[RDA-L] Creators of museum catalogs

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

Talking about creators: One thing I find very puzzling is the treatment 
of collections in a museum. Maybe I only have these problems because the 
German rules for main entry for corporate bodies are completely 
different from the Anglo-American tradition. So, perhaps you can help me 
here.


Bowman says in his "Essential cataloguing" (which was the very first 
book on AACR2 I ever read), p. 100: "What happens if the item falls 
under rule 21.1B2 but also appears to have a personal author? The rules 
tell us nothing in themselves, but the answer becomes apparent when you 
start to look at the examples that follow. From these it becomes obvious 
that entry under corporate body, if it applies, takes precedence over 
personal authorship. This means that, for example, a catalogue of a 
collection in a particular museum, provided that it emanates from the 
museum, will be entered under the heading for the museum even if it has 
a personal author."


He gives the following example:
Pre-Raphaelite drawings in the British museum / J.A. Gere
Main entry is under the British museum, with an added entry for Gere.

So far, so good. But now when I look at RDA 19.2.1.3, there is a very 
similar example under "Works of an administrative nature":


Furniture from British India and Ceylon : a catalogue of the collections 
in the Victoria and Albert Museum and the Peabody Essex Museum / Amin 
Jaffer ; assisted in Salem by Karina Corrigan and with a contribution by 
Robin D. Jones ; photographs by Mike Kitcatt, Markham Sexton and Jeffrey 
Dykes. --- Salem, Massachusetts : Peabody Essex Museum


The creators are given as:
Victoria and Albert Museum
Peabody Essex Museum

Now, I don't have a problem with the fact that the museums are seen as 
creators. But I don't understand why there is no third creator, namely 
the personal author Amin Jaffer. Shouldn't this also be a case of 
"persons, families, or corporate bodies [being] jointly responsible for 
the creation of a work" (19.2.1.1)? I don't see how this case is any 
different from others where the creators perform different roles.


My speculation is that perhaps in RDA's system it is simply not possible 
for a corporate body and a person to work together as creators, i.e. 
that 19.2.1.1 should be read as "*either* more than one person *or* more 
than one family *or* more than one corporate body jointly responsible 
for the creation of a work". But if this is the case, then it should 
have been clearly stated. Also, I really can't see a reason why it 
shouldn't be possible to have a collaboration of a corporate body and a 
person in the creation of a work.


And there is another question: If Amin Jaffer or J.A. Gere in Bowman's 
example are not considered to be creators, then what else could they be? 
My feeling is that their contribution is at the level of the work, and 
not at expression level. So the only possibility would be to consider 
them as "other persons associated with a work" (19.3.1), i.e. grouping 
them with "persons, etc., to whom correspondence is addressed, persons, 
etc., honoured by a festschrift, directors, cinematographers, sponsoring 
bodies, production companies, institutions, etc., hosting an exhibition 
or event, etc." This really doesn't seem suitable at all.


Or should they be seen as contributors (i.e. on expression level) after 
all? If so, which relationship designator could be used?


Any ideas?

Heidrun

--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Facultäy of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Re: [RDA-L] Relator term for "as told to"

[John Hostage]

"As told to" is a common formulation on books from prominent people.  The 
person the story was told to is kind of like a ghostwriter, except their 
identity is not hidden.  I would definitely consider them a creator, but it's 
hard to tell from the title page how extensive their role was.  This is an 
example of the kind of minutiae we get into when we try to assign relationship 
designators to everything.  Is it worth it?

--
John Hostage 
Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian //
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services //
Langdell Hall 194 //
Cambridge, MA 02138 
host...@law.harvard.edu 
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) 
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)


> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun
> Wiesenmüller
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 15:34
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relator term for "as told to"
> 
> I haven't seen the book, so I'm not certain about the exact nature of Libby
> Kopolen's contribution. Does she act like some sort of interviewer, asking
> questions? Then I would agree that she should be seen as another author.
> 
> But if she's really only the person the story is told to, then I find it hard 
> to
> think of her as a creator. Wouldn't it rather be something from RDA 19.3
> (other person, family or corporate body associated with a work)? In
> Appendix I.2.2. there is a relationship designator for "addressee". Perhaps
> that would come at least close.
> 
> I noticed that there is an example of "as told to" in 19.2.1.3 ("Aaron, r.f." 
> / by
> Henry Aaron as told to Furman Bisher), where both persons are seen as
> creators, but I assume that Furman Bisher did somewhat more than just
> listening (probably he was the one to put Aaron's autobiography into an
> actual text). RDA should definitely give more information here; as it stands
> the example is difficult to interpret.
> 
> Heidrun
> 

Re: [RDA-L] Relator term for "as told to"

[J. McRee Elrod]

Nancy Braman posted:

>The house
>Baba built
>An artist's childhood in China
>Text as told to Libby Kopolen
>Ed Young

For Kopolen we would use:

ivr   Interviewer

and for Young:
 
ive   Interviewee

These codes (without the words) would go in $4, or the words (lower
case and withouth the code) would go in $e.

We would code Young as 100, Kopolen as 700.  

Some might propose aut or author for both, but the interviewer /
interviewee (often used for oral history) seem more exact to me.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] Relator term for "as told to"

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

Postscriptum: I just found some more information on the book, and it 
said: "Young’s creation, shaped with help from author Libby Koponen, (...)".


So probably it is really the best thing to treat them both as creators 
and use "author" in both cases, although Koponen's contribution is here 
described as something of secondary importance.


It would indeed be good to have more exact relationship designators for 
cases like this.


Heidrun



I wrote:
I haven't seen the book, so I'm not certain about the exact nature of 
Libby Kopolen's contribution. Does she act like some sort of 
interviewer, asking questions? Then I would agree that she should be 
seen as another author.


But if she's really only the person the story is told to, then I find 
it hard to think of her as a creator. Wouldn't it rather be something 
from RDA 19.3 (other person, family or corporate body associated with 
a work)? In Appendix I.2.2. there is a relationship designator for 
"addressee". Perhaps that would come at least close.


I noticed that there is an example of "as told to" in 19.2.1.3 
(“Aaron, r.f.” / by Henry Aaron as told to Furman Bisher), where both 
persons are seen as creators, but I assume that Furman Bisher did 
somewhat more than just listening (probably he was the one to put 
Aaron's autobiography into an actual text). RDA should definitely give 
more information here; as it stands the example is difficult to 
interpret.


Heidrun




Bernadette Mary O'Reilly wrote:

I would use author for both the teller and the person told to, since
they both make creator-level contributions to a work that is primarily
textual in content.

The examples in 19.2.1.3 for two or more entities responsible for the
creation of the work performing different roles show that both should be
regarded as creators, and both roles, although different, satisfy the
criteria for 'author'.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if relators were added to all the examples in
chapters 19 & 20, so that we had authoritative guidance for a good range
of situations?  Currently there is no tie-up at all between these
chapters and Appendix I.  Why do we need 3 examples for "harmonizer for"
in 20, when there is no relator in Appendix I for harmonizer?

Best wishes,
Bernadette

***
Bernadette O'Reilly
Catalogue Support Librarian
01865 2-77134
Bodleian Libraries,
Osney One Building
Osney Mead
Oxford OX2 0EW.
***


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Nancy Braman
Sent: 02 May 2013 17:30
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Relator term for "as told to"

What is the proper term for the person named in "text as told to..."?
I've looked through the first draft and the MARC list and can't find
anything appropriate.

If it helps, the title page (in all caps in the book) reads as follows:

The house
Baba built
An artist's childhood in China
Text as told to Libby Kopolen
Ed Young

Since she's not the author or illustrator, it's not really clear (at
least to me) what her role is.  Should I just enter her at 700 without a
relator?

Thank you in advance,
Nancy

--
Nancy Braman
Library Technician, Teachers' Resource Centre Cape Breton-Victoria
Regional School Board
902-794-6226
"Lead life so that you would not be ashamed to sell the family parrot to
the town gossip."--Will Rogers






--
-
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] Relator term for "as told to"

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

I haven't seen the book, so I'm not certain about the exact nature of 
Libby Kopolen's contribution. Does she act like some sort of 
interviewer, asking questions? Then I would agree that she should be 
seen as another author.


But if she's really only the person the story is told to, then I find it 
hard to think of her as a creator. Wouldn't it rather be something from 
RDA 19.3 (other person, family or corporate body associated with a 
work)? In Appendix I.2.2. there is a relationship designator for 
"addressee". Perhaps that would come at least close.


I noticed that there is an example of "as told to" in 19.2.1.3 (“Aaron, 
r.f.” / by Henry Aaron as told to Furman Bisher), where both persons are 
seen as creators, but I assume that Furman Bisher did somewhat more than 
just listening (probably he was the one to put Aaron's autobiography 
into an actual text). RDA should definitely give more information here; 
as it stands the example is difficult to interpret.


Heidrun




Bernadette Mary O'Reilly wrote:

I would use author for both the teller and the person told to, since
they both make creator-level contributions to a work that is primarily
textual in content.

The examples in 19.2.1.3 for two or more entities responsible for the
creation of the work performing different roles show that both should be
regarded as creators, and both roles, although different, satisfy the
criteria for 'author'.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if relators were added to all the examples in
chapters 19 & 20, so that we had authoritative guidance for a good range
of situations?  Currently there is no tie-up at all between these
chapters and Appendix I.  Why do we need 3 examples for "harmonizer for"
in 20, when there is no relator in Appendix I for harmonizer?

Best wishes,
Bernadette

***
Bernadette O'Reilly
Catalogue Support Librarian
01865 2-77134
Bodleian Libraries,
Osney One Building
Osney Mead
Oxford OX2 0EW.
***


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Nancy Braman
Sent: 02 May 2013 17:30
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Relator term for "as told to"

What is the proper term for the person named in "text as told to..."?
I've looked through the first draft and the MARC list and can't find
anything appropriate.

If it helps, the title page (in all caps in the book) reads as follows:

The house
Baba built
An artist's childhood in China
Text as told to Libby Kopolen
Ed Young

Since she's not the author or illustrator, it's not really clear (at
least to me) what her role is.  Should I just enter her at 700 without a
relator?

Thank you in advance,
Nancy

--
Nancy Braman
Library Technician, Teachers' Resource Centre Cape Breton-Victoria
Regional School Board
902-794-6226
"Lead life so that you would not be ashamed to sell the family parrot to
the town gossip."--Will Rogers



--
-
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] Readability

[Joan Wang]

Heidrun

Thanks for your reply. My thought is that the purpose of a modification of
punctuations included in a title is to avoid a misunderstanding or
confusion. So it will help users to differentiate a resource from others,
and then make a selection.
When we are doing cataloging, we may not know if similar resources are
existing. But we would do our best to create a description that can
distinguish a resource from others.

I know that my thinking is not so straightforward. It is a kind of curved
:) I did have a struggling time. Most of time we understand that
"differentiation" is to add something to differentiate a resource from
other known resources, such as an addition of dates.

So I might not be right.

If you read explanations for all principles, you will find sentences for
uniformity are not consistent with others. That is something I do not like
:)

Best Regards,
Joan Wang




On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller <
wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote:

>  Joan,
>
> I've just reread the principle of differentiation (0.4.3.1), asking myself
> whether this could somehow be stretched to include the matter of readabiliy
> and the problem of mixing up different kinds of punctuation, but I don't
> think it works. This principle seems to be all about distinguishing between
> different (but similar) resources or other entitities.
>
> Something like the "principle of making things easy for the user" seems to
> be sadly missing from RDA. If we look through 0.4.2.1 "Responsiveness to
> user needs", we find a list of things that users should be able to do with
> our data, but nowhere does it say that they should find it easy to do this
> ;-)
>
> Maybe this is supposed to be self-evident. Still, one wonders why the
> creators of RDA didn't simply borrow the first and highest principle from
> the "Statement of international cataloguing principles": "Convenience of
> the user. Decisions taken in the making of descriptions and controlled
> forms of names for access should be made with the user in mind."
> http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/cataloguing/icp/icp_2009-en.pdf
>
> I'd always assumed that RDA's "responsiveness to user needs" was the
> equivalent to this "convenience of the user". But now that I look more
> closely, I find that the Statement of international cataloguing principles
> expresses this idea in a much more general and universal way than RDA does.
>
> Heidrun
>
>
>
> Joan wrote:
>
>   I wander if the issue could be covered in the principle of
> differentiation. How do we relate the transcription of punctuations
> included in a title to users' tasks?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Joan Wang
>
> Illinois Heartland Library System
>
>
>  On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller <
> wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote:
>
>>  Ben,
>>
>> I like your emphasis on readabiliy very much.
>>
>> Personally, I'm not much worried that people might mix up punctuation in
>> the source with punctuation prescribed by ISBD, but readability should
>> indeed be an issue. And I absolutely agree that "Wollen, wissen, können" is
>> much easier to read and understand e.g. on a computer screen than the
>> version with full stops (although the latter is quite alright if you see it
>> on a book cover or title page). So, perhaps we really should take some
>> liberties here and invoke the alternative in 1.7.1, whenever we feel that
>> transcribing the punctuation on the source in an exact way wouldn't much
>> help our users. (By the way: Many discussion here on the list make me
>> wonder whether I'm simply taking RDA instructions too seriously ...).
>>
>> My impression with RDA, however, is that readability is not a high
>> priority, although "Responsiveness to user needs" is given as the first
>> objective (0.4.2.1). Note that there is no explicit mentioning here of
>> readability. Maybe we could argue with the principle of "accuracy"
>> (0.4.3.5), which asks us to "provide supplementary information to correct
>> or clarify ambiguous, unintelligible, or misleading representations made on
>> sources of information forming part of the resource itself" (I think that
>> this principle is aimed at other cases, though). But on the whole, I feel
>> that the principle of representation stated in 0.4.3.4. ("The data
>> describing a resource should reflect the resource’s representation of
>> itself.") trumps matters of readability in RDA.
>>
>> By the way, here is another real life example of interesting punctuation,
>> in a statement of responsibility. The source of information reads:
>> Gerd Macke/Ulrike Hanke/Pauline Viehmann
>>
>> I'd say that the standard rule in 1.7.3 requires us to transcribe the
>> slashes as they are presented on the source. But again, we could probably
>> argue with readability (and also perhaps the danger of mixing up
>> transcribed and prescribed punctuation), apply the alternative in 1.7.1,
>> and simply give this as:
>> Gerd Macke, Ulrike Hanke, Pauline Viehmann
>>
>> Heidrun
>>
>>
>> Benj

Re: [RDA-L] Readability

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

"Something like the "principle of making things easy for the user" seems to be 
sadly missing from RDA. If we look through 0.4.2.1 "Responsiveness to user 
needs", we find a list of things that users should be able to do with our data, 
but nowhere does it say that they should find it easy to do this "

See: Ranganathan's 5 Laws of Library Science, #4: "Save the time of the user."
:)

--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 Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 3:07 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Readability

Joan,

I've just reread the principle of differentiation (0.4.3.1), asking myself 
whether this could somehow be stretched to include the matter of readabiliy and 
the problem of mixing up different kinds of punctuation, but I don't think it 
works. This principle seems to be all about distinguishing between different 
(but similar) resources or other entitities.

Something like the "principle of making things easy for the user" seems to be 
sadly missing from RDA. If we look through 0.4.2.1 "Responsiveness to user 
needs", we find a list of things that users should be able to do with our data, 
but nowhere does it say that they should find it easy to do this ;-)

Maybe this is supposed to be self-evident. Still, one wonders why the creators 
of RDA didn't simply borrow the first and highest principle from the "Statement 
of international cataloguing principles": "Convenience of the user. Decisions 
taken in the making of descriptions and controlled forms of names for access 
should be made with the user in mind."
http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/cataloguing/icp/icp_2009-en.pdf

I'd always assumed that RDA's "responsiveness to user needs" was the equivalent 
to this "convenience of the user". But now that I look more closely, I find 
that the Statement of international cataloguing principles expresses this idea 
in a much more general and universal way than RDA does.

Heidrun



Joan wrote:
I wander if the issue could be covered in the principle of differentiation. How 
do we relate the transcription of punctuations included in a title to users' 
tasks?
Thanks,
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller 
mailto:wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de>> wrote:
Ben,

I like your emphasis on readabiliy very much.

Personally, I'm not much worried that people might mix up punctuation in the 
source with punctuation prescribed by ISBD, but readability should indeed be an 
issue. And I absolutely agree that "Wollen, wissen, können" is much easier to 
read and understand e.g. on a computer screen than the version with full stops 
(although the latter is quite alright if you see it on a book cover or title 
page). So, perhaps we really should take some liberties here and invoke the 
alternative in 1.7.1, whenever we feel that transcribing the punctuation on the 
source in an exact way wouldn't much help our users. (By the way: Many 
discussion here on the list make me wonder whether I'm simply taking RDA 
instructions too seriously ...).

My impression with RDA, however, is that readability is not a high priority, 
although "Responsiveness to user needs" is given as the first objective 
(0.4.2.1). Note that there is no explicit mentioning here of readability. Maybe 
we could argue with the principle of "accuracy" (0.4.3.5), which asks us to 
"provide supplementary information to correct or clarify ambiguous, 
unintelligible, or misleading representations made on sources of information 
forming part of the resource itself" (I think that this principle is aimed at 
other cases, though). But on the whole, I feel that the principle of 
representation stated in 0.4.3.4. ("The data describing a resource should 
reflect the resource's representation of itself.") trumps matters of 
readability in RDA.

By the way, here is another real life example of interesting punctuation, in a 
statement of responsibility. The source of information reads:
Gerd Macke/Ulrike Hanke/Pauline Viehmann

I'd say that the standard rule in 1.7.3 requires us to transcribe the slashes 
as they are presented on the source. But again, we could probably argue with 
readability (and also perhaps the danger of mixing up transcribed and 
prescribed punctuation), apply the alternative in 1.7.1, and simply give this 
as:
Gerd Macke, Ulrike Hanke, Pauline Viehmann

Heidrun


Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:

My earlier justification for replacing periods with commas is perhaps a bit too 
clever.



Though in ISBD, I agree, it's pretty unambiguous that both title and part-title 
(or, dependent title) are part of the same ISBD element "title proper" (they 
are "sub-elements" though ISBD doesn't use that term), it's less clear to me 
what RDA means by the instruction to "

Re: [RDA-L] Readability

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

Joan,

I've just reread the principle of differentiation (0.4.3.1), asking 
myself whether this could somehow be stretched to include the matter of 
readabiliy and the problem of mixing up different kinds of punctuation, 
but I don't think it works. This principle seems to be all about 
distinguishing between different (but similar) resources or other 
entitities.


Something like the "principle of making things easy for the user" seems 
to be sadly missing from RDA. If we look through 0.4.2.1 "Responsiveness 
to user needs", we find a list of things that users should be able to do 
with our data, but nowhere does it say that they should find it easy to 
do this ;-)


Maybe this is supposed to be self-evident. Still, one wonders why the 
creators of RDA didn't simply borrow the first and highest principle 
from the "Statement of international cataloguing principles": 
"Convenience of the user. Decisions taken in the making of descriptions 
and controlled forms of names for access should be made with the user in 
mind."

http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/cataloguing/icp/icp_2009-en.pdf

I'd always assumed that RDA's "responsiveness to user needs" was the 
equivalent to this "convenience of the user". But now that I look more 
closely, I find that the Statement of international cataloguing 
principles expresses this idea in a much more general and universal way 
than RDA does.


Heidrun



Joan wrote:

I wander if the issue could be covered in the principle of 
differentiation. How do we relate the transcription of punctuations 
included in a title to users' tasks?


Thanks,

Joan Wang

Illinois Heartland Library System

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller 
> wrote:


Ben,

I like your emphasis on readabiliy very much.

Personally, I'm not much worried that people might mix up
punctuation in the source with punctuation prescribed by ISBD, but
readability should indeed be an issue. And I absolutely agree that
"Wollen, wissen, können" is much easier to read and understand
e.g. on a computer screen than the version with full stops
(although the latter is quite alright if you see it on a book
cover or title page). So, perhaps we really should take some
liberties here and invoke the alternative in 1.7.1, whenever we
feel that transcribing the punctuation on the source in an exact
way wouldn't much help our users. (By the way: Many discussion
here on the list make me wonder whether I'm simply taking RDA
instructions too seriously ...).

My impression with RDA, however, is that readability is not a high
priority, although "Responsiveness to user needs" is given as the
first objective (0.4.2.1). Note that there is no explicit
mentioning here of readability. Maybe we could argue with the
principle of "accuracy" (0.4.3.5), which asks us to "provide
supplementary information to correct or clarify ambiguous,
unintelligible, or misleading representations made on sources of
information forming part of the resource itself" (I think that
this principle is aimed at other cases, though). But on the whole,
I feel that the principle of representation stated in 0.4.3.4.
("The data describing a resource should reflect the resource’s
representation of itself.") trumps matters of readability in RDA.

By the way, here is another real life example of interesting
punctuation, in a statement of responsibility. The source of
information reads:
Gerd Macke/Ulrike Hanke/Pauline Viehmann

I'd say that the standard rule in 1.7.3 requires us to transcribe
the slashes as they are presented on the source. But again, we
could probably argue with readability (and also perhaps the danger
of mixing up transcribed and prescribed punctuation), apply the
alternative in 1.7.1, and simply give this as:
Gerd Macke, Ulrike Hanke, Pauline Viehmann

Heidrun


Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:

My earlier justification for replacing periods with commas is perhaps a bit 
too clever.

Though in ISBD, I agree, it's pretty unambiguous that both title and part-title (or, dependent title) are part of 
the same ISBD element "title proper" (they are "sub-elements" though ISBD doesn't use that term), 
it's less clear to me what RDA means by the instruction to "[omit] punctuation on the source that separates data 
to be recorded as one element from data to be recorded as a different element, or as a second or subsequent instance of 
an element."  If they meant specifically "ISBD elements" they should have said so.

The instructions at 2.3.1.7 certainly seems to treat title and part title as 
independent elements ("if these two titles are grammatically independent of each 
other, record the common title, followed by the title of the part, section, or 
supplement. Disregard the order in which the parts of the title are presented on the 
source of information

Re: [RDA-L] FW: NACO question--qualifying conference names

[Gene Fieg]

Whatever it calls itself
And make a xref from name (Conference) to the 1XX name (symposium)


On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:

>  I sent this email to the pcc list almost three hours ago and it hasn't
> distributed. Maybe it got "sequestered"??
>
> ** **
>
> Anyways, if anyone has a good answer to my question below I'd appreciate
> it.
>
> ** **
>
> --Ben
>
> ** **
>
> Benjamin Abrahamse
>
> Cataloging Coordinator
>
> Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
>
> MIT Libraries
>
> 617-253-7137
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Benjamin A Abrahamse
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 02, 2013 11:12 AM
> *To:* 'Program for Cooperative Cataloging'
> *Subject:* NACO question--qualifying conference names
>
> ** **
>
> RDA 11.13.1.2 states, "If the preferred name for the body does not convey
> the idea of a corporate body, add a suitable designation. Add the
> designation in a language preferred by the agency creating the data".  This
> presumably applies to conference headings as well.  I have a conference
> whose name, as formally presented, does not include the word "conference"
> or any similar designation; however it is referred to elsewhere in its
> proceedings as "the symposium" (not capitalized).
>
> ** **
>
> Would it be preferable to establish the name as:
>
> ** **
>
> Name (Conference)
>
> ** **
>
> or
>
> ** **
>
> Name (Symposium)
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,
> Ben
>
> ** **
>
> Benjamin Abrahamse
>
> Cataloging Coordinator
>
> Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
>
> MIT Libraries
>
> 617-253-7137
>
> ** **
>



-- 
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.

[RDA-L] FW: NACO question--qualifying conference names

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

I sent this email to the pcc list almost three hours ago and it hasn't 
distributed. Maybe it got "sequestered"??

Anyways, if anyone has a good answer to my question below I'd appreciate it.

--Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

From: Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 11:12 AM
To: 'Program for Cooperative Cataloging'
Subject: NACO question--qualifying conference names

RDA 11.13.1.2 states, "If the preferred name for the body does not convey the 
idea of a corporate body, add a suitable designation. Add the designation in a 
language preferred by the agency creating the data".  This presumably applies 
to conference headings as well.  I have a conference whose name, as formally 
presented, does not include the word "conference" or any similar designation; 
however it is referred to elsewhere in its proceedings as "the symposium" (not 
capitalized).

Would it be preferable to establish the name as:

Name (Conference)

or

Name (Symposium)



Thanks,
Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

Re: [RDA-L] Relator term for "as told to"

[Joan Wang]

I am not sure if we can use a term: teller.  I got a similar situation. A
book is told by A, translated by B, and proofread by C. There might be a
better term. I feel that my vocabulary is a kind of limited in this regard.

Thanks,
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System


On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Bernadette Mary O'Reilly <
bernadette.orei...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk> wrote:

> I would use author for both the teller and the person told to, since
> they both make creator-level contributions to a work that is primarily
> textual in content.
>
> The examples in 19.2.1.3 for two or more entities responsible for the
> creation of the work performing different roles show that both should be
> regarded as creators, and both roles, although different, satisfy the
> criteria for 'author'.
>
> Wouldn't it be wonderful if relators were added to all the examples in
> chapters 19 & 20, so that we had authoritative guidance for a good range
> of situations?  Currently there is no tie-up at all between these
> chapters and Appendix I.  Why do we need 3 examples for "harmonizer for"
> in 20, when there is no relator in Appendix I for harmonizer?
>
> Best wishes,
> Bernadette
>
> ***
> Bernadette O'Reilly
> Catalogue Support Librarian
> 01865 2-77134
> Bodleian Libraries,
> Osney One Building
> Osney Mead
> Oxford OX2 0EW.
> ***
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Nancy Braman
> Sent: 02 May 2013 17:30
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: [RDA-L] Relator term for "as told to"
>
> What is the proper term for the person named in "text as told to..."?
> I've looked through the first draft and the MARC list and can't find
> anything appropriate.
>
> If it helps, the title page (in all caps in the book) reads as follows:
>
> The house
> Baba built
> An artist's childhood in China
> Text as told to Libby Kopolen
> Ed Young
>
> Since she's not the author or illustrator, it's not really clear (at
> least to me) what her role is.  Should I just enter her at 700 without a
> relator?
>
> Thank you in advance,
> Nancy
>
> --
> Nancy Braman
> Library Technician, Teachers' Resource Centre Cape Breton-Victoria
> Regional School Board
> 902-794-6226
> "Lead life so that you would not be ashamed to sell the family parrot to
> the town gossip."--Will Rogers
>



-- 
Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D.
Cataloger -- CMC
Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office)
6725 Goshen Road
Edwardsville, IL 62025
618.656.3216x409
618.656.9401Fax

Re: [RDA-L] Relator term for "as told to"

[Bernadette Mary O'Reilly]

I would use author for both the teller and the person told to, since
they both make creator-level contributions to a work that is primarily
textual in content.

The examples in 19.2.1.3 for two or more entities responsible for the
creation of the work performing different roles show that both should be
regarded as creators, and both roles, although different, satisfy the
criteria for 'author'.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if relators were added to all the examples in
chapters 19 & 20, so that we had authoritative guidance for a good range
of situations?  Currently there is no tie-up at all between these
chapters and Appendix I.  Why do we need 3 examples for "harmonizer for"
in 20, when there is no relator in Appendix I for harmonizer?

Best wishes,
Bernadette

*** 
Bernadette O'Reilly 
Catalogue Support Librarian 
01865 2-77134 
Bodleian Libraries, 
Osney One Building
Osney Mead
Oxford OX2 0EW.
*** 


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Nancy Braman
Sent: 02 May 2013 17:30
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Relator term for "as told to"

What is the proper term for the person named in "text as told to..."?
I've looked through the first draft and the MARC list and can't find
anything appropriate.

If it helps, the title page (in all caps in the book) reads as follows:

The house
Baba built
An artist's childhood in China
Text as told to Libby Kopolen
Ed Young

Since she's not the author or illustrator, it's not really clear (at
least to me) what her role is.  Should I just enter her at 700 without a
relator?

Thank you in advance,
Nancy

--
Nancy Braman
Library Technician, Teachers' Resource Centre Cape Breton-Victoria
Regional School Board
902-794-6226
"Lead life so that you would not be ashamed to sell the family parrot to
the town gossip."--Will Rogers

[RDA-L] Relator term for "as told to"

[Nancy Braman]

What is the proper term for the person named in "text as told to..."?
I've looked through the first draft and the MARC list and can't find  
anything appropriate.


If it helps, the title page (in all caps in the book) reads as follows:

The house
Baba built
An artist's childhood in China
Text as told to Libby Kopolen
Ed Young

Since she's not the author or illustrator, it's not really clear (at  
least to me) what her role is.  Should I just enter her at 700 without  
a relator?


Thank you in advance,
Nancy

--
Nancy Braman
Library Technician, Teachers' Resource Centre
Cape Breton-Victoria Regional School Board
902-794-6226
"Lead life so that you would not be ashamed to sell the family parrot to the
town gossip."--Will Rogers

Re: [RDA-L] Annoucement of 2013 JSC meeting; revised documents posted

[Gene Fieg]

Read the changes.  Little hard to read them without context, the rest of
the text.
Question: what happens to a preferred access point if that person is
knighted subsequent to his/her being established as a preferred access
point.  xref?


On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 7:54 AM, JSC Secretary
wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
>
> (1)  JSC 2013 meeting:
>
> The 2013 meeting of the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA
> (JSC) will be the week of November 4-9, 2013, in Washington, D.C., USA.
>
> The deadline for proposals for this November 2013 meeting is August 5,
> 2013.
>
> Proposals for revision of RDA instructions emanating from within the
> author countries of RDA should be submitted through their respective
> constituent bodies of JSC. Proposals for revision of RDA instructions
> emanating from outside the author countries of RDA should be submitted to
> *Barbara Tillett, Chair of the JSC*. 
>
> Completed proposals are posted in the *constituency proposals 
> section*of this web site 
> as they are received.
>
> Constituency responses to the new proposals are due October 5, 2013.
>
>
> (2)  Documents recently posted on the JSC web site to correct
> mis-numbering of sub-instructions in RDA 9.19:
> 6JSC/BL/3/Rev/Sec 
> final/rev/2
> 6JSC/BL/4/Sec 
> final/rev
> 6JSC/LC/12/rev/Sec 
> final/rev
>
>
>
> Regards, Judy Kuhagen
> JSC Secretary
>



-- 
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.

[RDA-L] Annoucement of 2013 JSC meeting; revised documents posted

[JSC Secretary]

Dear colleagues,

(1)  JSC 2013 meeting:

The 2013 meeting of the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA
(JSC) will be the week of November 4-9, 2013, in Washington, D.C., USA.

The deadline for proposals for this November 2013 meeting is August 5, 2013.

Proposals for revision of RDA instructions emanating from within the author
countries of RDA should be submitted through their respective constituent
bodies of JSC. Proposals for revision of RDA instructions emanating from
outside the author countries of RDA should be submitted to *Barbara
Tillett, Chair of the JSC*. 

Completed proposals are posted in the *constituency proposals
section*of this web
site as they are received.

Constituency responses to the new proposals are due October 5, 2013.


(2)  Documents recently posted on the JSC web site to correct mis-numbering
of sub-instructions in RDA 9.19:
6JSC/BL/3/Rev/Sec
final/rev/2
6JSC/BL/4/Sec final/rev
6JSC/LC/12/rev/Sec
final/rev



Regards, Judy Kuhagen
JSC Secretary

Re: [RDA-L] Hole part description

[Bernhard Eversberg]

01.05.2013 05:18, J. McRee Elrod:



What I object to is the assumption that it's the /only legitimate way
of doing it. ...  the title of the whole and the title of the part
are not even stored in the same record ...


We are not fond of 245$a$p.  To me, the UKMARK 248 was a FAR better
way of doing it, and it is unfortunate the British did not fight to
get that into MARC21.



Germans fought and succeeded to get an even better option
for multiparts into MARC21:
  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2007/2007-dp01.html#section12

It makes use of 773 to link part records to the record of the
larger resource (containing the parts).
This was made official in Oct. 2009.

So, the choice is there. Yet no one outside Germany is going to
actually take advantage of it. Although many ILS's might not be
fit to handle it, there is one software in widespread use
in Europe, and it is owned by OCLC.

B.Eversberg