Re: [RDA-L] Human vs. machine use of data

[J. McRee Elrod]

Kevin said:

>What good does the language code in 008/35-37 do?  Or the place of
>publication in 008/15-17?  Or the biography code in 008/34 for books?  
>Or the relief codes in 008/18-21 for maps?

Redundancy is one of the major problems of MARC, dating from when it
was more difficult to access variable field data.  The presence of
this data in fixed fields does *not* replace the need for the data in
a form patrons can read and use.  Having the running time of a DVD in
008/18-20 does not preclude having it in 300 where patrons can see it.

We hope Bibframe will have less redundancy, but not at the expense of
having useful human understandable descriptions.  

In the mean time, 250 is an acceptable work around to get "large
print" where patrons can see it.  Large print is the only text some
patrons can use.  We should have "text (large print)" as an RDA
content term, and a way of displaying media terms (or their meanings)
needs to be developed, but unless and until ...


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

Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print?

[J. McRee Elrod]

Thomas said:


>The edition statement is used to identify the resource in two main ways:
>1. help identifying the manifestation by recording what's on the manifestation 
>(this should be done if "Large print edition" is on the resource).
>2. distinguish the manifestation from similar ones

If the library owns the same title in normal print (the usual
situation in our experience), then 250  $a[Large print version] would
seem a good idea to distinguish the two (point 2 above), if "Large
print edition" does not appear in the item.

If someone wishes to spend the time checking to see if a normal print
version exists, fine.  But it is a large print version whether or not
a normal print version exists.


>008 fixed field -- this generates a Large Print icon and facet term

Excellent!! Were that all public libraries were as fortunate.  Or
should I say so wise?

>650 Large type books

Large print books *are* large print books, not *about* large print
books.  This should be a 655  0, and your OPAC should have a genre
index if it does not.


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

Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print?

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

FRBR user tasks are another way to specify which elements to use.

The edition statement is used to identify the resource in two main ways:
1. help identifying the manifestation by recording what's on the manifestation 
(this should be done if "Large print edition" is on the resource).
2. distinguish the manifestation from similar ones

For the latter case it doesn't make sense to supply in brackets something like 
[Large print edition] because there may not be another edition (some titles 
I've seen, such as from Mills and Boon, I believe have only been printed in 
large print).

The Font Size element on the other hand is used to serve the Select user task, 
in that this is information that a user may seek out, perhaps independent of 
any other consideration, because they are only interested in reading something 
in large print format.

Over the years, our large print catalog records have been treated differently, 
with a period of time when we were applying 245$h[text (large print)], and for 
a while a local indexed field that showed up in some reports and results lists 
in one system (we no longer add this-- there are far too many other ways to 
indicate an item is large print already).

Currently we require:
008 fixed field -- this generates a Large Print icon and facet term; it also 
shows up at the end of a title in the Title Browse index)
300 $a ... (large print) -- this is the current placeholder for the RDA Font 
Size element; 340$n would be its replacement, and I would put that in the Brief 
Display as well
650 Large type books

We do not rely upon the 250 edition statement or the occasional "lg print" that 
appears after ISBNs. Currently I remove the 245$h as this is redundant, and I 
use the opportunity to restore the punctuation (some of our displays suppress 
the 245$h, with the effect being that a piece of punctuation separating 
elements goes missing as well).

For providing assistance to users there is no problem wherever "large print" is 
in the brief display. People aren't scanning the tops of catalog cards 
anymore-- they scroll down a result list, passing over all information. If 
anything, the information at the bottom of our brief display garners a lot of 
attention, and is prime real estate to put information alongside the 
availability count and holds count. I can tell this is the case because every 
so often, when on the reference desk, library users come to me with a slip of 
paper asking me to find a call number in what looks to them like an obscure 
code: "125 p. : ill. ; 23 cm."

Those people have no idea of what the AACR2-based 300 field is about, but they 
are certainly looking at that spot, and would have no problem spotting "large 
print."

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library





From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall 
[k...@northwestern.edu]
Sent: July-31-13 7:23 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print?

Mac Elrod wrote:

> If the item says "Large print edition" seems to me that belongs in
> 250, just as you indicated for "Abridged edition".  Field 340 is far
> too late for identification of the resource.

Yes, it would still be appropriate to record "Large print edition" as an 
edition statement, *if* that's what appeared on the resource.

But field 340 would be where you would record the font size itself as a 
descriptive aspect.

The edition statement, and the fact that the book is in large print, are two 
different things, and they get recorded two different ways.  Just like the 
statement of responsibility, which gets recorded in 245 $c, is a different 
thing from the authorized access point for the creator, which goes into 100.

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
k...@northwestern.edu
(847) 491-2939

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print?

[Kevin M Randall]

Mac Elrod wrote:

> Kevin said:
> 
> >But field 340 would be where you would record the font size itself as a
> >descriptive aspect.
> 
> What does this accomplish for patrons, if 340 is not in brief display?

What good does the language code in 008/35-37 do?  Or the place of publication 
in 008/15-17?  Or the biography code in 008/34 for books?  Or the relief codes 
in 008/18-21 for maps?

These are all things that are recorded in standardized ways so that systems can 
make use of them.  They might be used to drive some kind of display message if 
someone were to design their OPAC that way.  But more likely, they'd be used in 
facets for filtering search results.  If we were to limit our MARC records only 
to those things that show up in brief OPAC displays, we'd be even worse off 
than we already are in terms of the richness of metadata.

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
k...@northwestern.edu
(847) 491-2939

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print?

[J. McRee Elrod]

Kevin said:

>But field 340 would be where you would record the font size itself as a 
>descriptive aspect.

What does this accomplish for patrons, if 340 is not in brief display?

Records have  *purposes*, one of which is to identify for patrons what
they seek.  That an item is large print is more vital than a small
difference in font size, or whether a moving image is 2-D or 3-D (a
difference which is covered by RDA content terms).

Granted the 250 for large print is a work around for an RDA lacuna.


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

Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print?

[Kevin M Randall]

Mac Elrod wrote:

> If the item says "Large print edition" seems to me that belongs in
> 250, just as you indicated for "Abridged edition".  Field 340 is far
> too late for identification of the resource.

Yes, it would still be appropriate to record "Large print edition" as an 
edition statement, *if* that's what appeared on the resource.

But field 340 would be where you would record the font size itself as a 
descriptive aspect.

The edition statement, and the fact that the book is in large print, are two 
different things, and they get recorded two different ways.  Just like the 
statement of responsibility, which gets recorded in 245 $c, is a different 
thing from the authorized access point for the creator, which goes into 100.

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
k...@northwestern.edu
(847) 491-2939

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print?

[J. McRee Elrod]

Deborah said:

>But we need to think of data as data, now more than ever. Font size is a
>particular type of data. If the text in a book is 'large print' then 0.4.3.1
>and 0.4.3.2 principles guide us to add that data, but we need to add it as
>the correct Font size element (in MARC 300$a or 340$n), not as a Designation
>of Edition (in MARC 250$a)

If the item says "Large print edition" seems to me that belongs in
250, just as you indicated for "Abridged edition".  Field 340 is far
too late for identification of the resource.


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

Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print?

[Deborah Fritz]

If the cataloguer is following RDA, then they will be referencing the
patrons needs at all times:
- 0.4.3.1 Differentiation says that the data that we provide about a
resource, should be enough to allow a user to tell the difference between
similar resources
- 0.4.3.2 Sufficiency says that the data that we provide about a resource,
should be enough to allow a user to select the exact resource that he wants
-  0.4.3.4 Representation says that the data that we provide about a
resource, should mirror what is on the resource as closely as possible (put
down what you see)

But we need to think of data as data, now more than ever. Font size is a
particular type of data. If the text in a book is 'large print' then 0.4.3.1
and 0.4.3.2 principles guide us to add that data, but we need to add it as
the correct Font size element (in MARC 300$a or 340$n), not as a Designation
of Edition (in MARC 250$a); even though this is not a core element, we
(catalogers) know this is a necessary element for differentiation and
sufficiency. 

So, I'm wondering if there is a real reason why the records that Kristen
found did not have this data. Kristen, could you send me the LCCNs of a few
examples, and (if at all possible) a scan of the source on at least one of
the resources that told you that it was large print. Remember that RDA is
all about representation, so it really does help sometimes, when trying to
get to the bottom of things, if we can see an image of the resource in
question.

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: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 2:39 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print?

Kristen Northrup posted:

>I guess my real question is why so many catalogers are now skipping 
>both the 250 and the 300 [large print] phrase for these records.

Perhaps because the WEMI and fuzzy language make RDA difficult to apply?
Perhaps because too many cataloguers are attempting to follow the rules,
without reference to patron needs?


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

Re: [RDA-L] Content notes

[Arakawa, Steven]

I believe there are guidelines in LC PCC PS 25.1.1.3?

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 Don Charuk
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 11:36 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Content notes

We are trying to find the specific rule that provides instruction on how to 
record chapter headings as part of a 505 note. (Cataloguers want/demand 
specific rule numbers) We are certain it does not fall under Chapters 25, 26 
and 27. We are to presume it comes under rule 7.10. but, this rule seems to 
address notes code in the 520 tag. 

Thank you

Don Charuk
Cataloguer
Toronto Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Content notes

[Adam L. Schiff]

There is no specific rule for this. But the basic instructions on 
recording contents notes are in 24.4.3 - contents notes are a form of 
structured description. 25.1.1.3 has examples of contents notes, but no 
instructions on how to formulate them.



On Wed, 31 Jul 2013, Don Charuk wrote:


Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 11:35:49 -0400
From: Don Charuk 
Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access

To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Content notes

We are trying to find the specific rule that provides instruction on how to 
record chapter headings as part of a 505 note. (Cataloguers want/demand 
specific rule numbers) We are certain it does not fall under Chapters 25, 26 
and 27. We are to presume it comes under rule 7.10. but, this rule seems to 
address notes code in the 520 tag.

Thank you

Don Charuk
Cataloguer
Toronto Public Library



^^
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
~~

Re: [RDA-L] Content notes

[J. McRee Elrod]

Don Charuk posted:

>We are trying to find the specific rule that provides instruction on how =
>to record chapter headings as part of a 505 note. 


At present, this is more a matter of MARC than of RDA.

We find that if we are recording titles beyond the volume or chapter
level, i.e. detailed parts of volumes or chapters, it is best to use
repeating 505, one for each volume or chapter.  The first 505 would
have indicator 0, subsequent ones 8.

Otherwise, just follow the examples at:

http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd505.html

We ignore the RDA option of nonsentence capitalization.


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

Re: [RDA-L] Edition statements

[J. McRee Elrod]

Tim Watters posted:

>Similarly, identifying abridged vs unabridged audio books is an attribute p=
>atrons strongly seek but RDA does not address at all that I can find. I am =
>wondering if it could go in a bracketed 250?

I'm with Deborah on this one.  Transcribe or supply that abridged edition
statement.

Some over use edition statement I think (we put "Widescreen" in 538,
not 250).  There are times it is very much needed, even if it must be
supplied, e.g., large print, abridged audio books, and e-book
manifestations which differ from the print original and other
e-versions in having added audio/video files.


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

Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print?

[J. McRee Elrod]

Kristen Northrup posted:

>I guess my real question is why so many catalogers are now skipping
>both the 250 and the 300 [large print] phrase for these records.

Perhaps because the WEMI and fuzzy language make RDA difficult to
apply?  Perhaps because too many cataloguers are attempting to follow
the rules, without reference to patron needs?


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

Re: [RDA-L] Content notes

[Gene Fieg]

Meanwhile, why not follow the guidelines in the LCRI to chapter 2 of AACR2
on formal notes:
And also consult a book entitled: Notes for catalogers
Formal Contents Note
Transcribe a formal contents note as follows:
1)  use the appropriate value in indicator 1 of the MARC 21 505 field
(Formatted Contents Note) to indicate the character of the note, e.g.,
"Contents:"; "Incomplete contents:"; "Partial contents:";
2) Record the title proper that appears in the table of contents, unless
another source gives a more authoritative account of the data; however, if
the title appears on the title page, normally use the title page title;
give other title information only when the title proper would be
meaningless without it.
3)  Include a first statement of responsibility (cf.
1.1F)
if it differs in fact from the statement included in the title and
statement of responsibility or edition areas; omit names according to
1.1F5
.
4)  Omit introductions already included in the body of the entry; generally
omit prefatory and similar matter.
5)  For publications in one volume
   a)  omit chapter and section numbering;
   b)  if the extent of the part being listed occupies a disproportionately
large portion of the publication, include the extent within parentheses
after the title (or after the title and statement of responsibility);
record an unnumbered page or leaf within brackets;
   c)  separate the items with a space-dash-space.
6)  For publications in two or more volumes
   a)  give the volume designation that is found on the item, except use
appendix B abbreviations for the terms and substitute arabic numerals for
roman; if there is no abbreviation for the term, give only the number if
the term is long; if the roman numeral is required for clarity, retain it;
separate the volume designation from the title by a period-space;
   b)  if the number of physical volumes differs from the number of
bibliographic volumes, include the number of physical volumes within
parentheses after the title (or after the title and statement of
responsibility);
   c)  if the volumes are of different editions (cf. LCRI
2.2),
include within parentheses edition statements and dates of publication,
distribution, etc., after the title (or title and statement of
responsibility);
   d)  separate each volume with a space-dash-space; if the set is
incomplete, put the space-dash-space before each title (other than the
first) that is being recorded and leave four spaces for the missing volume;
if two or more titles are being transcribed for one volume, apply the
punctuation conventions from
1.1G3such
that the titles by the same person, body, etc., are separated by a
space-semicolon-space and titles by different persons, bodies, etc., are
separated by a period-space.
When some of the volumes in a multipart publication have their own titles
and some of the volumes do not and it is decided to make a formal contents
note, use the statement "[without special title]" to represent the untitled
volumes.


On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:19 AM, JOHN C ATTIG  wrote:

> A contents note is a structured description of a relationship: a listing
> of the parts of the resource being described.  It therefore falls under
> Section 8 of RDA (Chapters 24-28).
>
> There are no instructions in RDA Chapters 24-28 on how to construct a
> structured description of a relationship.  However, there are examples of
> contents notes (look for the relationship designator "contains") in both
> Chapters 25 (works) and 27 (manifestations).
>
> An ALA Task Force has been working on the issue of the "missing"
> instructions for structured descriptions.  They will be submitting a
> discussion paper for consideration at the November 2013 meeting of the
> Joint Steering Committee.  That paper should be posted on or shortly after
> Monday, August 5.
>
> John Attig
> former ALA Representative to the JSC
> Penn State University
> jx...@psu.edu
>
> --
>
> *From: *"Don Charuk" 
> *To: *RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> *Sent: *Wednesday, July 31, 2013 11:35:49 AM
> *Subject: *[RDA-L] Content notes
>
>
> We are trying to find the specific rule that provides instruction on how
> to record chapter headings as part of a 505 note. (Cataloguers want/demand
> specific rule numbers) We are certain it does not fall under Chapters 25,
> 26 and 27. We are to presume it comes under rule 7.10. but, this rule seems
> to address notes code in the 520 tag.

Re: [RDA-L] Content notes

[JOHN C ATTIG]

A contents note is a structured description of a relationship: a listing of the 
parts of the resource being described. It therefore falls under Section 8 of 
RDA (Chapters 24-28). 

There are no instructions in RDA Chapters 24-28 on how to construct a 
structured description of a relationship. However, there are examples of 
contents notes (look for the relationship designator "contains") in both 
Chapters 25 (works) and 27 (manifestations). 

An ALA Task Force has been working on the issue of the "missing" instructions 
for structured descriptions. They will be submitting a discussion paper for 
consideration at the November 2013 meeting of the Joint Steering Committee. 
That paper should be posted on or shortly after Monday, August 5. 

John Attig 
former ALA Representative to the JSC 
Penn State University 
jx...@psu.edu 

- Original Message -

| From: "Don Charuk" 
| To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
| Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 11:35:49 AM
| Subject: [RDA-L] Content notes

| We are trying to find the specific rule that provides instruction on
| how to record chapter headings as part of a 505 note. (Cataloguers
| want/demand specific rule numbers) We are certain it does not fall
| under Chapters 25, 26 and 27. We are to presume it comes under rule
| 7.10. but, this rule seems to address notes code in the 520 tag.

| Thank you

| Don Charuk
| Cataloguer
| Toronto Public Library

[RDA-L] honouree vs. honoree

[Dana Van Meter]

I know there is an LC-PCC PS stating to use the American spelling of
color, but don't see any such LC-PCC PS for the spelling of the
relationship designator honouree.  Doing a keyword search for rda and
honouree in a personal name yields 282 hits in LC's catalog, but doing the
same search with honoree yields 24 hits. Most of the 24 records have an
040 with only DLC in it, however many of these are In Process.  We get a
lot of Feschrifts at my institution, so while it appears honouree is the
predominately used spelling (and indeed the spelling in RDA), I'm just
wondering if anyone knows if LC or PCC has looked at the spelling of
honouree and if there might be a PS in the future saying to use the
spelling honoree.

 

 

Thanks,

 

Dana Van Meter

Cataloging Librarian

Historical Studies-Social Science Library

Institute for Advanced Study

Princeton, NJ 08540

vanme...@ias.edu

 

 

 

[RDA-L] JSC web site: additional documents posted

[JSC Secretary]

I've posted the following additional documents for the November 2013 JSC
meeting on the public web site (http://www.rda-jsc.org/workingnew.html):

6JSC/BL/11  (Revision of RDA 11.4 and 11.13 and Glossary)

6JSC/LC/23  (Language of the Family (10.8))
6JSC/LC/26  (Changes to instructions on liturgical works (6.30.1.5))

6JSC/ISBD/Discussion/1 and 2/JSC response/ISBDRG response  (ISBD Review
Group response to JSC Response to the two Discussion Papers from the ISBD
Review Group)



Regards, Judy Kuhagen
JSC Secretary

Re: [RDA-L] Request for review of standards for ETDs in RDA

[Laurence S. Creider]

Would you be willing to share your document once you have finalized it? 
We are slowly moving towards ETD, and it sounds like your document would
be quite helpful.

Thank you,
Larry Creider
-- 
Laurence S. Creider
Head, Archives and Special Collections Dept.
University Library
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM  88003
Work: 575-646-4756
Fax: 575-646-7477
lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu

On Wed, July 31, 2013 9:31 am, MCCUTCHEON, SEVIM wrote:
> I've been part of a small task group formed by the OhioLINK consortium (a
> consortium primarily of academic libraries in Ohio) working on updating
> standards from AACR2 to RDA for ETDs.
>
> We have a document we believe is final or very close to it.  However, we'd
> appreciate extra sets of eyes to confirm where contents are correct,
> and/or  and point out omissions and errors.  Is there anyone(s) who is
> both quite knowledgeable about RDA and familiar with electronic resources
> cataloging willing to do the reviewing?  I estimate it will take less than
> an hour. And if the review could be done by Friday evening, Aug. 2nd, that
> would be icing on the cake.
>
> We'd be happy to share the final paper with those interested.
>
> Please contact me if you are willing to review, and I'll send you the
> document by email.
>
> Thanks!
>
> (Ms.) Sevim McCutcheon
> Catalog Librarian, Assoc. Prof.
> Kent State University Libraries
> 330-672-1703
> lmccu...@kent.edu
>
>

[RDA-L] Content notes

[Don Charuk]

We are trying to find the specific rule that provides instruction on how to 
record chapter headings as part of a 505 note. (Cataloguers want/demand 
specific rule numbers) We are certain it does not fall under Chapters 25, 26 
and 27. We are to presume it comes under rule 7.10. but, this rule seems to 
address notes code in the 520 tag. 

Thank you

Don Charuk
Cataloguer
Toronto Public Library

[RDA-L] Request for review of standards for ETDs in RDA

[MCCUTCHEON, SEVIM]

I've been part of a small task group formed by the OhioLINK consortium (a 
consortium primarily of academic libraries in Ohio) working on updating 
standards from AACR2 to RDA for ETDs.

We have a document we believe is final or very close to it.  However, we'd 
appreciate extra sets of eyes to confirm where contents are correct, and/or  
and point out omissions and errors.  Is there anyone(s) who is both quite 
knowledgeable about RDA and familiar with electronic resources cataloging 
willing to do the reviewing?  I estimate it will take less than an hour. And if 
the review could be done by Friday evening, Aug. 2nd, that would be icing on 
the cake.

We'd be happy to share the final paper with those interested.

Please contact me if you are willing to review, and I'll send you the document 
by email.

Thanks!

(Ms.) Sevim McCutcheon
Catalog Librarian, Assoc. Prof.
Kent State University Libraries
330-672-1703
lmccu...@kent.edu

Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print?

[Northrup, Kristen D.]

That is my interpretation of the rules too, yes. 

I guess my real question is why so many catalogers are now skipping both the 
250 and the 300 phrase for these records. Especially since 250 seems to be 
core. And then upgrading the ELvl.



-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Deborah Fritz
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 6:34 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print?

If the resource has an edition statement on one of the preferred sources,
then record it (2.5.2.3). 

a) the same source as the title proper (see 2.3.2.2)

b) another source within the resource itself (see 2.2.2)

c) one of the other sources of information specified at 2.2.4. 

Whether or not it has an edition statement, you could (would be advised to)
add Font Size (3.13) "large print",  in either the 300$a or 340$n or both,
from "evidence presented by the resource itself (or on any accompanying
material or container) as the basis for recording font size. Take additional
evidence from any source."

This will be enough to meet the principles of differentiation (0.4.3.1) and
sufficiency (0.4.3.2), and will be enough to prevent machine record mergers.

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: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 6:06 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print?

Kristen Nortrup posted:

>There's nothing obvious in RDA that indicates a statement on the t.p. 
>verso like 'Large print edition' no longer gets a 250.

With the absence of the GMD "[text (large print)]", and in the absence of an
RDA content term for large print, this edition statement is vital.  It
should be transcribed if present, and supplied in square brackets if
lacking.

I suspect some cataloguers don't think to look at the title page verso
unless lacking imprint date,  but we should now that we can take data from
anywhere in the item without using brackets.

Having the edition statement might also prevent an unwanted record merger?



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

Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print?

[Joan Wang]

RDA 2.5.14 provides an optional addition: “If a resource lacks an edition
statement but is known to contain significant changes from other editions,
supply an edition statement, if considered important for identification or
access. Indicate that the information was taken from a source outside the
resource itself”.  As Deborah mentioned, it meets the principle of
differentiation.

 Thanks,

Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System


On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 7:28 AM, Watters, Tim (MDE)
wrote:

> On   Tue, 30 Jul 2013  J. McRee Elrod posted: 
>
> ** **
>
> >>“We do not create records as an end in themselves for bibliographic
> utilities or catalogues, but as a service to patrons in identifying what
> they seek.”
>
> ** **
>
> Similarly, identifying abridged vs unabridged audio books is an attribute
> patrons strongly seek but RDA does not address at all that I can find. I am
> wondering if it could go in a bracketed 250?
>
> ** **
>
> Tim Watters
>
> Special Materials Cataloger
>
> Library of Michigan
>
> 702 West Kalamazoo St
>
> P.O. Box 30007
>
> Lansing, MI 48909-7507
>
> Tel: 517-373-3071
>
> e-mail: watte...@michigan.gov
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>



-- 
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] ] The "A" in RDA

[Walker, Elizabeth]

This statement made me pause for thought: "Also, please demonstrate how on the 
web, you can 'select' something in Google without already 'obtaining' it. I 
cannot do it. In Google with full-text, I select whether I want materials only 
AFTER I obtain it. I cannot do anything else. If I am wrong, please show me 
how. This is yet another reason why I maintain the FRBR user tasks are based on 
*physical objects* not virtual ones."

Who is to say that there needs to be a definite order of the FRBR tasks? As you 
say, we must free out minds from preconceived notions- maybe we can mix things 
up a bit and leave room for such things as obtaining something before selecting 
it. I can't help but wonder how many times this happens for patrons. Someone 
finds a resource, digital or physical, that might be useful, they obtain it, 
only to find that it isn't that great. I can't tell you how many times I had 
that problem as a graduate student--yikes!

Additionally, I have used Google and Google Scholar, which may or may not 
provide snippets of information that the user may read directly under the 
link-whether these actually match up with what is actually contained in the 
resource is only seen when the user selects the link they think they want, but 
I think there is still a form of selection method in this approach.

I don't believe libraries are going to disappear anytime soon. We have been 
able to adapt thus far, I have every confidence that we will continue to do so 
in future. Don't give up hope! I haven't.

Just my two cents.


---
Lizzy Walker, MLS
Metadata and Digital Initiatives Librarian
http://works.bepress.com/lizzy_walker/
316-978-5138
Wichita State University Libraries
1845 Fairmount St.
Wichita, KS  67260-0068





From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 5:05 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] ] The "A" in RDA

On 30/07/2013 20:14, Kevin M Randall wrote:

And yet again I get a long, rambling response that goes nowhere near answering 
my question.  The only thing that comes remotely close is the statement:

Today, there are brand new ways of searching, by keyword, by citations, by 
"likes" of others, or of your friends, of your friend's friends, or even their 
friends, by the idiosyncracies of your own personal profile, and by who knows 
what else, but the method uses all kinds of algorithms.

And yet all of these things are very clearly part of the FRBR user tasks.  They 
are all about FINDing, IDENTIFYing, SELECTing, and OBTAINing entities based on 
various criteria.  How you can fail to see that is just beyond my comprehension.

It is certainly possible to perform the FRBR user tasks in Google, in Yahoo, in 
Amazon, in the LC online catalog, or in an old card catalog.  But they all have 
certain limitations, some minor and some very crippling.  The FRBR user tasks 
are simply a description of what users have always done, and we can only assume 
will always be doing.  They have nothing themselves to do with technology.  We 
use technology to aid us in performing the tasks:  in the modern era, we have 
used card catalogs, microfiche and microfilm catalogs, online catalogs, etc.  
The FRBR report merely identifies the entities and attributes that have 
traditionally made up the bibliographic metadata used in libraries, and how 
they operate to help the user FIND, IDENTIFY, SELECT, and OBTAIN the resources 
they are in search of.  And RDA, with its basis on the FRBR report, is helping 
us to further refine the bibliographic metadata to work better in supporting 
the user tasks.

If you want to deny that people no longer want to FIND, IDENTIFY, SELECT, or 
OBTAIN anything, then I don't know what world you are living in.  Because 
everybody I know still wants to do that-all the time.  (Yes, they also want to 
use things once they obtain them, but that's for other tools and applications 
to worry about.  The bibliographic metadata are to help them get the things 
first, because users can't use things without first getting them.)


Pardon, I did not provide rambling response but very specific examples. Please, 
actually watch the video of that fellow from Google (please: watch it!) and 
demonstrate to all of us exactly how his example of when he shows the photo of 
the building, how the question: what is the phone number of the office where 
that picture was taken from? How is that an example of the FRBR user tasks? [I 
can provide other examples of such questions]

Perhaps it would be possible to argue that an automobile is really a 
horse-and-buggy: both have wheels and a place to sit, both have engine that 
ingests fuel and both output (pardon!) waste. Such an argument might be 
interesting and even diverting. Also, one may argue that the periodic table of 
elements are not really different from anything before, but are just variation

Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print?

[Deborah Fritz]

If it says anywhere on the resource 'Abridged', with or without 'edition',
that is now a Designation of Edition (see 2.5.2.3 and the example
'Abridged') and so is recorded without brackets.

 

If it doesn't say, but somehow you know, then I would recommend adding
*this*  in brackets (from outside the source) to fulfill the principle of
sufficiency (selection of an appropriate resource), since there is no other
element appropriate for providing this information; as per the optional
addition at 2.5.1.4 .

 

Deborah

 

-  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  

Deborah Fritz

TMQ, Inc.

  debo...@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 Watters, Tim (MDE)
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 8:29 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print?

 

On   Tue, 30 Jul 2013  J. McRee Elrod posted: 

 

>>"We do not create records as an end in themselves for bibliographic
utilities or catalogues, but as a service to patrons in identifying what
they seek."

 

Similarly, identifying abridged vs unabridged audio books is an attribute
patrons strongly seek but RDA does not address at all that I can find. I am
wondering if it could go in a bracketed 250?

 

Tim Watters

Special Materials Cataloger

Library of Michigan

702 West Kalamazoo St

P.O. Box 30007

Lansing, MI 48909-7507

Tel: 517-373-3071

e-mail: watte...@michigan.gov

 

 

 

Re: [RDA-L] ] The "A" in RDA

[James L Weinheimer]

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Dan Matei wrote:


>  On 31 July 2013 01:04, James Weinheimer wrote:
>
>>
>> Show us how you can do the FRBR user tasks in Google: to
>> find/identify/select/obtain-->*works* *expressions* *manifestations*
>> *items* by their AUTHORS, TITLES and SUBJECTS. Also, please demonstrate how
>> on the web, you can "select" something in Google without already
>> "obtaining" it. I cannot do it. In Google with full-text, I select whether
>> I want materials only AFTER I obtain it. I cannot do anything else. If I am
>> wrong, please show me how. This is yet another reason why I maintain the
>> FRBR user tasks are based on *physical objects* not virtual ones.
>>
>
> Well, well, dear Jim. I do not recall that FRBR says
> "find/identify/select/obtain" (absolutely) in that succession (online or
> offline).
>


A good point. But if we obtain something before we have identified or
selected it (which happens constantly when people are browsing the
shelves), then it should at least call the model into question. The novel
ideas surrounding find change matters too.


However, exercising abstraction, we can identify the FRBR tasks no matter
how acrobatically a 21st century user behaves when "interacting" with
information resources.


Yes, but as I mentioned before, by using such abstraction, we can posit
that an automobile is just another type of horse-and-buggy, or that a
computer is just a jazzed-up typwriter. We can imagine that in some
philosophical sense, these statements may be true, but the question
is: what use is it to consider things that way? Is it done to soothe us, or
what? I have in mind the "Horsey Horselesss Carriage" which looks just
plain silly today.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545_1657686,00.html
Typewriters
are long gone now, although there have been these--made as a joke, I hope!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2134208/Typewriter-obsolete-USB-joking-Technology-allows-vintage-models-used-modern-era.html

It is vital to remember that the others in information retrieval: the
Googlies and Yahoovians and Mendeleys and so on, are not enamored of--or
weighed down--by such models. They are not trying to make eternal
ideological/metaphysical statements about the structure of the information
universe: they just want to make something that works and that people want.

They have clearly succeeded.

James L. Weinheimer  weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com
First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/

Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules

Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print?

[Watters, Tim (MDE)]

On   Tue, 30 Jul 2013  J. McRee Elrod posted:



>>"We do not create records as an end in themselves for bibliographic utilities 
>>or catalogues, but as a service to patrons in identifying what they seek."



Similarly, identifying abridged vs unabridged audio books is an attribute 
patrons strongly seek but RDA does not address at all that I can find. I am 
wondering if it could go in a bracketed 250?


Tim Watters
Special Materials Cataloger
Library of Michigan
702 West Kalamazoo St
P.O. Box 30007
Lansing, MI 48909-7507
Tel: 517-373-3071
e-mail: watte...@michigan.gov

Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print?

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

>>Whether or not it has an edition statement, you could (would be
>>advised to) >add Font Size (3.13) "large print",  in either the 300$a
>>or 340$n or both

>True.  But in the absence of a GMD, or a large print icon, a 250 large
>print edition statement (transcribed or supplied) would give helpful
>to patrons early warning.  Perhaps early display of [carrier :
>content] (as advocated by the MRIs*) would fill that need for most
>resources, but not for large print, since it lacks an RDA content
>term.

>We do not create records as an end in themselves for bibliographic
>utilities or catalogues, but as a service to patrons in identifying
>what they seek.


Why not [carrier : content : font size] derived from [338a : 336a : 340n]?

That would result in "volume : text : large print."


It's in the granular nature of the data elements that we can serve users best. 
All of these terms are registered vocabulary which opens the door in the future 
to local substitution of displayed terms. Far better than the ridiculous 
punctuation requirements of sequencing 245$h in the midst of the title 
statement or the lack of the granularity in 300$a (as in 300$a 125 pages (large 
print)).

And, yes, I am going to add those new RDA elements to the search result brief 
display in my catalog. In the tests I've run they look just fine.


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] ] The "A" in RDA

[Dan Matei]

On 31 July 2013 01:04, James Weinheimer  wrote:
>
>
> Show us how you can do the FRBR user tasks in Google: to
> find/identify/select/obtain-->*works* *expressions* *manifestations*
> *items* by their AUTHORS, TITLES and SUBJECTS. Also, please demonstrate how
> on the web, you can "select" something in Google without already
> "obtaining" it. I cannot do it. In Google with full-text, I select whether
> I want materials only AFTER I obtain it. I cannot do anything else. If I am
> wrong, please show me how. This is yet another reason why I maintain the
> FRBR user tasks are based on *physical objects* not virtual ones.
>
>
Well, well, dear Jim. I do not recall that FRBR says
"find/identify/select/obtain" (absolutely) in that succession (online or
offline).

A few days ago: my wife bought Bolano's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Savage_Detectives (an item exemplifying a
 manifestation of its Romanian expression :-)

Tasks:

a) (my wife) She was not looking specifically for it, just browsing the
"recently published" section of the book-store. So:

a.1. she identified an item which... famous author;
a.2. she selected it;
a.3. she obtained-it (paying :-(

Almost FRBR orthodox sequence, no ? Without "find" (but which poet said "to
find means to choose" ?).


b) (me) got it without any effort:

b.1. I obtained-it (for free :-);
b.2. I selected-it (i.e. I decided to interrupt Raymond Aron's
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'Opium_des_intellectuels and jumped on
Bolano).

Not quite FRBR sequence, no ?

However, exercising abstraction, we can identify the FRBR tasks no matter
how acrobatically a 21st century user behaves when "interacting" with
information resources.

Dan



On 31 July 2013 01:04, James Weinheimer  wrote:

>  On 30/07/2013 20:14, Kevin M Randall wrote:
> 
>
>  And yet again I get a long, rambling response that goes nowhere near
> answering my question.  The only thing that comes remotely close is the
> statement:
>
> ** **
>
> Today, there are brand new ways of searching, by keyword, by citations, by
> "likes" of others, or of your friends, of your friend's friends, or even
> their friends, by the idiosyncracies of your own personal profile, and by
> who knows what else, but the method uses all kinds of algorithms.
>
> ** **
>
> And yet all of these things are very clearly part of the FRBR user tasks.
> They are all about FINDing, IDENTIFYing, SELECTing, and OBTAINing entities
> based on various criteria.  How you can fail to see that is just beyond my
> comprehension.
>
> ** **
>
> It is certainly possible to perform the FRBR user tasks in Google, in
> Yahoo, in Amazon, in the LC online catalog, or in an old card catalog.  But
> they all have certain limitations, some minor and some very crippling.  The
> FRBR user tasks are simply a description of what users have always done,
> and we can only assume will always be doing.  They have nothing themselves
> to do with technology.  We use technology to aid us in performing the
> tasks:  in the modern era, we have used card catalogs, microfiche and
> microfilm catalogs, online catalogs, etc.  The FRBR report merely
> identifies the entities and attributes that have traditionally made up the
> bibliographic metadata used in libraries, and how they operate to help the
> user FIND, IDENTIFY, SELECT, and OBTAIN the resources they are in search
> of.  And RDA, with its basis on the FRBR report, is helping us to further
> refine the bibliographic metadata to work better in supporting the user
> tasks.
>
> ** **
>
> If you want to deny that people no longer want to FIND, IDENTIFY, SELECT,
> or OBTAIN anything, then I don't know what world you are living in.
> Because everybody I know still wants to do that—all the time.  (Yes, they
> also want to use things once they obtain them, but that's for other tools
> and applications to worry about.  The bibliographic metadata are to help
> them get the things first, because users can't use things without first
> getting them.)
>
> 
>
> Pardon, I did not provide rambling response but very specific examples.
> Please, actually watch the video of that fellow from Google (please: watch
> it!) and demonstrate to all of us exactly how his example of when he shows
> the photo of the building, how the question: what is the phone number of
> the office where that picture was taken from? How is that an example of the
> FRBR user tasks? [I can provide other examples of such questions]
>
> Perhaps it would be possible to argue that an automobile is really a
> horse-and-buggy: both have wheels and a place to sit, both have engine that
> ingests fuel and both output (pardon!) waste. Such an argument might be
> interesting and even diverting. Also, one may argue that the periodic table
> of elements are not really different from anything before, but are just
> variations of the "real" elements of fire, water, earth and air. In reality
> of course, such attitudes shed more insight into those who advance them
> than into 

Re: [RDA-L] ] The "A" in RDA

[Bernhard Eversberg]

31.07.2013 00:04, James Weinheimer:


...  The refusal to accept that 99% of people do not
fit into these little pre-conceived FRBR user tasks is why I think that
perhaps librarianship may be destined for extinction. We must free our
minds from these pre-conceptions!



Visions of doom for libraries are nothing new, but their frequency
seems to increase, and doomsaying for the catalog along with them.
(And for MARC, not to forget.)
Now that will most probably all be premature as long as physical
resources of no small relevance continue to be produced in no small
numbers, many of which can soon thereafter be obtained only in libraries
and with a little help from their catalogs. Not, though, exclusively by
using those catalogs, as it used to be.
So, most resources, and most books among them, can now be found
or serendipitously stumbled over in novel ways not imagined even 20
years ago.
Books are therefore now perceived as items in the universe of
accessible resources, among which you navigate with tools and
methods that feel ever more as how things should be to many users,
young and old.
Among these tools and methods, library catalogs have lost a lot of
their former significance.
Need catalogs acquire new significance? And if yes, how can that be
achieved? By perfectioning, electronically, a functional model that
satisfied the needs of some people some of the time but could only
ever respond to some specific types of user needs and in some very
specific ways?
Only subject access by controlled vocabularies, as has been mentioned
many times, is where catalogs might regain significance in new
ways. RDA, up until now, contributes nothing to this. Things RDA
doesn't even touch on are already being done with pre-RDA data.
And BIBFRAME cannot become better than the inconsistent input it gets.

We might see two roads diverging from where we are, if indeed we
gather up the resolve to escape extinction (for a while):

A. Focus on the library as a place to be for work and talk and leisure.
   Reduce catalogs to their inventory function and only make
   sure that books found elsewhere, by ever improving search
   technologies the library community has no resources to develop
   or even keep up with, can be quickly located using their universal
   identifiers. (As happens now via GBS -> WorldCat -> Library)
   Libraries becoming mere storehouses for physical resources, but
   these storehouses will be needed for some while.

B. A revolution.


B.Eversberg