Re: [RDA-L] coloured illustrations
Thanks, again, Bob. I am totally on the same page with you (excuse the pun). -- Matthew Wise Music Cataloger and Cataloging Policy, Documentation, and Training Librarian Knowledge Access and Resource Management Services (KARMS) Division of Libraries, New York University 20 Cooper Square, Room 313, New York, NY 10003-7112 Phone: 212.998.2485matthew.w...@nyu.edu On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Robert Maxwell robert_maxw...@byu.eduwrote: Matthew, ** ** You are correct that “some color illustrations” and “illustrations (some color)” mean different things, as do “chiefly color illustrations” and “illustrations (chiefly color)”. In RDA “some color” is a separate element from “illustrations” so if we were just recording elements in a cataloging form such as this it would be unambiguous: ** ** Illustrative content: illustrations Color content: some color ** ** I suppose with the second example we could be more nuanced than we currently are able to be if we wanted: ** ** Either ** ** Illustrative content: illustrations Color content: chiefly color ** ** or ** ** Illustrative content: chiefly illustrations [I **think** this is still allowed, though now that I look at it I don’t see it in 7.15, but let’s assume that it is] Color content: chiefly color [i.e. mostly color but some b w] ** ** or ** ** Illustrative content: chiefly illustrations Color content: color [i.e. color, no b w] ** ** But since we’re trying to pour this into MARC we need to do our best to clarify it and so in these situations we’re following AACR2 practice putting the color content element in parentheses following the illustrative content element. True, this is inconsistent with recording “color illustrations” rather than “illustrations (color)”. It is my understanding that we’re just going to follow AACR2 practice for these elements, although I’m not aware of any official documentation to that effect (I suspect it’s in training materials, but not, for example, in PCC-LC PS that I know of). The trouble with this, of course, is that you have to understand AACR2 in order to apply RDA, which is fine for the current cataloging community but isn’t fine for new catalogers learning RDA without first learning AACR2.** ** ** ** Bob ** ** Robert L. Maxwell Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian Genre/Form Authorities Librarian 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 ** ** We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Matthew Wise *Sent:* Monday, October 15, 2012 12:18 PM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] coloured illustrations ** ** Hi, again, Bob. So then, is it also $b some color illustrations or $b illustrations (some color) and $b chiefly color illustrations or $b illustrations (chiefly color) ... ? In the first example, the statement on the left, as a user, I would read this grammatically to mean that there were only a few illustrations in the book (which happened to be in color), as opposed to illustrations, some of which are in color. And in the second example, the statement on the left, I would read this as most of the pages (mentioned in $a) are color illustrations, as opposed to most of the illustrations are in color. What is current practice? And is there recognition that, either way, this is ambiguous? Matthew On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Robert Maxwell robert_maxw...@byu.edu wrote: Matthew, You’re right, RDA doesn’t specify, because it considers these two separate elements and I imagine RDA would be fine with either of your formulations. The current practice is: $b color illustrations (or $b color illustration if there’s just one). By the way, not “colored illustrations”—that is taken to mean colored after publication, e.g., hand colored. I realize there are a couple of places in RDA examples that use “coloured” but I understood these were mistakes and would be corrected. Because there’s more than one possible way in RDA to do this, I think it would be a good idea for something like an LC-PCC PS at 7.17.1.3 showing the preferred method (if we as a community in fact do care that everyone do it consistently). The only thing at LC-PCC PS 7.17.1.3 is the fact that LC wants its catalogers to spell the word “color”, not the form of the element in combination with words such as “illustrations” or “maps”. Bob Robert L. Maxwell
[RDA-L] RDA existing preferred title authority records with multiple languages
I have this situation: There is a personal author NAR that I would like recode as RDA. There is also an AACR2 uniform title NAR for this author with $l Serbian Macedonian. How do I convert the uniform title NAR to an RDA preferred title NAR? Do I need to create a 2nd NAR for one of the languages? Do I need to do anything to the bibliographic record(s) involved? Thanks! Jacqueline Byrd Head, Area Studies Cataloging Section Technical Services Department Herman B Wells Library Indiana University 1320 E. 10th St. Bloomington, IN 47405 TEL: 812-855-4310 FAX: 812-855-7933 b...@indiana.edu
Re: [RDA-L] coloured illustrations
Hi, I found the following illustrative matter examples in AACR2 and OCLC Bibliographic Formats and Standards. - chiefly maps - ill. (chiefly col.) - ill. (some col.) - some ill. (some col.) - ill., ports. (some col.) Based on these examples, “*chiefly maps*” means that the content is mainly composed of maps; “*maps (chiefly col.)*” means that most of maps in the content are colorful. Can we use “*chiefly col. maps*” to describe the content mainly composed of color maps? In RDA, they are separated into two sections: illustrative content (7.15) and colour content (7.17). Examples shown in 7.15 include specific illustrations like charts or coats of arms. Section 7.17.1.3 (LC PCC PS) includes examples like colour, some color, and chiefly colour. I assume if we want to combine 7.15 and 7.17, we still follow AACR2 practice to describe the above two situations. Is my understanding correct? I know that I am a kind of repeating Robert’s words. But would be very happy if somebody would like to confirm it. Thanks for the help in advance. Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Matthew Wise matthew.w...@nyu.edu wrote: Thanks, again, Bob. I am totally on the same page with you (excuse the pun). -- Matthew Wise Music Cataloger and Cataloging Policy, Documentation, and Training Librarian Knowledge Access and Resource Management Services (KARMS) Division of Libraries, New York University 20 Cooper Square, Room 313, New York, NY 10003-7112 Phone: 212.998.2485matthew.w...@nyu.edu On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Robert Maxwell robert_maxw...@byu.eduwrote: Matthew, ** ** You are correct that “some color illustrations” and “illustrations (some color)” mean different things, as do “chiefly color illustrations” and “illustrations (chiefly color)”. In RDA “some color” is a separate element from “illustrations” so if we were just recording elements in a cataloging form such as this it would be unambiguous: ** ** Illustrative content: illustrations Color content: some color ** ** I suppose with the second example we could be more nuanced than we currently are able to be if we wanted: ** ** Either ** ** Illustrative content: illustrations Color content: chiefly color ** ** or ** ** Illustrative content: chiefly illustrations [I **think** this is still allowed, though now that I look at it I don’t see it in 7.15, but let’s assume that it is] Color content: chiefly color [i.e. mostly color but some b w] ** ** or ** ** Illustrative content: chiefly illustrations Color content: color [i.e. color, no b w] ** ** But since we’re trying to pour this into MARC we need to do our best to clarify it and so in these situations we’re following AACR2 practice putting the color content element in parentheses following the illustrative content element. True, this is inconsistent with recording “color illustrations” rather than “illustrations (color)”. It is my understanding that we’re just going to follow AACR2 practice for these elements, although I’m not aware of any official documentation to that effect (I suspect it’s in training materials, but not, for example, in PCC-LC PS that I know of). The trouble with this, of course, is that you have to understand AACR2 in order to apply RDA, which is fine for the current cataloging community but isn’t fine for new catalogers learning RDA without first learning AACR2.* *** ** ** Bob ** ** Robert L. Maxwell Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian Genre/Form Authorities Librarian 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 ** ** We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Matthew Wise *Sent:* Monday, October 15, 2012 12:18 PM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] coloured illustrations ** ** Hi, again, Bob. So then, is it also $b some color illustrations or $b illustrations (some color) and $b chiefly color illustrations or $b illustrations (chiefly color) ... ? In the first example, the statement on the left, as a user, I would read this grammatically to mean that there were only a few illustrations in the book (which happened to be in color), as opposed to illustrations, some of which are in color. And in the second example, the statement on the left, I would read this as most of the pages (mentioned in $a) are color illustrations, as opposed to most of the illustrations are in color. What is current practice? And is there recognition that,
[RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors
If we are cataloging a work, with a preface by someone other than the main author, RDA 20.2.1 says this is a relationship between a person and an expression. The examples in RDA 20 list this as Writer of Added Commentary, Etc. In Appendix I.3, Relationship Designators for Persons, Families, and Corporate Bodies Associated with an Expression I see the following relationship designators: writer of added commentary A person, family, or corporate body contributing to an expression of a work by providing an interpretation or critical explanation of the original work. writer of added text A person, family, or corporate body contributing to an expression of a primarily non-textual work by providing text for the non-textual work (e.g., writing captions for photographs, descriptions of maps). If I wanted to give an access point for this person, and use a relationship designator, would I have to use writer of added commentary (which is the closest fit, I think, though not quite the same) or could I use writer of preface, which is not on the list? Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137
Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors
Hi, These are general guidelines for using relationship designators. General Guidelines on Using Relationship Designators - Use relationship designators to indicate the specific nature of relationships between a resource and persons, families, and corporate bodies associated with that resource. - Use relationship designators at the level of specificity that is considered appropriate for the purposes of the agency creating the data. For example, the relationship between a screenplay and the screenwriter responsible for the work may be recorded using either the specific relationship designator screenwriter or the more general relationship designator author. - If none of the terms listed in this appendix is appropriate or sufficiently specific, use a term indicating the nature of the relationship as concisely as possible. - If the element used to record the relationship (e.g., creator) is considered sufficient for the purposes of the agency creating the data, do not use a relationship designator to indicate the specific nature of the relationship. Based on the guidelines, you can use writer of preface since it is more specific and concise enough (I think). Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.eduwrote: If we are cataloging a work, with a preface by someone other than the main author, RDA 20.2.1 says this is a relationship between a person and an expression. ** ** The examples in RDA 20 list this as Writer of Added Commentary, Etc. In Appendix I.3, Relationship Designators for Persons, Families, and Corporate Bodies Associated with an Expression I see the following relationship designators: ** ** ** ** *writer of added commentary* A person, family, or corporate body contributing to an expression of a work by providing an interpretation or critical explanation of the original work. ** ** *writer of added text* A person, family, or corporate body contributing to an expression of a primarily non-textual work by providing text for the non-textual work (e.g., writing captions for photographs, descriptions of maps). ** ** If I wanted to give an access point for this person, and use a relationship designator, would I have to use writer of added commentary (which is the closest fit, I think, though not quite the same) or could I use writer of preface, which is not on the list? ** ** Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 ** ** -- 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] coloured illustrations
Joan, Yes this is basically what I understand to be correct. However, there does NOT seem to be a way in RDA to say chiefly illustrations, so I think that would have to be conveyed in a note. I covered this in my presentation on the changes from RDA: Slide 76 at http://faculty.washington.edu/aschiff/UW2012Presentation-Part1-Notes.pdf AACR2 300 $a ca. 200 p. : $b chiefly ill. (some col.) ; $c 32 cm RDA 300 $a approximately 200 pages : $b illustrations (some color) ; $c 32 cm 500 $a Chiefly illustrations. --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, 16 Oct 2012, Joan Wang wrote: Hi, I found the following illustrative matter examples in AACR2 and OCLC Bibliographic Formats and Standards. * chiefly maps * ill. (chiefly col.) * ill. (some col.) * some ill. (some col.) * ill., ports. (some col.) Based on these examples, ?chiefly maps? means that the content is mainly composed of maps; ?maps (chiefly col.)? means that most of maps in the content are colorful. Can we use ?chiefly col. maps? to describe the content mainly composed of color maps? In RDA, they are separated into two sections: illustrative content (7.15) and colour content (7.17). Examples shown in 7.15 include specific illustrations like charts or coats of arms. Section 7.17.1.3 (LC PCC PS) includes examples like colour, some color, and chiefly colour. I assume if we want to combine 7.15 and 7.17, we still follow AACR2 practice to describe the above two situations. Is my understanding correct? I know that I am a kind of repeating Robert?s words. But would be very happy if somebody would like to confirm it. Thanks for the help in advance. Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Matthew Wise matthew.w...@nyu.edu wrote: Thanks, again, Bob. I am totally on the same page with you (excuse the pun). -- Matthew Wise Music Cataloger and Cataloging Policy, Documentation, and Training Librarian Knowledge Access and Resource Management Services (KARMS) Division of Libraries, New York University 20 Cooper Square, Room 313, New York, NY 10003-7112 Phone: 212.998.2485 matthew.w...@nyu.edu On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Robert Maxwell robert_maxw...@byu.edu wrote: Matthew, You are correct that ?some color illustrations? and ?illustrations (some color)? mean different things, as do ?chiefly color illustrations? and ?illustrations (chiefly color)?. In RDA ?some color? is a separate element from ?illustrations? so if we were just recording elements in a cataloging form such as this it would be unambiguous: Illustrative content: illustrations Color content: some color I suppose with the second example we could be more nuanced than we currently are able to be if we wanted: Either Illustrative content: illustrations Color content: chiefly color or Illustrative content: chiefly illustrations [I *think* this is still allowed, though now that I look at it I don?t see it in 7.15, but let?s assume that it is] Color content: chiefly color [i.e. mostly color but some b w] or Illustrative content: chiefly illustrations Color content: color [i.e. color, no b w] But since we?re trying to pour this into MARC we need to do our best to clarify it and so in these situations we?re following AACR2 practice putting the color content element in parentheses following the illustrative content element. True, this is inconsistent with recording ?color illustrations? rather than ?illustrations (color)?. It is my understanding that we?re just going to follow AACR2 practice for these elements, although I?m not aware of any official documentation to that effect (I suspect it?s in training materials, but not, for example, in PCC-LC PS that I know of). The trouble with this, of course, is that you have to understand AACR2 in order to apply RDA, which is fine for the current cataloging community but isn?t fine for new catalogers learning RDA without first learning AACR2. Bob Robert L. Maxwell Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian Genre/Form Authorities Librarian 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued--Eliza R. Snow,
Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors
The LC-PCC Policy Statement for K.1 says Use only terms from Appendix K if supplying relationship designators in the shared LC/NACO Authority File. Do not supply terms beyond those found in this Appendix. But there is no similar restriction in the LC-PCC PS for J.1 or I.1, so it would appear that there is no reason you couldn't say writer of preface if you felt you need to be more specific. One could also suggest new terms to be added to these appendices if the relationship is common enough that having a specific term in RDA itself would be of benefit (and it would provide more consistency as well). 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, 16 Oct 2012, Joan Wang wrote: Hi, These are general guidelines for using relationship designators. General Guidelines on Using Relationship Designators * Use relationship designators to indicate the specific nature of relationships between a resource and persons, families, and corporate bodies associated with that resource. * Use relationship designators at the level of specificity that is considered appropriate for the purposes of the agency creating the data. For example, the relationship between a screenplay and the screenwriter responsible for the work may be recorded using either the specific relationship designator screenwriter or the more general relationship designator author. * If none of the terms listed in this appendix is appropriate or sufficiently specific, use a term indicating the nature of the relationship as concisely as possible. * If the element used to record the relationship (e.g., creator) is considered sufficient for the purposes of the agency creating the data, do not use a relationship designator to indicate the specific nature of the relationship. Based on the guidelines, you can use writer of preface since it is more specific and concise enough (I think). Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.edu wrote: If we are cataloging a work, with a preface by someone other than the main author, RDA 20.2.1 says this is a relationship between a person and an expression. The examples in RDA 20 list this as Writer of Added Commentary, Etc. In Appendix I.3, Relationship Designators for Persons, Families, and Corporate Bodies Associated with an Expression I see the following relationship designators: writer of added commentary A person, family, or corporate body contributing to an expression of a work by providing an interpretation or critical explanation of the original work. writer of added text A person, family, or corporate body contributing to an expression of a primarily non-textual work by providing text for the non-textual work (e.g., writing captions for photographs, descriptions of maps). If I wanted to give an access point for this person, and use a relationship designator, would I have to use writer of added commentary (which is the closest fit, I think, though not quite the same) or could I use writer of preface, which is not on the list? Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -- 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] Question about relationship terms for contributors
Thanks for the replies and suggestions. --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 1:57 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors The LC-PCC Policy Statement for K.1 says Use only terms from Appendix K if supplying relationship designators in the shared LC/NACO Authority File. Do not supply terms beyond those found in this Appendix. But there is no similar restriction in the LC-PCC PS for J.1 or I.1, so it would appear that there is no reason you couldn't say writer of preface if you felt you need to be more specific. One could also suggest new terms to be added to these appendices if the relationship is common enough that having a specific term in RDA itself would be of benefit (and it would provide more consistency as well). 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, 16 Oct 2012, Joan Wang wrote: Hi, These are general guidelines for using relationship designators. General Guidelines on Using Relationship Designators * Use relationship designators to indicate the specific nature of relationships between a resource and persons, families, and corporate bodies associated with that resource. * Use relationship designators at the level of specificity that is considered appropriate for the purposes of the agency creating the data. For example, the relationship between a screenplay and the screenwriter responsible for the work may be recorded using either the specific relationship designator screenwriter or the more general relationship designator author. * If none of the terms listed in this appendix is appropriate or sufficiently specific, use a term indicating the nature of the relationship as concisely as possible. * If the element used to record the relationship (e.g., creator) is considered sufficient for the purposes of the agency creating the data, do not use a relationship designator to indicate the specific nature of the relationship. Based on the guidelines, you can use writer of preface since it is more specific and concise enough (I think). Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.edu wrote: If we are cataloging a work, with a preface by someone other than the main author, RDA 20.2.1 says this is a relationship between a person and an expression. The examples in RDA 20 list this as Writer of Added Commentary, Etc. In Appendix I.3, Relationship Designators for Persons, Families, and Corporate Bodies Associated with an Expression I see the following relationship designators: writer of added commentary A person, family, or corporate body contributing to an expression of a work by providing an interpretation or critical explanation of the original work. writer of added text A person, family, or corporate body contributing to an expression of a primarily non-textual work by providing text for the non-textual work (e.g., writing captions for photographs, descriptions of maps). If I wanted to give an access point for this person, and use a relationship designator, would I have to use writer of added commentary (which is the closest fit, I think, though not quite the same) or could I use writer of preface, which is not on the list? Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -- 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] coloured illustrations
Adam, thanks a lot. Joan On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.eduwrote: Joan, Yes this is basically what I understand to be correct. However, there does NOT seem to be a way in RDA to say chiefly illustrations, so I think that would have to be conveyed in a note. I covered this in my presentation on the changes from RDA: Slide 76 at http://faculty.washington.edu/**aschiff/UW2012Presentation-** Part1-Notes.pdfhttp://faculty.washington.edu/aschiff/UW2012Presentation-Part1-Notes.pdf AACR2 300 $a ca. 200 p. : $b chiefly ill. (some col.) ; $c 32 cm RDA 300 $a approximately 200 pages : $b illustrations (some color) ; $c 32 cm 500 $a Chiefly illustrations. --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/**~aschiffhttp://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~** On Tue, 16 Oct 2012, Joan Wang wrote: Hi, I found the following illustrative matter examples in AACR2 and OCLC Bibliographic Formats and Standards. * chiefly maps * ill. (chiefly col.) * ill. (some col.) * some ill. (some col.) * ill., ports. (some col.) Based on these examples, ?chiefly maps? means that the content is mainly composed of maps; ?maps (chiefly col.)? means that most of maps in the content are colorful. Can we use ?chiefly col. maps? to describe the content mainly composed of color maps? In RDA, they are separated into two sections: illustrative content (7.15) and colour content (7.17). Examples shown in 7.15 include specific illustrations like charts or coats of arms. Section 7.17.1.3 (LC PCC PS) includes examples like colour, some color, and chiefly colour. I assume if we want to combine 7.15 and 7.17, we still follow AACR2 practice to describe the above two situations. Is my understanding correct? I know that I am a kind of repeating Robert?s words. But would be very happy if somebody would like to confirm it. Thanks for the help in advance. Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Matthew Wise matthew.w...@nyu.edu wrote: Thanks, again, Bob. I am totally on the same page with you (excuse the pun). -- Matthew Wise Music Cataloger and Cataloging Policy, Documentation, and Training Librarian Knowledge Access and Resource Management Services (KARMS) Division of Libraries, New York University 20 Cooper Square, Room 313, New York, NY 10003-7112 Phone: 212.998.2485matthew.w...@nyu.edu On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Robert Maxwell robert_maxw...@byu.edu wrote: Matthew, You are correct that ?some color illustrations? and ?illustrations (some color)? mean different things, as do ?chiefly color illustrations? and ?illustrations (chiefly color)?. In RDA ?some color? is a separate element from ?illustrations? so if we were just recording elements in a cataloging form such as this it would be unambiguous: Illustrative content: illustrations Color content: some color I suppose with the second example we could be more nuanced than we currently are able to be if we wanted: Either Illustrative content: illustrations Color content: chiefly color or Illustrative content: chiefly illustrations [I *think* this is still allowed, though now that I look at it I don?t see it in 7.15, but let?s assume that it is] Color content: chiefly color [i.e. mostly color but some b w] or Illustrative content: chiefly illustrations Color content: color [i.e. color, no b w] But since we?re trying to pour this into MARC we need to do our best to clarify it and so in these situations we?re following AACR2 practice putting the color content element in parentheses following the illustrative content element. True, this is inconsistent with recording ?color illustrations? rather than ?illustrations (color)?. It is my understanding that we?re just going to follow AACR2 practice for these elements, although I?m not aware of any official documentation to that effect (I suspect it?s in training materials, but not, for example, in PCC-LC PS that I know of). The trouble with this, of course, is that you have to understand AACR2 in order to apply RDA, which is fine for the current cataloging community but isn?t fine for new catalogers learning RDA without first learning AACR2. Bob Robert L. Maxwell Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian Genre/Form Authorities Librarian 6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors
The terms in the MARC relator list may also be used if the terms in RDA Appendix J are not appropriate or sufficiently specific: http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html Bob Robert L. Maxwell Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian Genre/Form Authorities Librarian 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 11:57 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors The LC-PCC Policy Statement for K.1 says Use only terms from Appendix K if supplying relationship designators in the shared LC/NACO Authority File. Do not supply terms beyond those found in this Appendix. But there is no similar restriction in the LC-PCC PS for J.1 or I.1, so it would appear that there is no reason you couldn't say writer of preface if you felt you need to be more specific. One could also suggest new terms to be added to these appendices if the relationship is common enough that having a specific term in RDA itself would be of benefit (and it would provide more consistency as well). 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, 16 Oct 2012, Joan Wang wrote: Hi, These are general guidelines for using relationship designators. General Guidelines on Using Relationship Designators * Use relationship designators to indicate the specific nature of relationships between a resource and persons, families, and corporate bodies associated with that resource. * Use relationship designators at the level of specificity that is considered appropriate for the purposes of the agency creating the data. For example, the relationship between a screenplay and the screenwriter responsible for the work may be recorded using either the specific relationship designator screenwriter or the more general relationship designator author. * If none of the terms listed in this appendix is appropriate or sufficiently specific, use a term indicating the nature of the relationship as concisely as possible. * If the element used to record the relationship (e.g., creator) is considered sufficient for the purposes of the agency creating the data, do not use a relationship designator to indicate the specific nature of the relationship. Based on the guidelines, you can use writer of preface since it is more specific and concise enough (I think). Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.edu wrote: If we are cataloging a work, with a preface by someone other than the main author, RDA 20.2.1 says this is a relationship between a person and an expression. The examples in RDA 20 list this as Writer of Added Commentary, Etc. In Appendix I.3, Relationship Designators for Persons, Families, and Corporate Bodies Associated with an Expression I see the following relationship designators: writer of added commentary A person, family, or corporate body contributing to an expression of a work by providing an interpretation or critical explanation of the original work. writer of added text A person, family, or corporate body contributing to an expression of a primarily non-textual work by providing text for the non-textual work (e.g., writing captions for photographs, descriptions of maps). If I wanted to give an access point for this person, and use a relationship designator, would I have to use writer of added commentary (which is the closest fit, I think, though not quite the same) or could I use writer of preface, which is not on the list? Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -- 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] coloured illustrations
Some observations... There are some twists and turns in how RDA handles illustrative content and colour content differently from MARC through its newly created elements Illustrative Content and Colour Content. For the RDA element Colour Content the values could be the ones once found in 300$b, such as chiefly color [RDA 7.17.1.3] or they could be values normally found in 500 notes, such as 2 maps in colour or Title and headings printed in red [RDA 7.17.1.4]. Both types of values are accepted for the element Colour Content. In RDA, this one element, Colour Content covers this entire range of values, which in MARC have been separated in 300$b and 500$a fields. The RDA Toolkit's RDA-to-MARC map reflects this split of the one element, Colour Content, being mapped to 300$b or 500$a. There is another issue when colour content can vary for each type of illustrative content, as in: color illustrations, maps (chiefly color), portraits (some color) RDA seems to force a simplification on the one hand, where the color value can no longer be easily associated directly with each Illustrative Content value. That is, unless one injects that complexity into a note for Colour Content ... if it's considered important for identification or selection, as RDA 7.17.1.4 puts it. Hypothetical examples derived from RDA that demonstrate the issues: Illustrative Content: 4 maps Colour Content: 2 maps in color Illustrative Content: illustrations Illustrative Content: maps Illustrative Content: portraits Colour Content: chiefly color [In this example, one is forced to look at colour in the whole resource, and not colour as specific to each type of illustrative content.] Illustrative Content: map of Australia on endpapers Colour Content: color As a standalone element, Colour Content might appear ambiguous at times, as it may leave open the question as to what part of the content is in colour. RDA only refers to colour content as the presence of colour ... in the content of a resource. In addition, I wonder if the phrase chiefly illustrations couldn't be covered as a note-like value in RDA 7.15.1.4 (Details of Illustrative Content). While illustration and illustrations are registered values at http://rdvocab.info/, a phrase like chiefly illustrations could be covered by 7.1.15.4 as a free-text value pointing to details about the illustrative content. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: October 16, 2012 1:49 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] coloured illustrations Joan, Yes this is basically what I understand to be correct. However, there does NOT seem to be a way in RDA to say chiefly illustrations, so I think that would have to be conveyed in a note. I covered this in my presentation on the changes from RDA: Slide 76 at http://faculty.washington.edu/aschiff/UW2012Presentation-Part1-Notes.pdf AACR2 300 $a ca. 200 p. : $b chiefly ill. (some col.) ; $c 32 cm RDA 300 $a approximately 200 pages : $b illustrations (some color) ; $c 32 cm 500 $a Chiefly illustrations. --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, 16 Oct 2012, Joan Wang wrote: Hi, I found the following illustrative matter examples in AACR2 and OCLC Bibliographic Formats and Standards. * chiefly maps * ill. (chiefly col.) * ill. (some col.) * some ill. (some col.) * ill., ports. (some col.) Based on these examples, ?chiefly maps? means that the content is mainly composed of maps; ?maps (chiefly col.)? means that most of maps in the content are colorful. Can we use ?chiefly col. maps? to describe the content mainly composed of color maps? In RDA, they are separated into two sections: illustrative content (7.15) and colour content (7.17). Examples shown in 7.15 include specific illustrations like charts or coats of arms. Section 7.17.1.3 (LC PCC PS) includes examples like colour, some color, and chiefly colour. I assume if we want to combine 7.15 and 7.17, we still follow AACR2 practice to describe the above two situations. Is my understanding correct? I know that I am a kind of repeating Robert?s words. But would be very happy if somebody would like to confirm it. Thanks for the help in advance. Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Matthew Wise matthew.w...@nyu.edu wrote: Thanks, again, Bob. I am totally on the same page with you (excuse the pun). -- Matthew Wise
Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors
The principal drawback I see to using ad-hoc terms is that they necessarily fall outside any structure relating terms in a hierarchical manner. writer of preface will be identified as a specific kind of contributor because of its presence in a 7XX field, but intermediate relationships, such those relating sculptor to artist and landscape architect to architect will not exist. There is also the likelihood of variability in the ad hoc terms used for similar phenomena. Books not only have prefaces but forewords, introductions, etc., so there will also be reason to create writer of foreword, writer of introduction, etc., to specify these similar (but not identical) relationships. This isn't to argue against creating these terms when needed--this is why it is an open vocabulary--but to bear in mind that moving outside the defined vocabulary terms has potential consequences in terms of linking data, collapsing retrieval sets at a more general level, etc. Ed Jones National University (San Diego, Calif.) -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 11:00 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors Thanks for the replies and suggestions. --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 1:57 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors The LC-PCC Policy Statement for K.1 says Use only terms from Appendix K if supplying relationship designators in the shared LC/NACO Authority File. Do not supply terms beyond those found in this Appendix. But there is no similar restriction in the LC-PCC PS for J.1 or I.1, so it would appear that there is no reason you couldn't say writer of preface if you felt you need to be more specific. One could also suggest new terms to be added to these appendices if the relationship is common enough that having a specific term in RDA itself would be of benefit (and it would provide more consistency as well). 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, 16 Oct 2012, Joan Wang wrote: Hi, These are general guidelines for using relationship designators. General Guidelines on Using Relationship Designators * Use relationship designators to indicate the specific nature of relationships between a resource and persons, families, and corporate bodies associated with that resource. * Use relationship designators at the level of specificity that is considered appropriate for the purposes of the agency creating the data. For example, the relationship between a screenplay and the screenwriter responsible for the work may be recorded using either the specific relationship designator screenwriter or the more general relationship designator author. * If none of the terms listed in this appendix is appropriate or sufficiently specific, use a term indicating the nature of the relationship as concisely as possible. * If the element used to record the relationship (e.g., creator) is considered sufficient for the purposes of the agency creating the data, do not use a relationship designator to indicate the specific nature of the relationship. Based on the guidelines, you can use writer of preface since it is more specific and concise enough (I think). Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.edu wrote: If we are cataloging a work, with a preface by someone other than the main author, RDA 20.2.1 says this is a relationship between a person and an expression. The examples in RDA 20 list this as Writer of Added Commentary, Etc. In Appendix I.3, Relationship Designators for Persons, Families, and Corporate Bodies Associated with an Expression I see the following relationship designators: writer of added commentary A person, family, or corporate body contributing to an expression of a work by providing an interpretation or critical explanation of the original work. writer of added text A person, family, or corporate body contributing to an expression of a primarily non-textual work by providing text for the non-textual
Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors
Ed, For me the question is--is it better to use an existing term that doesn't quite fit (like writer of added commentary) or to supply an ad hoc term? Frankly I am somewhat surprised that in Appendix I, under Relationship designators for contributors, there's no simple term, Contributor. That would be perfectly adequate in this situation. (Though as Bob Maxwell points out I could borrow that from the MARC relators list.) Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Ed Jones Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 2:57 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors The principal drawback I see to using ad-hoc terms is that they necessarily fall outside any structure relating terms in a hierarchical manner. writer of preface will be identified as a specific kind of contributor because of its presence in a 7XX field, but intermediate relationships, such those relating sculptor to artist and landscape architect to architect will not exist. There is also the likelihood of variability in the ad hoc terms used for similar phenomena. Books not only have prefaces but forewords, introductions, etc., so there will also be reason to create writer of foreword, writer of introduction, etc., to specify these similar (but not identical) relationships. This isn't to argue against creating these terms when needed--this is why it is an open vocabulary--but to bear in mind that moving outside the defined vocabulary terms has potential consequences in terms of linking data, collapsing retrieval sets at a more general level, etc. Ed Jones National University (San Diego, Calif.) -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 11:00 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors Thanks for the replies and suggestions. --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 1:57 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors The LC-PCC Policy Statement for K.1 says Use only terms from Appendix K if supplying relationship designators in the shared LC/NACO Authority File. Do not supply terms beyond those found in this Appendix. But there is no similar restriction in the LC-PCC PS for J.1 or I.1, so it would appear that there is no reason you couldn't say writer of preface if you felt you need to be more specific. One could also suggest new terms to be added to these appendices if the relationship is common enough that having a specific term in RDA itself would be of benefit (and it would provide more consistency as well). 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, 16 Oct 2012, Joan Wang wrote: Hi, These are general guidelines for using relationship designators. General Guidelines on Using Relationship Designators * Use relationship designators to indicate the specific nature of relationships between a resource and persons, families, and corporate bodies associated with that resource. * Use relationship designators at the level of specificity that is considered appropriate for the purposes of the agency creating the data. For example, the relationship between a screenplay and the screenwriter responsible for the work may be recorded using either the specific relationship designator screenwriter or the more general relationship designator author. * If none of the terms listed in this appendix is appropriate or sufficiently specific, use a term indicating the nature of the relationship as concisely as possible. * If the element used to record the relationship (e.g., creator) is considered sufficient for the purposes of the agency creating the data, do not use a relationship designator to indicate the specific nature of the relationship. Based on the guidelines, you can use writer of preface since it is more specific and concise enough (I think). Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors
Benjamin, The RDA element 20.2 is named Contributor, which is why there is no designator. It wouldn't be needed in RDA because the element itself is contributor. You wouldn't need to encode this in a designator, because it would be redundant: Contributor: Maxwell, Robert, contributor. The problem of course is encoding RDA in MARC 21, because 7XX is not solely limited to contributors. ^^ 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, 16 Oct 2012, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote: Ed, For me the question is--is it better to use an existing term that doesn't quite fit (like writer of added commentary) or to supply an ad hoc term? Frankly I am somewhat surprised that in Appendix I, under Relationship designators for contributors, there's no simple term, Contributor. That would be perfectly adequate in this situation. (Though as Bob Maxwell points out I could borrow that from the MARC relators list.) Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Ed Jones Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 2:57 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors The principal drawback I see to using ad-hoc terms is that they necessarily fall outside any structure relating terms in a hierarchical manner. writer of preface will be identified as a specific kind of contributor because of its presence in a 7XX field, but intermediate relationships, such those relating sculptor to artist and landscape architect to architect will not exist. There is also the likelihood of variability in the ad hoc terms used for similar phenomena. Books not only have prefaces but forewords, introductions, etc., so there will also be reason to create writer of foreword, writer of introduction, etc., to specify these similar (but not identical) relationships. This isn't to argue against creating these terms when needed--this is why it is an open vocabulary--but to bear in mind that moving outside the defined vocabulary terms has potential consequences in terms of linking data, collapsing retrieval sets at a more general level, etc. Ed Jones National University (San Diego, Calif.) -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 11:00 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors Thanks for the replies and suggestions. --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 1:57 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors The LC-PCC Policy Statement for K.1 says Use only terms from Appendix K if supplying relationship designators in the shared LC/NACO Authority File. Do not supply terms beyond those found in this Appendix. But there is no similar restriction in the LC-PCC PS for J.1 or I.1, so it would appear that there is no reason you couldn't say writer of preface if you felt you need to be more specific. One could also suggest new terms to be added to these appendices if the relationship is common enough that having a specific term in RDA itself would be of benefit (and it would provide more consistency as well). 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, 16 Oct 2012, Joan Wang wrote: Hi, These are general guidelines for using relationship designators. General Guidelines on Using Relationship Designators * Use relationship designators to indicate the specific nature of relationships between a resource and persons, families, and corporate bodies associated with that resource. * Use relationship designators at the level of specificity that is considered appropriate for the purposes of the agency creating the data. For example, the relationship between a screenplay and the screenwriter responsible for the work may be recorded using either the specific relationship designator screenwriter or the
Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors
I don't think I agree with this as an argument for not including high level general terms in the relationship terms available for use. We do need creator and contributor. I don't think it's a matter of it being redundant in MARC. In E/R or presumably in linked data you'd just have a person entity description in the database linked to a n entity description such as work or expression. You need to be able to specify the relationship, but you should be able to specify it using a general relationship such as creator or contributor if you don't want to (or can't) specify the exact nature of the creator or contributor relationship. Note 20.2 (and 19.2, etc.) isn't an element (that is, an attribute), it's a relationship. So I suppose if the basic relationship is in fact called contributor or creator we would be justified in using those terms as relationship designators even if they aren't explicitly listed in Appendix I. The second paragraph of 18.5.1.3 allows it anyway. We've been using creator when appropriate. Bob Robert L. Maxwell Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian Genre/Form Authorities Librarian 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 1:13 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors Benjamin, The RDA element 20.2 is named Contributor, which is why there is no designator. It wouldn't be needed in RDA because the element itself is contributor. You wouldn't need to encode this in a designator, because it would be redundant: Contributor: Maxwell, Robert, contributor. The problem of course is encoding RDA in MARC 21, because 7XX is not solely limited to contributors. ^^ 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, 16 Oct 2012, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote: Ed, For me the question is--is it better to use an existing term that doesn't quite fit (like writer of added commentary) or to supply an ad hoc term? Frankly I am somewhat surprised that in Appendix I, under Relationship designators for contributors, there's no simple term, Contributor. That would be perfectly adequate in this situation. (Though as Bob Maxwell points out I could borrow that from the MARC relators list.) Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Ed Jones Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 2:57 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors The principal drawback I see to using ad-hoc terms is that they necessarily fall outside any structure relating terms in a hierarchical manner. writer of preface will be identified as a specific kind of contributor because of its presence in a 7XX field, but intermediate relationships, such those relating sculptor to artist and landscape architect to architect will not exist. There is also the likelihood of variability in the ad hoc terms used for similar phenomena. Books not only have prefaces but forewords, introductions, etc., so there will also be reason to create writer of foreword, writer of introduction, etc., to specify these similar (but not identical) relationships. This isn't to argue against creating these terms when needed--this is why it is an open vocabulary--but to bear in mind that moving outside the defined vocabulary terms has potential consequences in terms of linking data, collapsing retrieval sets at a more general level, etc. Ed Jones National University (San Diego, Calif.) -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 11:00 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors Thanks for the replies and suggestions. --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of
Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors
Some rather basic questions I'm still ignorant of. Is it allowable to have some access points with the relationship designator and some without any relationship designator? And are the terms of creator and author mutually exclusive. Thanks, Jack Jack Wu Franciscan University of Steubenville Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.edu 10/16/2012 1:11 PM If we are cataloging a work, with a preface by someone other than the main author, RDA 20.2.1 says this is a relationship between a person and an expression. The examples in RDA 20 list this as Writer of Added Commentary, Etc. In Appendix I.3, Relationship Designators for Persons, Families, and Corporate Bodies Associated with an Expression I see the following relationship designators: writer of added commentary A person, family, or corporate body contributing to an expression of a work by providing an interpretation or critical explanation of the original work. writer of added text A person, family, or corporate body contributing to an expression of a primarily non-textual work by providing text for the non-textual work (e.g., writing captions for photographs, descriptions of maps). If I wanted to give an access point for this person, and use a relationship designator, would I have to use writer of added commentary (which is the closest fit, I think, though not quite the same) or could I use writer of preface, which is not on the list? Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 Scanned for virus and spam by McAfee E500 Appliance
Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors
Here's a simple chart: MARC has two main fields for making an access point for a Person: 100 700 Specific relationship designators can be added in subfield $e. But in RDA, there are two layers. There is a top level relationship element connected to a work, expression, manifestation, or item, and there are relationship designators that fall into groups under the top level relationship element. For example, author is a relationship designator that falls under the work-related Creator relationship element. Here's the list of top-level relationship elements: WORK relationship elements: Creator Other Person, Family or Corporate Body Associated with a Work EXPRESSION relationship elements: Contributor MANIFESTATION relationship elements: Producer of an Unpublished Resource Publisher Distributor Manufacturer Other Person, Family or Corporate Body Associated with a Manifestation ITEM relationship elements: Owner Custodian Other Person, Family or Corporate Body Associated with an Item Under each relationship element there are a set of allowable and often hierarchical relationship designators, which are found in RDA Appendix I. Example for Owner (an item-level relationship element) and its subordinate relationship designators: Owner - current owner --- depositor - former owner --- donor --- seller Some top-level relationship elements, such as Producer of an Unpublished Resource have no subordinate relationship designators. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jack Wu Sent: October 16, 2012 3:54 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors Some rather basic questions I'm still ignorant of. Is it allowable to have some access points with the relationship designator and some without any relationship designator? And are the terms of creator and author mutually exclusive. Thanks, Jack Jack Wu Franciscan University of Steubenville Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.edumailto:babra...@mit.edu 10/16/2012 1:11 PM If we are cataloging a work, with a preface by someone other than the main author, RDA 20.2.1 says this is a relationship between a person and an expression. The examples in RDA 20 list this as Writer of Added Commentary, Etc. In Appendix I.3, Relationship Designators for Persons, Families, and Corporate Bodies Associated with an Expression I see the following relationship designators: writer of added commentary A person, family, or corporate body contributing to an expression of a work by providing an interpretation or critical explanation of the original work. writer of added text A person, family, or corporate body contributing to an expression of a primarily non-textual work by providing text for the non-textual work (e.g., writing captions for photographs, descriptions of maps). If I wanted to give an access point for this person, and use a relationship designator, would I have to use writer of added commentary (which is the closest fit, I think, though not quite the same) or could I use writer of preface, which is not on the list? Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 Scanned for virus and spam by McAfee E500 Appliance
Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors
This I understand. But it strikes me as a strange decision that you can't simply use the top level relationship descriptor. It's like saying: GREEN --avocado --kelly --lime --malachite But if you have something else that's not on the list--say, olive--you can't just pick GREEN. Which (it seems to me) is more accurate, because it's a more general descriptor, than picking something from the list that is close but not quite. Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Brenndorfer, Thomas Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:27 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors Here's a simple chart: MARC has two main fields for making an access point for a Person: 100 700 Specific relationship designators can be added in subfield $e. But in RDA, there are two layers. There is a top level relationship element connected to a work, expression, manifestation, or item, and there are relationship designators that fall into groups under the top level relationship element. For example, author is a relationship designator that falls under the work-related Creator relationship element. Here's the list of top-level relationship elements: WORK relationship elements: Creator Other Person, Family or Corporate Body Associated with a Work EXPRESSION relationship elements: Contributor MANIFESTATION relationship elements: Producer of an Unpublished Resource Publisher Distributor Manufacturer Other Person, Family or Corporate Body Associated with a Manifestation ITEM relationship elements: Owner Custodian Other Person, Family or Corporate Body Associated with an Item Under each relationship element there are a set of allowable and often hierarchical relationship designators, which are found in RDA Appendix I. Example for Owner (an item-level relationship element) and its subordinate relationship designators: Owner - current owner --- depositor - former owner --- donor --- seller Some top-level relationship elements, such as Producer of an Unpublished Resource have no subordinate relationship designators. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jack Wu Sent: October 16, 2012 3:54 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors Some rather basic questions I'm still ignorant of. Is it allowable to have some access points with the relationship designator and some without any relationship designator? And are the terms of creator and author mutually exclusive. Thanks, Jack Jack Wu Franciscan University of Steubenville Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.edumailto:babra...@mit.edu 10/16/2012 1:11 PM If we are cataloging a work, with a preface by someone other than the main author, RDA 20.2.1 says this is a relationship between a person and an expression. The examples in RDA 20 list this as Writer of Added Commentary, Etc. In Appendix I.3, Relationship Designators for Persons, Families, and Corporate Bodies Associated with an Expression I see the following relationship designators: writer of added commentary A person, family, or corporate body contributing to an expression of a work by providing an interpretation or critical explanation of the original work. writer of added text A person, family, or corporate body contributing to an expression of a primarily non-textual work by providing text for the non-textual work (e.g., writing captions for photographs, descriptions of maps). If I wanted to give an access point for this person, and use a relationship designator, would I have to use writer of added commentary (which is the closest fit, I think, though not quite the same) or could I use writer of preface, which is not on the list? Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 Scanned for virus and spam by McAfee E500 Appliance
Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors
But is the subfield e relationship designator mandatory or optional, for the 1xx field, for the 7xx field? Jack Jack Wu Franciscan University of Steubenville Brenndorfer, Thomas tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca 10/16/2012 4:27 PM Here’s a simple chart: MARC has two main fields for making an access point for a Person: 100 700 Specific relationship designators can be added in subfield $e. But in RDA, there are two layers. There is a top level relationship element connected to a work, expression, manifestation, or item, and there are relationship designators that fall into groups under the top level relationship element. For example, “author” is a relationship designator that falls under the work-related “Creator” relationship element. Here’s the list of top-level relationship elements: WORK relationship elements: Creator Other Person, Family or Corporate Body Associated with a Work EXPRESSION relationship elements: Contributor MANIFESTATION relationship elements: Producer of an Unpublished Resource Publisher Distributor Manufacturer Other Person, Family or Corporate Body Associated with a Manifestation ITEM relationship elements: Owner Custodian Other Person, Family or Corporate Body Associated with an Item Under each relationship element there are a set of allowable and often hierarchical relationship designators, which are found in RDA Appendix I. Example for Owner (an item-level relationship element) and its subordinate relationship designators: Owner - current owner --- depositor - former owner --- donor --- seller Some top-level relationship elements, such as “Producer of an Unpublished Resource” have no subordinate relationship designators. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jack Wu Sent: October 16, 2012 3:54 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors Some rather basic questions I'm still ignorant of. Is it allowable to have some access points with the relationship designator and some without any relationship designator? And are the terms of creator and author mutually exclusive. Thanks, Jack Jack Wu Franciscan University of Steubenville Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.edu 10/16/2012 1:11 PM If we are cataloging a work, with a preface by someone other than the main author, RDA 20.2.1 says this is a relationship between a person and an expression. The examples in RDA 20 list this as Writer of Added Commentary, Etc. In Appendix I.3, Relationship Designators for Persons, Families, and Corporate Bodies Associated with an Expression I see the following relationship designators: writer of added commentary A person, family, or corporate body contributing to an expression of a work by providing an interpretation or critical explanation of the original work. writer of added text A person, family, or corporate body contributing to an expression of a primarily non-textual work by providing text for the non-textual work (e.g., writing captions for photographs, descriptions of maps). If I wanted to give an access point for this person, and use a relationship designator, would I have to use writer of added commentary (which is the closest fit, I think, though not quite the same) or could I use writer of preface, which is not on the list? Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 Scanned for virus and spam by McAfee E500 Appliance Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance
Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors
The designator codes are not mandatory across the board, but certain values are considered core values under certain institutional policies for certain resources. So for example, “$e illustrator” is a Contributor relationship designator value that is a core element (i.e., mandatory) for the Library of Congress for children’s resources. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jack Wu Sent: October 16, 2012 4:39 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors But is the subfield e relationship designator mandatory or optional, for the 1xx field, for the 7xx field? Jack Jack Wu Franciscan University of Steubenville Brenndorfer, Thomas tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.camailto:tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca 10/16/2012 4:27 PM Here’s a simple chart: MARC has two main fields for making an access point for a Person: 100 700 Specific relationship designators can be added in subfield $e. But in RDA, there are two layers. There is a top level relationship element connected to a work, expression, manifestation, or item, and there are relationship designators that fall into groups under the top level relationship element. For example, “author” is a relationship designator that falls under the work-related “Creator” relationship element. Here’s the list of top-level relationship elements: WORK relationship elements: Creator Other Person, Family or Corporate Body Associated with a Work EXPRESSION relationship elements: Contributor MANIFESTATION relationship elements: Producer of an Unpublished Resource Publisher Distributor Manufacturer Other Person, Family or Corporate Body Associated with a Manifestation ITEM relationship elements: Owner Custodian Other Person, Family or Corporate Body Associated with an Item Under each relationship element there are a set of allowable and often hierarchical relationship designators, which are found in RDA Appendix I. Example for Owner (an item-level relationship element) and its subordinate relationship designators: Owner - current owner --- depositor - former owner --- donor --- seller Some top-level relationship elements, such as “Producer of an Unpublished Resource” have no subordinate relationship designators. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jack Wu Sent: October 16, 2012 3:54 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors Some rather basic questions I'm still ignorant of. Is it allowable to have some access points with the relationship designator and some without any relationship designator? And are the terms of creator and author mutually exclusive. Thanks, Jack Jack Wu Franciscan University of Steubenville Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.edumailto:babra...@mit.edu 10/16/2012 1:11 PM If we are cataloging a work, with a preface by someone other than the main author, RDA 20.2.1 says this is a relationship between a person and an expression. The examples in RDA 20 list this as Writer of Added Commentary, Etc. In Appendix I.3, Relationship Designators for Persons, Families, and Corporate Bodies Associated with an Expression I see the following relationship designators: writer of added commentary A person, family, or corporate body contributing to an expression of a work by providing an interpretation or critical explanation of the original work. writer of added text A person, family, or corporate body contributing to an expression of a primarily non-textual work by providing text for the non-textual work (e.g., writing captions for photographs, descriptions of maps). If I wanted to give an access point for this person, and use a relationship designator, would I have to use writer of added commentary (which is the closest fit, I think, though not quite the same) or could I use writer of preface, which is not on the list? Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 Scanned for virus and spam by McAfee E500 Appliance Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance
Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors
Ben I would strongly support using a term from the MARC list (e.g., author of introduction, etc. [aui]). It's reasonable to expect that in a future linked data environment, the RDA appendix I terms and the MARC relator terms/codes would be associated in a machine-actionable way. Ed -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 12:07 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors Ed, For me the question is--is it better to use an existing term that doesn't quite fit (like writer of added commentary) or to supply an ad hoc term? Frankly I am somewhat surprised that in Appendix I, under Relationship designators for contributors, there's no simple term, Contributor. That would be perfectly adequate in this situation. (Though as Bob Maxwell points out I could borrow that from the MARC relators list.) Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Ed Jones Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 2:57 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors The principal drawback I see to using ad-hoc terms is that they necessarily fall outside any structure relating terms in a hierarchical manner. writer of preface will be identified as a specific kind of contributor because of its presence in a 7XX field, but intermediate relationships, such those relating sculptor to artist and landscape architect to architect will not exist. There is also the likelihood of variability in the ad hoc terms used for similar phenomena. Books not only have prefaces but forewords, introductions, etc., so there will also be reason to create writer of foreword, writer of introduction, etc., to specify these similar (but not identical) relationships. This isn't to argue against creating these terms when needed--this is why it is an open vocabulary--but to bear in mind that moving outside the defined vocabulary terms has potential consequences in terms of linking data, collapsing retrieval sets at a more general level, etc. Ed Jones National University (San Diego, Calif.) -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 11:00 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors Thanks for the replies and suggestions. --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 1:57 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors The LC-PCC Policy Statement for K.1 says Use only terms from Appendix K if supplying relationship designators in the shared LC/NACO Authority File. Do not supply terms beyond those found in this Appendix. But there is no similar restriction in the LC-PCC PS for J.1 or I.1, so it would appear that there is no reason you couldn't say writer of preface if you felt you need to be more specific. One could also suggest new terms to be added to these appendices if the relationship is common enough that having a specific term in RDA itself would be of benefit (and it would provide more consistency as well). 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, 16 Oct 2012, Joan Wang wrote: Hi, These are general guidelines for using relationship designators. General Guidelines on Using Relationship Designators * Use relationship designators to indicate the specific nature of relationships between a resource and persons, families, and corporate bodies associated with that resource. * Use relationship designators at the level of specificity that is considered appropriate for the purposes of the agency creating the data. For example, the relationship between a screenplay and the screenwriter responsible for the work may be recorded using either the specific relationship designator screenwriter or the more general relationship designator author. * If none of the terms listed in this appendix is
[RDA-L] Job Posting: Special Collections Cataloger, University of Miami
---Apologies for cross-posting--- The University of Miami Libraries seeks a Special Collections Cataloger to provide original and complex copy cataloging, retrospective conversion, and authority work for materials in the library's Special Collections Division and the Cuban Heritage Collection, and to coordinate the special collections cataloging activity of staff within Cataloging Metadata Services following prescribed national local standards. UNIVERSITY: The University of Miami is one of the nation's leading research universities in a community of extraordinary diversity and international vitality. The University is privately supported, non-sectarian institution, located in Coral Gables, Florida, on a 260-acre subtropical campus. The University comprises 11 degree granting schools and colleges, including Architecture, Arts and Sciences, Business Administration, Communication, Education, Engineering, Law, Medicine, Music, Nursing, and Marine and Atmospheric Science (www.miami.eduhttp://www.miami.edu). THE LIBRARY: The University of Miami Libraries (www.library.miami.eduhttp://www.library.miami.edu) rank among the top 50 research libraries in North America with a collection of over 3 million volumes, 74,000 current serials, and over 64,000 E-journal titles. The Otto G. Richter Library lies in the heart of the Coral Gables campus and serves as the central library for the University. Other University of Miami libraries include the Paul Buisson Architecture Library, the Judi Prokop Newman Business Information Resource Center, and the Marta Austin Weeks Music Library, and the Marine and Atmospheric Science Library. The campus also has independent medical and law libraries. The Libraries provide support and services for approximately 10,100 undergraduates, 5,100 graduate students, and 10,000 full and part time faculty and staff. The Libraries have a staff of 37 Librarians and 86 support staff and are a member of ARL, ASERL, CLIR, NERL, RLG, and Lyrasis. POSITION: Under the direction of the Head of Cataloging Metadata Services, the Special Collections Cataloger has primary responsibility for providing original and complex copy cataloging, retrospective conversion, and authority work for materials in the library's Special Collections Division and the Cuban Heritage Collection, and coordinates special collections cataloging activity of staff within Cataloging Metadata Services following prescribed national local standards. ESSENTIAL DUTIES RESPONSIBILITIES include the following. Other duties may be assigned. Performance: * Provides original and complex copy cataloging of published materials in the Special Collections Division and the Cuban Heritage Collections, including rare books, artists' books, serials, and audiovisual materials in multiple languages, formats, and time periods, according to national local standards for rare book description. * Provides training and guidance to cataloging staff performing special collections cataloging and retrospective conversion; May supervise special collections cataloging project teams and/or student assistants. * Works with the Head of CMS and collection curators to establish cataloging priorities for special collections material, and to set priorities for processing collections in the backlog, including determining appropriate levels of treatment for groups of materials. * Serves as liaison between CMS, Special Collections, and the Cuban Heritage Collection for problem solving, changes in policies and procedures and other cataloging and metadata issues; Participates in the Cataloging Policy Board. * Actively participates in the development and implementation of metadata standards in the Libraries as they apply to the processing, description, and cataloging of manuscripts and special collections materials; Serves on the Metadata Working Group. * Reviews EAD-encoded finding aids prepared by special collections staff as needed for the purpose of assigning name, subject, form/genre, and title headings, and may assign headings to finding aids and related catalog records. * Maintains awareness of special collections and general cataloging issues and standards, metadata standards, and librarianship; Service: * Serves on/participates in Libraries and University organizations, committees, task forces, and teams as appropriate. * Networks, collaborates and actively participates in local, regional, national, or international organizations regarding issues in special collections cataloging and metadata creation QUALIFICATIONS: Required: * Master's degree from an ALA accredited library science program or foreign equivalent; * Two years professional cataloging experience, including archival and/or special collections materials; * Knowledge of DCRM(B), AACR2, LCSH, LC Classification, and MARC21; * Familiarity with DACS, EAD, RDA, and Dublin Core; *
Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors
Subfield $e is listed as Optional in the MARC 21 Format for Bibliographic Data National Level Full and Minimal Requirements list (http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/nlr/nlr1xx.html) RDA does not specify that the Relationship Designator element is ‘Core’ in the actual instructions, but if you do an Advanced Search in the RDA Toolkit using ‘relationship designator’ and qualify it with RDA Instruction Types in the first box as ‘Core Element Instructions only’, the instruction numbers are listed with the blue ‘Core’ symbol. Putting all the legacy MARC records out of our mind, it is *really* important to record this information, if you want to be able to, someday, reliably machine map the data in the new RDA/MARC records you are creating into a new encoding format that is used for data recorded under RDA principles. Deborah - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. mailto:debo...@marcofquality.com debo...@marcofquality.com http://www.marcofquality.com www.marcofquality.com From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Brenndorfer, Thomas Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 9:45 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors The designator codes are not mandatory across the board, but certain values are considered core values under certain institutional policies for certain resources. So for example, “$e illustrator” is a Contributor relationship designator value that is a core element (i.e., mandatory) for the Library of Congress for children’s resources. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jack Wu Sent: October 16, 2012 4:39 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors But is the subfield e relationship designator mandatory or optional, for the 1xx field, for the 7xx field? Jack Jack Wu Franciscan University of Steubenville inline: image001.png
Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors
Bob, I agree with you that we *should* be able to add 'creator' as a relationship designator, but RDA explicitly says: Under (18.5.1.3 http://access.rdatoolkit.org/18.5.1.3.html ): If the element used to record the relationship (e.g., creator) is considered sufficient for the purposes of the agency creating the data, do not use a relationship designator to indicate the specific nature of the relationship. And under (I.1 http://access.rdatoolkit.org/I.1.html ): If the element used to record the relationship (e.g., creator) is considered sufficient for the purposes of the agency creating the data, do not use a relationship designator to indicate the specific nature of the relationship. To me, these statements are saying that we are only to add these terms when we need to indicate the relationship more precisely than the relationship element itself does, e.g., we do not add the designator 'publisher' to data provided under the relationship element 'Publisher' because the element name explains the relationship. I would like to see that instruction changed, so that we don't go looking for a designator, can't find it, and have to remember, oh yes, I don't add it because the element name is sufficient. For example, under publisher (1.4.2 http://access.rdatoolkit.org/I.4.2.html ) , only the term 'broadcaster' is listed, because the element *name* 'Publisher' is supposed to be sufficient. It is undoubtedly more 'efficient' in computer terms to have the element label perform the function of the relationship designator when it can, but this concept is a good deal more difficult to explain to the humans recording the data. While we are using MARC, however, I certainly agree with you that we have to add the element label as a designator term, since the RDA relationship element name 'Publisher' (21.3 http://access.rdatoolkit.org/21.3.html ) is not explicit in MARC 710. Deborah - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. debo...@marcofquality.com www.marcofquality.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 8:34 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors I don't think I agree with this as an argument for not including high level general terms in the relationship terms available for use. We do need creator and contributor. I don't think it's a matter of it being redundant in MARC. In E/R or presumably in linked data you'd just have a person entity description in the database linked to a n entity description such as work or expression. You need to be able to specify the relationship, but you should be able to specify it using a general relationship such as creator or contributor if you don't want to (or can't) specify the exact nature of the creator or contributor relationship. Note 20.2 (and 19.2, etc.) isn't an element (that is, an attribute), it's a relationship. So I suppose if the basic relationship is in fact called contributor or creator we would be justified in using those terms as relationship designators even if they aren't explicitly listed in Appendix I. The second paragraph of 18.5.1.3 allows it anyway. We've been using creator when appropriate. Bob
Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors
Robert Maxwell said:
I don't think I agree with this as an argument for not including high
level general terms in the relationship terms available ...
SLC agrees with Robert.
It i still on open question whether SLC will use relationship
designators; only one client so far has said they want them. It
seems a waste of effort to apply them, and then remove them on export.
If they are to be supplied, single word designators seem sufficient im
most cases. In a record for a video, $edirector would seem better,
since it is obvious from the record that a motion picture is being
described; $efilme director seems both redundant and too long for
convenient display. The same is even more true for $ecomposer vs.
$ecomposer of music for sound film.
For an integrated list of shorter terms see:
http://special-cataloguing.com/mris/21
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors
The guideline says if the element is considered sufficient for the purposes of *the agency creating the data*, meaning it's a local decision. Some agencies might consider the 100 field sufficient and never record anything at all as a relationship designator in that field. Others might not. I don't think these guidelines were meant to restrict use of relationship designators by agencies that do not consider the element alone sufficient. Bob Robert L. Maxwell Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian Genre/Form Authorities Librarian 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Deborah Fritz Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 3:19 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors Bob, I agree with you that we *should* be able to add 'creator' as a relationship designator, but RDA explicitly says: Under (18.5.1.3http://access.rdatoolkit.org/18.5.1.3.html): If the element used to record the relationship (e.g., creator) is considered sufficient for the purposes of the agency creating the data, do not use a relationship designator to indicate the specific nature of the relationship. And under (I.1http://access.rdatoolkit.org/I.1.html): If the element used to record the relationship (e.g., creator) is considered sufficient for the purposes of the agency creating the data, do not use a relationship designator to indicate the specific nature of the relationship. To me, these statements are saying that we are only to add these terms when we need to indicate the relationship more precisely than the relationship element itself does, e.g., we do not add the designator 'publisher' to data provided under the relationship element 'Publisher' because the element name explains the relationship. I would like to see that instruction changed, so that we don't go looking for a designator, can't find it, and have to remember, oh yes, I don't add it because the element name is sufficient. For example, under publisher (1.4.2http://access.rdatoolkit.org/I.4.2.html) , only the term 'broadcaster' is listed, because the element *name* 'Publisher' is supposed to be sufficient. It is undoubtedly more 'efficient' in computer terms to have the element label perform the function of the relationship designator when it can, but this concept is a good deal more difficult to explain to the humans recording the data. While we are using MARC, however, I certainly agree with you that we have to add the element label as a designator term, since the RDA relationship element name 'Publisher' (21.3http://access.rdatoolkit.org/21.3.html) is not explicit in MARC 710. Deborah - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. debo...@marcofquality.commailto:debo...@marcofquality.com www.marcofquality.comhttp://www.marcofquality.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 8:34 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about relationship terms for contributors I don't think I agree with this as an argument for not including high level general terms in the relationship terms available for use. We do need creator and contributor. I don't think it's a matter of it being redundant in MARC. In E/R or presumably in linked data you'd just have a person entity description in the database linked to a n entity description such as work or expression. You need to be able to specify the relationship, but you should be able to specify it using a general relationship such as creator or contributor if you don't want to (or can't) specify the exact nature of the creator or contributor relationship. Note 20.2 (and 19.2, etc.) isn't an element (that is, an attribute), it's a relationship. So I suppose if the basic relationship is in fact called contributor or creator we would be justified in using those terms as relationship designators even if they aren't explicitly listed in Appendix I. The second paragraph of 18.5.1.3 allows it anyway. We've been using creator when appropriate. Bob
