Thanks, Pamela Withrow Cataloger Perma-Bound Books Jacksonville, IL 62650 On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Snow, Karen ks...@dom.edu wrote: I am trying to determine what to transcribe in 264$b for the following publication information (on the title page of the work): Vintage Departures Vintage Books A Division of Random House, Inc. New York (Note: Vintage Departures is printed using slightly larger font than the other names and New York) Rule 2.8.4.5 says to transcribe publisher names in the order indicated by the sequence, layout, or typography of the names on the source of information. It does not mention anything about subsidiaries. Would this transcription of the above information be correct? 264 _1 $a New York : $b Vintage Departures : $b Vintage Books : $b A Division of Random House, Inc. Thank you in advance for your help. Karen Snow, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Graduate School of Library Information Science Dominican University 7900 West Division Street River Forest, IL 60305 ks...@dom.edumailto:ks...@dom.edu 708-524-6077 (office) 708-524-6657 (fax)
Re: [RDA-L] Transcription of more than one publisher
Vintage departures is considered a series: http://lccn.loc.gov/n86714686 -- John Hostage Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services Langdell Hall 194 Cambridge, MA 02138 host...@law.harvard.edu +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax) -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Snow, Karen Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 16:27 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Transcription of more than one publisher I am trying to determine what to transcribe in 264$b for the following publication information (on the title page of the work): Vintage Departures Vintage Books A Division of Random House, Inc. New York (Note: Vintage Departures is printed using slightly larger font than the other names and New York) Rule 2.8.4.5 says to transcribe publisher names in the order indicated by the sequence, layout, or typography of the names on the source of information. It does not mention anything about subsidiaries. Would this transcription of the above information be correct? 264 _1 $a New York : $b Vintage Departures : $b Vintage Books : $b A Division of Random House, Inc. Thank you in advance for your help.
[RDA-L] Documenting local decisions and policies
How are others handling the documentation of local decisions and policies for RDA? I seem to recall a very handy tool in an earlier incarnation of LC Cataloger's Desktop, that allowed for placement of sticky notes that could be shared across an institutional copy of Desktop. This was a really cool feature, but we never used it. As we're gearing up for RDA implementation and needing to create some all-new documentation, I was thinking that now would be the perfect time to put that feature to good use. But it seems that it went away when Desktop changed to a different platform some years ago. And it doesn't seem that RDA Toolkit itself has this kind of feature, either. Wouldn't it be wonderful to be able to have a little button like the blue RDA button and green LCPS button, that we could place wherever we want (usually next to alternatives and options) and that would link to documentation of local decisions and policies. But in its absence, what are other libraries doing? I suppose the handiest thing would be a Workflows document, since it would be accessible through the RDA Toolkit, even if it isn't actually integrated with the text. Much slower and clunkier than a LOCAL button showing up in RDA, but perhaps a little less clunky than a document that's entirely divorced from the Toolkit? Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Bibliographic Services Dept. Northwestern University Library 1970 Campus Drive Evanston, IL 60208-2300 email: k...@northwestern.edu phone: (847) 491-2939 fax: (847) 491-4345
Re: [RDA-L] Transcription of more than one publisher
Hello, Pamela! LC announced the implementation of the 264 MARC field in June. The last time I looked, OCLC still had nothing about it, but you can get the basic layout at: http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd264.html 264 requires a second indicator, usually #1 (publication) and/or #4 (copyright). We're now also supposed to add another 264 with just $c; examples are given at the above website. My OCLC template still only supplies 260. On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Pam Withrow withr...@perma-bound.comwrote: RDA Toolkit says this information goes in the 260 field, but this isn't the first time I've seen the 264 field used. Could someone please clarify? Thanks, Pamela Withrow Cataloger Perma-Bound Books Jacksonville, IL 62650 On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Snow, Karen ks...@dom.edu wrote: I am trying to determine what to transcribe in 264$b for the following publication information (on the title page of the work): Vintage Departures Vintage Books A Division of Random House, Inc. New York (Note: Vintage Departures is printed using slightly larger font than the other names and New York) Rule 2.8.4.5 says to transcribe publisher names in the order indicated by the sequence, layout, or typography of the names on the source of information. It does not mention anything about subsidiaries. Would this transcription of the above information be correct? 264 _1 $a New York : $b Vintage Departures : $b Vintage Books : $b A Division of Random House, Inc. Thank you in advance for your help. Karen Snow, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Graduate School of Library Information Science Dominican University 7900 West Division Street River Forest, IL 60305 ks...@dom.edumailto:ks...@dom.edu 708-524-6077 (office) 708-524-6657 (fax) -- Buzz Haughton 1861 Pebblewood Dr Sacramento CA 95833 USA (916) 468-9027 bongob...@gmail.com
Re: [RDA-L] Transcription of more than one publisher
I noticed today that under “Tools-Options” you can now select RDA templates. 260 now become 26X. Guy Frost, B.M.E., M.M.E., M.L.S., Ed.S Catalog Librarian/Facilitator of Technical Processing Associate Professor of Library Science Odum Library, Valdosta State University Valdosta, GA 31698-0150 Depository 0125 229-259-5060 ; FAX 229-333-5862 mailto:gfr...@valdosta.edu gfr...@valdosta.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Buzz Haughton Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 5:40 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Transcription of more than one publisher Hello, Pamela! LC announced the implementation of the 264 MARC field in June. The last time I looked, OCLC still had nothing about it, but you can get the basic layout at: http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd264.html 264 requires a second indicator, usually #1 (publication) and/or #4 (copyright). We're now also supposed to add another 264 with just $c; examples are given at the above website. My OCLC template still only supplies 260. On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Pam Withrow withr...@perma-bound.com wrote: RDA Toolkit says this information goes in the 260 field, but this isn't the first time I've seen the 264 field used. Could someone please clarify? Thanks, Pamela Withrow Cataloger Perma-Bound Books Jacksonville, IL 62650 On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Snow, Karen ks...@dom.edu wrote: I am trying to determine what to transcribe in 264$b for the following publication information (on the title page of the work): Vintage Departures Vintage Books A Division of Random House, Inc. New York (Note: Vintage Departures is printed using slightly larger font than the other names and New York) Rule 2.8.4.5 says to transcribe publisher names in the order indicated by the sequence, layout, or typography of the names on the source of information. It does not mention anything about subsidiaries. Would this transcription of the above information be correct? 264 _1 $a New York : $b Vintage Departures : $b Vintage Books : $b A Division of Random House, Inc. Thank you in advance for your help. Karen Snow, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Graduate School of Library Information Science Dominican University 7900 West Division Street River Forest, IL 60305 ks...@dom.edumailto:ks...@dom.edu 708-524-6077 (office) 708-524-6657 (fax) -- Buzz Haughton 1861 Pebblewood Dr Sacramento CA 95833 USA (916) 468-9027 bongob...@gmail.com
Re: [RDA-L] Transcription of more than one publisher
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Snow, Karen ks...@dom.edu wrote: I am trying to determine what to transcribe in 264$b for the following publication information (on the title page of the work): Vintage Departures Vintage Books A Division of Random House, Inc. New York Hi Karen It is my understanding that you can include the corporate hierarachy or optionally omit it. Transcribe places of publication and publishers' names in the form in which they appear on the source of information. Optionally, when transcribing a publisher name, omit levels in a corporate hierarchy that are not required to identify the publisher. Do not use a mark of omission to indicate such an omission (RDA 2.8.1.4). Robert -- Robert O. Ellett,, Ph.D. Lecturer School of Library and Information Science San Jose State University Life is like photography. We all develop from negatives.
Re: [RDA-L] Transcription of more than one publisher
My comments interspersed below. --Adam On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Buzz Haughton wrote: Hello, Pamela! LC announced the implementation of the 264 MARC field in June. The last time I looked, OCLC still had nothing about it, but you can get the basic layout at: http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd264.html AS: OCLC Technical Bulletin 261 (http://www.oclc.org/support/documentation/worldcat/tb/261/default.htm) discusses the implementation of field 264 and it says to follow the PCC guidelines available at http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/documents/264-Guidelines.doc. 264 requires a second indicator, usually #1 (publication) and/or #4 (copyright). We're now also supposed to add another 264 with just $c; examples are given at the above website. AS: If you are recording a copyright date in addition to a date of publication, that copyright statement goes alone in $c in its own 264 with second indicator value of 4. But remember that copyright date is only a core element when neither date of publication nor date of distribution is available. My OCLC template still only supplies 260. AS: If you are using an AACR2 template, you will get 260. If you switch to having Connexion supply an RDA template you get 26_. But all newly created RDA records should be using 264 and never 260. On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Pam Withrow withr...@perma-bound.com wrote: RDA Toolkit says this information goes in the 260 field, but this isn't the first time I've seen the 264 field used. Could someone please clarify? Thanks, Pamela Withrow Cataloger Perma-Bound Books Jacksonville, IL 62650 ** * 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 * **
Re: [RDA-L] Transcription of more than one publisher
Thank you so much, Robert! (and everyone else who responded to my email). I noticed that option at 2.8.1.4, but didn't connect the dots to what I was doing. Since Vintage Departures is a series statement (thanks John Hostage) and I have the option of omitting Random House, it makes sense to transcribe just Vintage Books. This will make teaching this so much easier :) Thanks again, Karen Karen Snow, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Graduate School of Library Information Science Dominican University 7900 West Division Street River Forest, IL 60305 ks...@dom.edumailto:ks...@dom.edu 708-524-6077 (office) 708-524-6657 (fax) From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Dr. Robert Ellett [elle...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 4:54 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Transcription of more than one publisher On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Snow, Karen ks...@dom.edumailto:ks...@dom.edu wrote: I am trying to determine what to transcribe in 264$b for the following publication information (on the title page of the work): Vintage Departures Vintage Books A Division of Random House, Inc. New York Hi Karen It is my understanding that you can include the corporate hierarachy or optionally omit it. Transcribe places of publication and publishers' names in the form in which they appear on the source of information. Optionally, when transcribing a publisher name, omit levels in a corporate hierarchy that are not required to identify the publisher. Do not use a mark of omission to indicate such an omission (RDA 2.8.1.4). Robert -- Robert O. Ellett,, Ph.D. Lecturer School of Library and Information Science San Jose State University Life is like photography. We all develop from negatives.
Re: [RDA-L] Transcription of more than one publisher
What Robert said is true, but there is an LCPS for 2.8.1.4 that says: LC practice for Optional omission: Generally do not omit levels in corporate hierarchy. So LC catalogers will generally transcribe the publisher statement as found in a resource. The PCC practice for this omission has not yet been distributed, if there is going to be a unified PCC practice at all. ^^ 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, 11 Sep 2012, Dr. Robert Ellett wrote: On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Snow, Karen ks...@dom.edu wrote: I am trying to determine what to transcribe in 264$b for the following publication information (on the title page of the work): Vintage Departures Vintage Books A Division of Random House, Inc. New York Hi Karen It is my understanding that you can include the corporate hierarachy or optionally omit it. Transcribe places of publication and publishers' names in the form in which they appear on the source of information. Optionally, when transcribing a publisher name, omit levels in a corporate hierarchy that are not required to identify the publisher. Do not use a mark of omission to indicate such an omission (RDA 2.8.1.4). Robert -- Robert O. Ellett,, Ph.D. Lecturer School of Library and Information Science San Jose State University Life is like photography. We all develop from negatives.
Re: [RDA-L] Transcription of more than one publisher
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Snow, Karen ks...@dom.edu wrote: Thank you so much, Robert! (and everyone else who responded to my email). I noticed that option at 2.8.1.4, but didn't connect the dots to what I was doing. Since Vintage Departures is a series statement (thanks John Hostage) and I have the option of omitting Random House, it makes sense to transcribe just Vintage Books. This will make teaching this so much easier :) Well students don't have to remember their country of cataloging for place of publication. With a good number of international students, this is a welcome change. Robert -- Robert O. Ellett,, Ph.D. Lecturer School of Library and Information Science San Jose State University Life is like photography. We all develop from negatives.
Re: [RDA-L] Transcription of more than one publisher
Pam Withrow asked:
RDA Toolkit says this information goes in the 260 field, but this isn't the
first time I've seen the 264 field used. Could someone please clarify?
According to PCC, all new RDA records should have 264, not 260; field
264 had not been extablished during the test period.
Since RDA is in such a state of flux, I am surprised people are
implementing before a majority of records derived from national
cataloguing agencies are in RDA.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Documenting local decisions and policies
How are others handling the documentation of local decisions and policies
for RDA?
The MRIs* plus client procedures.
http://special-cataloguing.com/mris
See also:
http://special-cataloguing.com/node/1397
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Documenting local decisions and policies
Mac Elrod wrote: How are others handling the documentation of local decisions and policies for RDA? The MRIs* plus client procedures. http://special-cataloguing.com/mris See also: http://special-cataloguing.com/node/1397 I guess what I'm really after are nifty ideas for doing the documentation and making it easy to manage, update, and be accessible/easy-to-use by the catalogers. Since it doesn't look like we can have local documentation actually integrated with the RDA text in the Toolkit, what's the next best thing? Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Bibliographic Services Dept. Northwestern University Library 1970 Campus Drive Evanston, IL 60208-2300 email: k...@northwestern.edu phone: (847) 491-2939 fax: (847) 491-4345
Re: [RDA-L] Documenting local decisions and policies
Might you use the workflows? Adolfo R. Tarango Head - UC Systemwide Collection Services atara...@ucsd.edumailto:atara...@ucsd.edu 858-822-3594 [cid:image001.png@01CD877F.99FB9310] -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 5:27 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Documenting local decisions and policies Mac Elrod wrote: How are others handling the documentation of local decisions and policies for RDA? The MRIs* plus client procedures. http://special-cataloguing.com/mris See also: http://special-cataloguing.com/node/1397 I guess what I'm really after are nifty ideas for doing the documentation and making it easy to manage, update, and be accessible/easy-to-use by the catalogers. Since it doesn't look like we can have local documentation actually integrated with the RDA text in the Toolkit, what's the next best thing? Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Bibliographic Services Dept. Northwestern University Library 1970 Campus Drive Evanston, IL 60208-2300 email: k...@northwestern.edumailto:k...@northwestern.edu phone: (847) 491-2939 fax: (847) 491-4345 inline: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) 1.jpg
