[RDA-L] FW: RDA Implementation at the British Library
From the 1st April 2013, RDA : Resource Description and Access http://www.rdatoolkit.org/ , replaced the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edition, as the British Library's official descriptive cataloguing standard, for records added to the British National Bibliography and British Library MARC Exchange files. British Library exchange files will continue to contain a mix of RDA and AACR2 records over the foreseeable future. The Library will continue to re-use AACR2 records when no equivalent RDA record is available. DCRM http://www.rbms.info/committees/bibliographic_standards/index.shtml will continue to be used, where appropriate, for the description of rare materials, but authorised access points and other elements that are out of scope of DCRM will be constructed following RDA, not AACR2. The Library has a commitment to the enhancement of its legacy data; including records converted from printed catalogues. Amendments to these records will generally be made in conformance with RDA. Records will not be re-coded as RDA unless fully upgraded The Library's contribution to LC/NACO Name Authority File http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/naco/ switched to RDA during 2012. kind regards, Alan Alan Danskin Metadata Standards Manager The British Library Bldg 25 Boston Spa WETHERBY West Yorkshire LS23 7BQ www.bl.uk http://www.bl.uk/ http://www.bl.uk/email/banner.htm T +44 (0) 1937 546669 Mob 07833401117 F +44 (0) 1937 546586 alan.dans...@bl.uk See how the British Library is transforming stored knowledge into smart knowledge here http://pressandpolicy.bl.uk/imagelibrary/downloadMedia.ashx?MediaDetail sID=1428 inline: logo100.gifinline: imageright.gif
Re: [RDA-L] FW: RDA Implementation at the British Library
Am 02.04.2013 14:00, schrieb Danskin, Alan: From the 1^st April 2013/, RDA : Resource Description and Access http://www.rdatoolkit.org//, replaced the /Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules/, 2^nd edition, as the British Library’s official descriptive cataloguing standard, for records added to the British National Bibliography and British Library MARC Exchange files. Does the BL have an application profile document specifying the options and alternatives to be applied? And if yes, is this document freely accessible or only as part of the toolkit? (The latter to be considered, in my opinion, as suboptimal.) Ideally, one would like to have a synopsis of application profiles of the major bibliographic data suppliers. Thanks, B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date
Just a comment. In the old days, a book might have a copyright date, with a second date listed on the book. Was it a new publication or a reprint? The instruction at that time was that if it was made with the same 'plates' it was considered to be a reprint. Sometimes the books had the same copyright date, but typos had been corrected. Sometimes those typos could be significant. Especially at that time, there was more need for both dates. I think today's publishers are more likely to put a note in the book that it is 'revised' or 'corrected' or some similar note to distinguish the two items, if only to get people to purchase the second book (guess it is my cynical day) kathie Kathleen Goldfarb Technical Services Librarian College of the Mainland Texas City, TX 77539 409 933 8202 Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email. -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Michael Borries Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 8:50 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date I have wondered whether originally the approach of separating publication date and copyright date didn't arise, in part, at least, from this phenomenon of having books published earlier than the copyright date indicates. I am sympathetic to the concern that a cataloger with the book in hand in 2013, copyrighted 2013, might wonder why the cataloging record available has 2012 in the 264. However, I wonder if the 588 note, or a 500 note, could not be used, e.g., Item received for cataloging March 10, 2012, thus indicating that the book was in fact available in 2012. Michael S. Borries CUNY Central Cataloging 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu Phone: (646) 312-1687 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Patricia Sayre-McCoy [p...@uchicago.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 3:01 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date But what about the cataloger who received the book in 2013? And the patron who used it last week but it can't be this book because this book hasn't been published yet? I makes less sense to pretend that the book wasn't published for 8 months than to include a bracked publication date and make it clear when the book was actually available. Pat Patricia Sayre-McCoy Head, Law Cataloging and Serials D'Angelo Law Library University of Chicago 773-702-9620 p...@uchicago.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Lisa Hatt Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:45 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date On 3/28/2013 8:07 AM, Will Evans ev...@bostonathenaeum.org wrote: Rules or no rules, shouldn't the record reflect the reality of the situation?! 264#1 $c [2013] 264#4 $c (c) 2014 500 Publication received by cataloging agency in 2013. $ MBAt I'm puzzled by this approach, which seems to second-guess the publisher's intent. Unless there's something we haven't been told, I don't get the idea that the resource itself makes any statement about having been published in 2013. If a cataloger first encountered this item in 2014+, they'd have no reason to believe it was published in anything other than 2014, because that's the date printed on the thing itself, yes? (I know there are reverse cases where a later ed. such as trade pbk. does not actually state its publication date and simply retains the copyright of the first hc ed., resulting in situations like [2002], c2001 in AACR2. But in that case other information supports the choice of supplied date, I think.) Rare books might be different, and I am no RDA guru, but my feeling would be to go with what Deborah recommended. -- Lisa Hatt Cataloging De Anza College Library 408-864-8459
Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator and in cooperation with
It was very useful to be able to see the example you are dealing with-thanks for that. Based on the t.p. and verso (which Springer makes public), I would say that Giorgio is a contributor (in the RDA sense) at the expression level. When you cannot pick a specific relationship designator, you can invoke the general guidelines on using relationship designators given under I.1. The last paragraph there says: 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. IOW, the element name is sufficient as the relationship designator. This is very clumsy to explain, so I don't really like this approach; but I suppose it does save us some typing, because when the element name is enough, we do not need to add another designator. In this case, I would say that we have to consider the element term contributor sufficient, since it appears that Giorgio contributed to the expression by working on the overall compilation in some way, rather than being one of the creators of the works contained in the compilation. However, while we are in MARC, we do have to add the element term, because our MARC label (700) is not specific enough to indicate the relationship. So I would suggest: =700 1\$aBarbarini, Giorgio,$econtributor. My interpretation. Deborah - - - - - - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. mailto:debo...@marcofquality.com debo...@marcofquality.com http://www.marcofquality.com www.marcofquality.com From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Alison Hitchens Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 9:48 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] relationship designator and in cooperation with Hi all We are working on RDA training here and one of the books I chose as an example for creating an RDA record has the following information in the statement of responsibility: / Giuseppe Barbaro, Franck Boccara (Eds) ; in cooperation with Giorgio Barbarini This has resulted in the following authorized access points (the resource is a compilation): =700 1\$aBarbaro, Giuseppe,$eeditor of compilation. =700 1\$aBoccara, Franck$eeditor of compilation. =700 1\$aBarbarini, Giorgio. In this situation do we assume, lacking other information, that Giorgio is also an editor or do we just leave out the $e or is there something else appropriate? I have looked through the foreword and list of contributors but there is no other information about Giorgio's relationship with this resource. (If you have access to Springer e-books and want to take a look at the resource: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-0761-1) Thanks in advance for any advice! Alison Alison Hitchens Cataloguing Metadata Librarian University of Waterloo Library ahitc...@uwaterloo.ca 519-888-4567 x35980
Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator and in cooperation with
I don't think contributor is defined in RDA appendix I. There is I.3.1 the list titled, relationship designators for contributors [associated with an expression] but no actual term contributor in that list, or any of the others. Is this something that perhaps is in the JSC relator term pipeline? --Ben 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 Deborah Fritz Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 10:47 AM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator and in cooperation with It was very useful to be able to see the example you are dealing with-thanks for that. Based on the t.p. and verso (which Springer makes public), I would say that Giorgio is a contributor (in the RDA sense) at the expression level. When you cannot pick a specific relationship designator, you can invoke the general guidelines on using relationship designators given under I.1. The last paragraph there says: 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. IOW, the element name is sufficient as the relationship designator. This is very clumsy to explain, so I don't really like this approach; but I suppose it does save us some typing, because when the element name is enough, we do not need to add another designator. In this case, I would say that we have to consider the element term contributor sufficient, since it appears that Giorgio contributed to the expression by working on the overall compilation in some way, rather than being one of the creators of the works contained in the compilation. However, while we are in MARC, we do have to add the element term, because our MARC label (700) is not specific enough to indicate the relationship. So I would suggest: =700 1\$aBarbarini, Giorgio,$econtributor. My interpretation. Deborah - - - - - - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. debo...@marcofquality.commailto:debo...@marcofquality.com www.marcofquality.comhttp://www.marcofquality.com From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Alison Hitchens Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 9:48 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] relationship designator and in cooperation with Hi all We are working on RDA training here and one of the books I chose as an example for creating an RDA record has the following information in the statement of responsibility: / Giuseppe Barbaro, Franck Boccara (Eds) ; in cooperation with Giorgio Barbarini This has resulted in the following authorized access points (the resource is a compilation): =700 1\$aBarbaro, Giuseppe,$eeditor of compilation. =700 1\$aBoccara, Franck$eeditor of compilation. =700 1\$aBarbarini, Giorgio. In this situation do we assume, lacking other information, that Giorgio is also an editor or do we just leave out the $e or is there something else appropriate? I have looked through the foreword and list of contributors but there is no other information about Giorgio's relationship with this resource. (If you have access to Springer e-books and want to take a look at the resource: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-0761-1) Thanks in advance for any advice! Alison Alison Hitchens Cataloguing Metadata Librarian University of Waterloo Library ahitc...@uwaterloo.camailto:ahitc...@uwaterloo.ca 519-888-4567 x35980
Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator and in cooperation with
Based on Deborah's information, the key instruction here is from I.1 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. Plus what Deborah said in her post However, while we are in MARC, we do have to add the element term, because our MARC label (700) is not specific enough to indicate the relationship. Does that mean that in MARC we are allowed to use an element as a relationship designator and use $econtributor? Or does that just mean that in MARC the relationship remains ambiguous? Thanks! Alison Alison Hitchens Cataloguing Metadata Librarian University of Waterloo Library ahitc...@uwaterloo.camailto:ahitc...@uwaterloo.ca 519-888-4567 x35980 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, April 02, 2013 10:56 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator and in cooperation with I don't think contributor is defined in RDA appendix I. There is I.3.1 the list titled, relationship designators for contributors [associated with an expression] but no actual term contributor in that list, or any of the others. Is this something that perhaps is in the JSC relator term pipeline? --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137
[RDA-L] JSC web site: recent postings
(1) Recent documents posted to the JSC web site ( http://www.rda-jsc.org/workingnew.html): -- 6JSC/BL/3/Rev/Sec final/rev -- 6JSC/LC/11/Sec final/rev -- 6JSC/Policy/3 [Duty statement for the JSC Secretary] The revisions to the Sec final documents for 6JSC/BL/3/Rev and for 6JSC/LC/11 adds information for 8.3 omitted in the original proposal by LC. (2) The announcement on the RDA Toolkit blog about the revised RDA Toolkit schedule was re-posted on the JSC web site (http://www.rda-jsc.org/news.html ). Regards, Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary
Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator and in cooperation with
Hello, I found in LC's Code List for Relators, Term Sequence. http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html Contributor [ctb] Use for a person or organization one whose work has been contributed to a larger work, such as an anthology, serial publication, or other compilation of individual works. Do not use if the sole function in relation to a work is as author, editor, compiler or translator. Does this mean if the name / code not in RDA Appendix I, we cannot use it? Mary Jeanne Yuen AMES, MIT Libraries 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, April 02, 2013 10:56 AM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator and in cooperation with I don't think contributor is defined in RDA appendix I. There is I.3.1 the list titled, relationship designators for contributors [associated with an expression] but no actual term contributor in that list, or any of the others. Is this something that perhaps is in the JSC relator term pipeline? --Ben 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 Deborah Fritz Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 10:47 AM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.camailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator and in cooperation with It was very useful to be able to see the example you are dealing with-thanks for that. Based on the t.p. and verso (which Springer makes public), I would say that Giorgio is a contributor (in the RDA sense) at the expression level. When you cannot pick a specific relationship designator, you can invoke the general guidelines on using relationship designators given under I.1. The last paragraph there says: 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. IOW, the element name is sufficient as the relationship designator. This is very clumsy to explain, so I don't really like this approach; but I suppose it does save us some typing, because when the element name is enough, we do not need to add another designator. In this case, I would say that we have to consider the element term contributor sufficient, since it appears that Giorgio contributed to the expression by working on the overall compilation in some way, rather than being one of the creators of the works contained in the compilation. However, while we are in MARC, we do have to add the element term, because our MARC label (700) is not specific enough to indicate the relationship. So I would suggest: =700 1\$aBarbarini, Giorgio,$econtributor. My interpretation. Deborah - - - - - - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. debo...@marcofquality.commailto:debo...@marcofquality.com www.marcofquality.comhttp://www.marcofquality.com From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Alison Hitchens Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 9:48 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] relationship designator and in cooperation with Hi all We are working on RDA training here and one of the books I chose as an example for creating an RDA record has the following information in the statement of responsibility: / Giuseppe Barbaro, Franck Boccara (Eds) ; in cooperation with Giorgio Barbarini This has resulted in the following authorized access points (the resource is a compilation): =700 1\$aBarbaro, Giuseppe,$eeditor of compilation. =700 1\$aBoccara, Franck$eeditor of compilation. =700 1\$aBarbarini, Giorgio. In this situation do we assume, lacking other information, that Giorgio is also an editor or do we just leave out the $e or is there something else appropriate? I have looked through the foreword and list of contributors but there is no other information about Giorgio's relationship with this resource. (If you have access to Springer e-books and want to take a look at the resource: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-0761-1) Thanks in advance for any advice! Alison Alison Hitchens Cataloguing Metadata Librarian University of Waterloo Library ahitc...@uwaterloo.camailto:ahitc...@uwaterloo.ca 519-888-4567 x35980
Re: [RDA-L] recording production statements
Disclaimer: I am not an expert on facsimiles/reproductions, and might be way off base here, but I think this is an underlying issue that we have not been covering, in this example. Remember that Chris said: A professor here wrote to the choreographer of a performance he saw to find out if it was possible to obtain a recording of the dance. He was told by the choreographer that she would be happy to send a DVD to the library. What we received was a DVD with an handwritten label using a marker. The fact that this DVD doesn't appear to be mass produced, and was not advertised or made available anywhere except by personal request to the choreographer makes me want to consider this item unpublished. Do we actually care who produced/made the DVD (who copied the file to the physical carrier)? Because I *think* that what we are describing here is a dance performance work (or works) expressed as a two-dimensional moving image and manifested as an unpublished reproduction, carried on a DVD. So, yes, absolutely, we want to indicate responsibility and relationships for the work(s) and the expression (the choreographer, the dance company, etc.) but if we don't know who copied the video/film onto a blank DVD, then we need to remember that we are describing a reproduction, and 1.11 says When describing a facsimile or reproduction, record the data relating to the facsimile or reproduction in the appropriate element. So, the question we seem to be stuck on is actually what is the name of the producer of the DVD (who made the DVD)?. 2.7.1.1 (Scope): Production statements include statements relating to the inscription, fabrication, construction, etc., of a resource in an unpublished form. So, rather than trying to discover that (who made the DVD), perhaps we should just invoke the CORE instruction and just give the date (which is the only core Production Statement element) that we think the copy was made (perhaps [2013?]) Then we need to record whatever pertinent other relationship data we can (e.g., the choreographer of the dance, the dance company), but I don't want to address that because I don't feel I have enough information to do so. How are we going to switch to RDA thinking, if we don't work our way through the underlying principles, using RDA thinking to follow RDA instructions, when we encounter something that is 'out of the ordinary'? And if we discover some discrepancies in the instructions, then we need to point them out and get them resolved. If we had the resource in hand, or at least more information about it, we could all work together on how to record all of the possible description and relationship elements for it, and I think we would see that we are all on the same page about wanting to provide as much useful information as we can; it is just a matter of what elements (fields/subfields) we use for that information. And, yes, just as it matters in MARC where you put the data (245$c vs. 264$b) it matters in RDA which element you 'use' for the data (Statement of Responsibility vs Producer's Name, etc.) 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 J. McRee Elrod Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 9:14 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] recording production statements Deborah cited RDA: I did see that 2.7.4.2 contradicts 2.7.4.7, but I interpreted it the other way around: that 2.7.4.7 should be adjusted, because we were not allowed to supply a publisher, etc. name under AACR; so I felt that RDA was continuing that policy. However, I see that we *are* allowed to supply a Publisher's Name (2.8.4.7), and Distributor's Name (2.9.4.7), but not a Manufacturer's Name (2.10.4.7) ... We ignore any rule which forbids supplying useful information known to us. What's the point of such a rule? We've given producer of unpublished items for years, and haven't been arrested yet. It is nice to be legal at last in that regard. Rules do tend to catch up with client demands, even if it takes decades to do so. We certainly supply publisher under AACR2. A produced object, an art reproduction for example, may or may not have producer's name on the item itself. All that changes for us in this regard with RDA are separate rather than a single set of brackets, and the new 588 field for indicating source of information, which were actually ISBD and MARC changes respectively. Considering the confusing and sometimes contradictory RDA provisions, perhaps our best litmus is what most helps our patrons? Deborah, I realize if you are producing a new version of your wonderful cataloguing tool, you will need to be more cognizant of what the rules say than we. Our clients do not care if we adhere to rules, so long as they get what they want. __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod
[RDA-L] Capitalization of approximately in 300
Hi folks, need some wisdom. I'm working on a shorthand cheat sheet for RDA. My question: in the extent element [300 field in MARC], it says to use the word approximately with an estimation of units if the number cannot be easily ascertained. All of the examples have approximately in lower case: approximately 60 slides approximately 600 pages Granted that RDA doesn't give things in MARC format, but as the first element shouldn't the approximately be capitalized? 300 Approximately 60 slides : $b etc. Thanks! Amanda Sprochi Health Sciences Cataloger J. Otto Lottes Health Sciences Library University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, MO
[RDA-L] 336 repeated for illustrations?
I am just looking at an LC record for a title which includes significant coloured illustrations. There are two 336's: one for text and one for still image. I see the point, but of all the LC's RDA records for illustrated titles so far, this is the only one I've encountered handled this way - all others have had only the one 336, for text. Comments, please! What is everyone else doing? Karen Nelson Capilano University
Re: [RDA-L] 336 repeated for illustrations?
We have decided to include two 336s for text and still image when the title includes images or artwork which are and integral part of the story, as in picture books for children and graphic novels. Sandra Knapp Head Cataloguer hours: 8:00 am to 3:30 pm, Mon-Fri. Waterloo Region District School Board Library Services Dept. (519)570-0300 x4621 If you don't have good quality cataloging, then you might as well take all the new materials the library receives, stick them in a giant bin, blindfold your patrons, and let them just grab random stuff from the bin and call it 'research'. Julie C. Swierczek
Re: [RDA-L] 336 repeated for illustrations?
That is what we have decided to do as well. For the more usual illustrated books, where the illustrations expand on or illuminate but are not central to the intellectual or artistic content, we just use the 336 for text. On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Sandra Knapp sandra_kn...@wrdsb.on.cawrote: We have decided to include two 336s for text and still image when the title includes images or artwork which are and integral part of the story, as in picture books for children and graphic novels. Sandra Knapp Head Cataloguer hours: 8:00 am to 3:30 pm, Mon-Fri. Waterloo Region District School Board Library Services Dept. (519)570-0300 x4621 If you don't have good quality cataloging, then you might as well take all the new materials the library receives, stick them in a giant bin, blindfold your patrons, and let them just grab random stuff from the bin and call it 'research'. Julie C. Swierczek -- Richard A. Stewart Cataloging Supervisor Indian Trails Library District 355 Schoenbeck Road Wheeling, Illinois 60090-4499 USA Tel: 847-279-2214 Fax: 847-459-4760 rstew...@indiantrailslibrary.org http://www.indiantrailslibrary.org/
Re: [RDA-L] recording production statements
Deborah Fritz made some sensible points, but ...
So, rather than trying to discover that (who made the DVD), perhaps we
should just invoke the CORE instruction and just give the date (which is the
only core Production Statement element) that we think the copy was made
(perhaps [2013?])
The dance was recorded at time of performance, 2008. A copy of that
recording was made in 2013.
We would catalogue as:
264 1 $a[Place, Jurisdiction] :$b[Dance Company],$c[2008]
If sharing the record, we would stop there. Another collection might
have another copy made at a different time. We do not create new
records for reprints, as we need not for different copies of
recordings, or different printouts of electronic texts. All copies
made from the same master are of the same edition, regarless of when
produced.
Locally one might add:
264 3 $a]Place, Jurisdiction?*] $c[Choreographer?]$c[2013?].
*Based on home address of choreographer.
We should be more concerned with the *content* of that DVD, than the
physical item.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator and in cooperation with
Alison Hitchens posted:
/ Giuseppe Barbaro, Franck Boccara (Eds) ; in cooperation with Giorgio Barb=
arini
=3D700 1\$aBarbaro, Giuseppe,$eeditor of compilation.
=3D700 1\$aBoccara, Franck$eeditor of compilation.
=3D700 1\$aBarbarini, Giorgio.
How about Barbarini, Giorgia,$econtributor.?
When one donesn't know what the contribution was, that's a nice catchall.
SLC would use $4ctb.
As Ben pointed out, contributor is not in the Appendix, but we've been
told we may use element names as relators. The MRI has a single alphabetic
list of terms with that added, and the code list.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] 336 repeated for illustrations?
In addition to what others have said, I use an additional 336 for catalogs in which the illustrative matter forms the principal part of the work. I suspect that any time the 300 field indicates that a work consists chiefly of illustrations, then an additional 336 for still images would be appropriate. Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Nelson Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 12:45 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] 336 repeated for illustrations? I am just looking at an LC record for a title which includes significant coloured illustrations. There are two 336's: one for text and one for still image. I see the point, but of all the LC's RDA records for illustrated titles so far, this is the only one I've encountered handled this way - all others have had only the one 336, for text. Comments, please! What is everyone else doing? Karen Nelson Capilano University
Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator and in cooperation with
-Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod Sent: April-02-13 2:17 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator and in cooperation with Alison Hitchens posted: / Giuseppe Barbaro, Franck Boccara (Eds) ; in cooperation with Giorgio Barb= arini =3D700 1\$aBarbaro, Giuseppe,$eeditor of compilation. =3D700 1\$aBoccara, Franck$eeditor of compilation. =3D700 1\$aBarbarini, Giorgio. How about Barbarini, Giorgia,$econtributor.? When one donesn't know what the contribution was, that's a nice catchall. SLC would use $4ctb. The $4 relator term ctb is likely not the same as the broader element contributor. Dublin Core appears to have the same problem: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/diglib/loc.terms/relators/dc-contributor.html where for the broad relationship element contributor several refinements pulled from the MARC relator term list are offered. One is $4ctb for contributor -- a refinement of contributor in Dublin Core and applied in a narrower set of circumstances. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization of approximately in 300
Amanda posted:
approximately 60 slides
approximately 600 pages
Apart from capitalization, there is the problem of Anglocentrism.
If we can't use ca. 60 slides, how about [60?] slides?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Granted that RDA doesn't give things in MARC format, but as the first ele=
ment shouldn't the approximately be capitalized?
300 Approximately 60 slides : $b etc.
Thanks!
Amanda Sprochi
Health Sciences Cataloger
J. Otto Lottes Health Sciences Library
University of Missouri-Columbia
Columbia, MO
Re: [RDA-L] 336 repeated for illustrations?
Karen Nelson posted:
I am just looking at an LC record for a title which includes
significant coloured illustrations. There are two 336's: one for
text and one for still image.
RDA has options ranging from giving all, to giving just the single
most prominent. This will be another area of variety among what
libraries do, and a requirement for local editing if we are to be
consistent without our own database.
SLC will opt for a middle path, including only those which are
significant. For example: an art exhibition catalogue; a much
illustrated art history, travel, or children's book, would get both
text and still image. A text with a few illustrations would get only
text. We hope that this middle path will result in less need to add
media terms to, or remove media terms from, derived records.
Field 336 still image would be used less that 008/18-21.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization of approximately in 300
-Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod Sent: April-02-13 3:21 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization of approximately in 300 Amanda posted: approximately 60 slides approximately 600 pages Apart from capitalization, there is the problem of Anglocentrism. If we can't use ca. 60 slides, how about [60?] slides? How is the use of the word slides not Anglocentrism? For the carrier type value slide, the RDA metadata registry already has two languages listed: http://metadataregistry.org/concept/show/id/569.html English preferred label: slide German preferred label: Dia Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator and in cooperation with
Thanks Mac, I may have missed it on the list if there was a discussion that we
could use element names as relators. I had RDA-L set to no mail while I was
away!
I've been going by the LC RDA training modules and they give the example of
publisher: Publisher isn't used as an RDA relationship designator because
that relationship is an element although in the notes for the slide it says
However, there are no RDA police who would object if you used a different
vocabulary and added a term such as publisher.
(this is from slide 31 of the Relationships module)
But those modules were created in the summer so things may have changed since
then! Using $e contributor seems clearer than not including a relator term at
all since the 700 tag can contain many types of relationships
Alison
Alison Hitchens
Cataloguing Metadata Librarian
University of Waterloo Library
ahitc...@uwaterloo.ca
519-888-4567 x35980
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 2:17 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator and in cooperation with
Alison Hitchens posted:
/ Giuseppe Barbaro, Franck Boccara (Eds) ; in cooperation with Giorgio Barb=
arini
=3D700 1\$aBarbaro, Giuseppe,$eeditor of compilation.
=3D700 1\$aBoccara, Franck$eeditor of compilation.
=3D700 1\$aBarbarini, Giorgio.
How about Barbarini, Giorgia,$econtributor.?
When one donesn't know what the contribution was, that's a nice catchall.
SLC would use $4ctb.
As Ben pointed out, contributor is not in the Appendix, but we've been
told we may use element names as relators. The MRI has a single alphabetic
list of terms with that added, and the code list.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization of approximately in 300
Amanda, All of the examples have approximately in lower case: approximately 60 slides approximately 600 pages Granted that RDA doesn't give things in MARC format, but as the first element shouldn't the approximately be capitalized? 300 Approximately 60 slides : $b etc. I believe nobody has answered your question yet, so I'll give it a try. I think the examples with approximately in lower case are correct according to RDA. If you look at appendix A, you'll find that there are only very few elements where the first word is to be capitalized, e.g. titles of manifestations (A.4), designation of edition (A.5) and notes (A.8). As the extent element is not among them, you simply use the ordinary spelling of the words as if they would appear in a running text. I guess this is another point where RDA differs from the ISBD. There, we have a general rule that each area starts with a capitalized word (ISBD consolidated, A.7: In general, in those scripts where capitalization is relevant, the first letter of the first word of each area should be a capital). Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization of approximately in 300
Thanks Heidrun. I'm wondering then about RDA A.9-- Capitalize the first word or abbreviation of a word when recording details of an element. I'm not sure I properly understand what they mean by details of an element. I would assume this would mean whatever text makes up an element, but I can't find a definition for this in RDA. Amanda Sprochi Health Sciences Cataloger J. Otto Lottes Health Sciences Library University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, MO
Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization of approximately in 300
I'm rather puzzled by A.9 myself. As 7.13.2.4 is mentioned as an example, I assume the instruction refers to a number of elements, mostly in chapter 3, which have the word details as part of the element name, e.g.: 3.6.1.4 Details of base materials 3.7.1.4 Details of applied materials 3.9.1.4 Details of production method I've checked some of them, and the examples all start with a capitalized word, e.g. in 3.6.1.4: Paper watermarked: KS and a crown Image printed on thick gold paper These things look rather like notes to me (e.g. RDA 3.6.1. maps to MARC 500), so maybe that's why they are also capitalized. Heidrun On 02.04.2013 21:49, Amanda Sprochi wrote: Thanks Heidrun. I'm wondering then about RDA A.9-- Capitalize the first word or abbreviation of a word when recording details of an element. I'm not sure I properly understand what they mean by details of an element. I would assume this would mean whatever text makes up an element, but I can't find a definition for this in RDA. Amanda Sprochi Health Sciences Cataloger J. Otto Lottes Health Sciences Library University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, MO -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] 2.4.3.3 Parallel statements of responsibility
Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote: Well, let’s wait and see what Chris Oliver has come up with. I gather the rest of the reworded chapters should appear soon in the Toolkit (by the way, wasn't it announced that chapters 2 and 3 should be published in February?). They were indeed scheduled to come out in February. http://www.rdatoolkit.org/blog/488 These and remaining chapters are delayed until May. http://www.rdatoolkit.org/blog/526 -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization of approximately in 300
Curiously, in AACR2 2.5B7, the initial term in the extent examples is ca. which is now approximately in RDA, but it's ca. not Ca. Was AACR2 being inconsistent with ISBD in the examples? Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metada Services Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 3:25 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization of approximately in 300 Amanda, All of the examples have approximately in lower case: approximately 60 slides approximately 600 pages Granted that RDA doesn't give things in MARC format, but as the first element shouldn't the approximately be capitalized? 300 Approximately 60 slides : $b etc. I believe nobody has answered your question yet, so I'll give it a try. I think the examples with approximately in lower case are correct according to RDA. If you look at appendix A, you'll find that there are only very few elements where the first word is to be capitalized, e.g. titles of manifestations (A.4), designation of edition (A.5) and notes (A.8). As the extent element is not among them, you simply use the ordinary spelling of the words as if they would appear in a running text. I guess this is another point where RDA differs from the ISBD. There, we have a general rule that each area starts with a capitalized word (ISBD consolidated, A.7: In general, in those scripts where capitalization is relevant, the first letter of the first word of each area should be a capital). Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] recording production statements
One of the lines has Montclaire; should be Montclair. I used to go there a
lot in my youth. Bloomfield and Montclair were huge football rivals.
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 1:04 PM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
Chris Fox posted:
ferocious beauty:
GENOME
Liz Lerman
Dance Exchange
LIZ LERMAN
DANCE EXCHANGE
FEROCIOUS BEAUTY:
GENOME
MONTCLAIR STATE U.
April 13, 2008
LLDX
Genome:
Montclair
Chaptered
4/12/08
Again, my confusion still remains on what date to use.
The copy you have was produced from the recording made 2008; that
recording is analogous the the plates from which a reprint is made.
The date of the production of the copy is irrelevant.
245 00 $aFericious beauty :$bgenome /$cLiz Lerman Dance Exchange.
246 30 $aGenome
246 3 $aDance Exchange
264 0 $a[Montclaire, New Jersey] :$bLiz Lerman Dance Exchange,$c2008.
300$a1 DVD (60 min,) :$bsound, colour,$c4 1/4 in.
336$atwo-dimensional moving image$2rdacontent
337$avideo$2rdamedia
338$avideodisc$3rdacarrier
500$aLLDX Genome: Montclair Chaptered 4/12/08.
511$aLiz Lerman Dance Exchange.
518$aMontclair State University, Monclair New Jersey, April 13, 2008.
700 1 $aLerman, Liz,$ecoriographer.
710 2 $aLiz Lerman Dance Exchange,$edancer.
You might consider a 2nd 336 for performed music, if there is a music
sound track.
You could also add to your local record only:
264 3 $a[Baltimore, Maryland?] :$b[Liz Lerman],$c[2013?]
but I would be more inclined to use Liz Lerman in 541 instead, as
immediate source. The copy could have been made anytime after 2008.
I don't like that single dancer on the 710, but the singular/plural
problem existed with GMDs as well; we don't have dancers.
I am puzzeld by the quoted chaptered. Could it be captured, i.e.,
a video of the dress rehearsal the day before performance?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] 2.4.3.3 Parallel statements of responsibility
Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote: But be that as it may: There is indeed an example for a grammatically incomplete s-o-r in the ISBD (which was news to me), and this must give us cause to think again (although of course we know that RDA deviates from the ISBD sometimes). There is also this instruction to consider under ISBD A.3.2.9: When a single statement (e.g. a statement of responsibility) is given partly in one language or script and partly in more than one language or script, the several linguistic forms are transcribed together; equals signs or other punctuation symbols are used as appropriate. Also, I believe there is no counterpart for RDA 1.7.7 in the ISBD (at least I couldn't find one in the general chapter). I had no luck too. ISBD 1.1.5.1 describes transcribing titles exactly as to wording, so there is likely no equivalent to RDA 1.7.7 to be found there. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization of approximately in 300
Arakawa, Steven steven.arak...@yale.edu wrote: Curiously, in AACR2 2.5B7, the initial term in the extent examples is ca. which is now approximately in RDA, but it's ca. not Ca. Was AACR2 being inconsistent with ISBD in the examples? Looks like it. And there are also leaves 81-149 and p. 713-797 under AACR2 2.5B6. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization of approximately in 300
Amanda Sprochi sproc...@health.missouri.edu wrote: I'm working on a shorthand cheat sheet for RDA. My question: in the extent element [300 field in MARC], it says to use the word approximately with an estimation of units if the number cannot be easily ascertained. All of the examples have approximately in lower case: approximately 60 slides approximately 600 pages Granted that RDA doesn't give things in MARC format, but as the first element shouldn't the approximately be capitalized? 300 Approximately 60 slides : $b etc. I agree. Whether separately paragraphed or coming after the publication statement, it is the first word in the area. I should double-check my cheat sheets too. I've found several issues with capitalization in the RDA examples. See also the Place of Publication transcription with opening preposition (near the end of RDA 2.8.2.3) and statements of function for Distributor's Name (RDA 2.9.4.4). Then, compare to the lack of any instruction on capitalization for either of these elements in Appendix A, which I interpret as follow the capitalization rules of the language you're writing in. The ISBD uses uppercase for the former and lowercase for the latter. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator and in cooperation with
Alison Hitchens ahitc...@uwaterloo.ca wrote: Thanks Mac, I may have missed it on the list if there was a discussion that we could use element names as relators. I had RDA-L set to no mail while I was away! I've been going by the LC RDA training modules and they give the example of publisher: Publisher isn't used as an RDA relationship designator because that relationship is an element although in the notes for the slide it says However, there are no RDA police who would object if you used a different vocabulary and added a term such as publisher. (this is from slide 31 of the Relationships module) But those modules were created in the summer so things may have changed since then! Using $e contributor seems clearer than not including a relator term at all since the 700 tag can contain many types of relationships Another way to think of the Appendix I designators is that they are the more specific forms of relationships depicted in Chapters 19-22. Note the headings for each portion of Appendix I and how they link up to the elements in those chapters, e.g.: RDA 21.4 (Distributor) = RDA I.4.3 (Relationship Designators for Distributors) Our use of $e publisher is based on this, rather than the term originating from the relator code lists or elsewhere. So I agree with the practice that if there is no suitable term in Appendix I and/or none can be conjured up from elsewhere (e.g., $4 relator codes) or made up, then bump up one level to the Ch. 19-22 elements. (I've written before about using other (work), etc., designators for those other elements.) The same sort of thing for the Appendix J designators: we've used related work in added entries once in a while. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
Re: [RDA-L] recording production statements
Fox, Chris c...@byui.edu wrote: I'm fine with going with just the date, if there's agreement that it isn't published I was going to comment on this point up-thread, but was waylaid till now. Is the choreographer creating DVDs of the performance for whomever asks for it? If so, this sounds like a print-on-demand scenario, which would lead me to consider this DVD as published, though for a very select audience. I guess if you're not sure, stick with unpublished and catalog the disc as a one-off. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date
Michael Borries posted:
I have wondered whether originally the approach of separating
publication date and copyright date didn't arise, in part, at least,
from this phenomenon of having books published earlier than the
copyright date indicates.
I don't think so. Both rules and standards say to ignore those early
arrivals. I prefer to think of the publication date being the
copyring date (if no publication date given on the item), and the
early arrivals to be early distribution as opposed to publication.
The distinction is more helpful for items published some time after
copyright.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
