Re: [RDA-L] Date given in an incomplete form

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

Mac said:

  
It does not matter to me, or patrons I suspect, whether one uses

$c[19]61. $c[1961] or $c1961.  It *is* important that the whole year
be there, since one should not have to wait for a note to know whether
it is 1761, 1861, or 1961.  A little pragmatism is in order  here!  To
transcribe "'61" as opposed to recording the whole year serves no
purpose.


Quite. That's why I voted for recording all four digits, i.e. "1961".

Having looked at RDA again, I think the most relevant rule here is 
1.8.2, where it says to "record numerals in the form preferred by the 
agency". As per 1.8.1, this also applies to the date of production. The 
preference of our agencies is to record a year as an arabic numeral with 
four digits.


So, in my opinion, changing "61" to "1961" here is similar to changing a 
date given in Roman numerals to the preferred form. We do not mark that 
either. But it would, of course, be possible to add a note saying "Year 
given as "61" on the resource", just as you could write a note "Year 
given in Roman numerals", if you think users would be interested in this 
information (personally, I don't think they would be).


A resource which only has a copyright year falls in a different 
category, I believe. Because there, you do not have a year of 
publication at all. True, there is year, but it's a year for something 
else (the copyright), and from that you're deducing that the publication 
year is identical. So bracketing is in order here (although, in German 
cataloging, we do not use brackets in this case at all, and as far as I 
know, no user has ever complained about it). But in the case of the 
etching, I claim that the production year is actually there, only the 
artist didn't use the preferred form with the four digits.


As I said, for me the case is not one of a supplied date. But I concede 
that a second interpetation is possible: You might feel that it's not 
obvious that "61" here is a shorthand form for "1961", and that you need 
some sort of deduction from other clues to decide that this is a work 
from the 20th century. Then you could argue that the year of production 
is not given in the resource, and that therefore you have to supply it. 
If this is way you want to go, I think it would be better to bracket the 
whole year. But I really think it would be "cataloging overkill".


Well, as Mac already said, in the end it doesn't matter so much whether 
the catalog record shows "1961", "[1961]" or "[19]61", as long as all 
four digits are shown.


Heidrun


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

Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4

[J. McRee Elrod]

Heidrun said:

>But which elements should be seen as "sentences" - all of them? Then we 
>would also capitalize other title information and statements of 
>responsibility.
 
Good point.  A MARC subfield code does not always mean a new sentence
needing to begin with a capital, although one does capitalize an
alternative or parallel title, and a subtitle if in 246.

Some elements (such as statements of responsibility) are best seen as
part of a longer sentence seems to me.  Bibframe may have even more
granularity.

The three elements of the imprint are so often split for display, they
should be seen as separate I think.

You make a good point about including "Distributed by ..." as
representation.  But "Published by ..."?

RDA  allow the omission of levels in a corporate body, so we really
don't have to always transcribe all we see. The no longer allowed
ellipses would have helped with matching record to item.

You are a delight to chat with.  Wish we could do it in front of my
fireplace.


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

Re: [RDA-L] Date given in an incomplete form

[J. McRee Elrod]

Heidrun said:

>My reasoning goes as follows: You do not have to supply the date, 
>because in fact you know the year. The only problem is that it is 
>written on the source of information in some kind of shorthand.
 
It does not matter to me, or patrons I suspect, whether one uses
$c[19]61. $c[1961] or $c1961.  It *is* important that the whole year
be there, since one should not have to wait for a note to know whether
it is 1761, 1861, or 1961.  A little pragmatism is in order  here!  To
transcribe "'61" as opposed to recording the whole year serves no
purpose.

For the rule bound, as Heidrun points out, this is a not a transcribed
element.  One does however normally bracket data not in the source.
e.g., imprint year when inferred from the copyright year, even though
the latter is in the source.


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

Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

Mac,


In the absence of a rule, shouldn't we follow "Chicago Manual of
Style" for sentences?  With the exception of a few words and names
(e-Book, ebrary) shouldn't all sentences begin with a capital letter?


But which elements should be seen as "sentences" - all of them? Then we 
would also capitalize other title information and statements of 
responsibility. I'm not saying this can't be done (publishers do it all 
the time). But I think that the laws of design which are in effect on a 
title page are different from those of a catalog record. To achieve good 
readability there, I think we should use "beginning of sentence 
capitalization" only cautiously.


By the way, I'm very much in favour of including the rule to capitalize 
the beginning of each ISBD area, as proposed by CCC

http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-CCC-12.pdf

I also heartily agree that the whole structure of appendix A, which 
takes English as the "model language" and covers all other languages 
only to the degree in which they differ from the model, is 
counterproductive for an international application of RDA.


Heidrun



--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmüller M.A.
Hochschule der Medien
Fakultät Information und Kommunikation
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart
Tel. dienstl.: 0711/25706-188
Tel. Home Office: 0711/36565868
Fax. 0711/25706-300
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

Mac said:



My reaction is, why is this phrase included, when function is covered
by 264 2nd indicators?


My understanding is that transcribing things like "Distributed by ..." 
is all about the so-called principle of representation: "The data 
describing a resource should reflect the resource's representation of 
itself." (0.4.3.4).


If you think about it, it's not really that much different from giving a 
statement of responsibility like "by XY" in addition to recording a 
creator relationship to XY and adding an appropriate relationship 
designator. You could argue that if the name of the element and the 
relationship designator are displayed, then all the necessary 
information is already there. Giving the statement of responsibility as 
well might be considered redundant information. But we still give it, 
because it is valuable in itself to show exactly *how* the information 
about the author is presented on the resource.


I think this also applies to these statements of function, although this 
information is probably of less importance to our users.


On the other hand, the proposal mentioned by Francis
http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-LC-24.pdf
even proposes transcribing things like "published by", arguing: 
"Differences between publication statements help users identify 
different manifestations of a work. This is especially important for 
manifestations without ISBNs, which did not appear on manifestations 
until the later part of the 20th century. One manifestation of a work 
might say "Published by Isaac Riley" and
another might say "Isaac Riley, Publisher."" (I'm not sure how often 
this case occurs, though).


Admittedly, I sometimes wonder whether RDA doesn't take the principle of 
representation a bit too far. For example, in shortening names of 
publishers, the older codes of rules like AACR2 and RAK definitely 
violated the principle of representation. But I can also see an 
advantage in this and similar practices: You could say that catalogers 
did some "preprocessing" with the raw data found on the source by 
clearly bringing out the things which are really important for the 
users, separating them from the "noise" around them. Now, in times of 
RDA, our users have to find their way for themselves - through things 
like legal information about publishers ("Ltd.") or their advertising 
slogans ("Peter Lang, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften", i.e. 
"international publisher of sciences"). If one of the main aims of 
description is to represent the resource as it represents itself, then 
perhaps a scan of the title pages would work just as well. (Sorry for 
being a bit provocative here).


Heidrun


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

Re: [RDA-L] Date given in an incomplete form

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

Marie-Chantal,

I would give "1961", without using any square brackets.

My reasoning goes as follows: You do not have to supply the date, 
because in fact you know the year. The only problem is that it is 
written on the source of information in some kind of shorthand. But when 
you think about it, this is no problem, because the date of production 
is, as has already been mentioned, not a transcribed element. So your 
are left with the basic rule that you are to record the date. O.k., then 
we'll record "1961", because that's what it is.


Also note 1.8.4, which covers a similar case: In the example, the second 
year is only given with the last digits ("72" instead of "1972"). But 
we're advised to record the second year also in the ordinary way in 
which a year is given, i.e. as "1972". There is no need to use square 
brackets and write "[19]72", as we're not transcribing, but only recording.


Heidrun



On 08.08.2013 16:54, L'Écuyer-Coelho Marie-Chantal wrote:


Hi,

I am presently describing an etching. The artist simply wrote « 61 » 
as year of production, under the image. Does it means I must record « 
61 » in 264 $c, and then write up a note ? As much as I can tell, 
we're not allowed to use « 61 [i.e. 1961] » or « [19]61 ». What do you 
think ?


Thank you!

/*/Marie-Chantal L'Ecuyer-Coelho/*/

/*/Bibliothécaire /*//*//*/

Direction du traitement documentaire des collections patrimoniales

Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec

2275, rue Holt

Montréal (Québec) H2G 3H1

Téléphone : 514-873-1101 poste 3730

mc.coe...@banq.qc.ca 

www.banq.qc.ca 

*Avis de confidentialité *Ce courriel est une communication 
confidentielle et l'information qu'il contient est réservée à l'usage 
exclusif du destinataire. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire visé, 
vous n'avez aucun droit d'utiliser cette information, de la copier, de 
la distribuer ou de la diffuser. Si cette communication vous a été 
transmise par erreur, veuillez la détruire et nous en aviser 
immédiatement par courriel.





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

Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4

[J. McRee Elrod]

Heidrun said:

>if there was a rule in RDA saying that the first word of every
>element must be capitalized, I would agree.


In the absence of a rule, shouldn't we follow "Chicago Manual of
Style" for sentences?  With the exception of a few words and names
(e-Book, ebrary) shouldn't all sentences begin with a capital letter?

There was an AACR2 rule revision which allowed that lower case "e".


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

Re: [RDA-L] Date given in an incomplete form

[J. McRee Elrod]

Marie-Chantal said:

>The problem is that we are send from 2.7.6 to 1.8, and then, from 1.8
>to 1.7. So the same rules seem to apply to all « transcribed »
>elements (title, statement of responsibility, edition, production
>statement, etc ...). 


Unlike title, RDA does allow the providing in brackets of a missing
element in imprint or production statements, whether place,
jurisdiction, name, or date.  I guess that is what "record" means as
opposed to "transcribe".  So why not a portion of an element, as in
264  1 $aVancouver [Washington]?  If you would feel better, bracket
the whole year, as you would if supplying imprint year from copyright
statement.

There are cases when the entire title is supplied in brackets, so I
think RDA's not allowing a portion is silly.  I assume the provision
is to facilitate use of harvested data?  I wonder if we should have
some civil disobediance about that.


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

Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

Jack,

if there was a rule in RDA saying that the first word of every element 
must be capitalized, I would agree. But as far as I understand it, 
that's not how RDA works. The main rule of RDA concerning capitalitation 
is that you use upper and lower case just like you would do it *within* 
a sentence (not *at the beginning* of a sentence). There are only a very 
limited number of elements for which RDA prescribes capitalization of 
the first word. If RDA doesn't say anything special about 
capitalization, the logical thing would be to use the main rule.


As I already said, I don't mind adding the function statements to the 
bits which always have to be capitalized. But if this is intended, then 
RDA must state this explicitly.


Heidrun




On 08.08.2013 18:10, Jack Wu wrote:
I don't know if this is oversimplification. The way I see it. If you 
have Place Name followed by Distributed by, Published by or whatever, 
it's entirely logical to capitalize the first word. I can say this is 
great. Come. So what. O, no. Each is a separate statement. Regardless 
whether Separated by : , by , by . We are not saying Place that is 
distributed, or sold by.

Jack
Franciscan University
j...@franciscan.edu 

>>> Heidrun Wiesenmüller 8/8/2013 5:54 
AM >>>

It beats me why the examples in 2.9.4.4 (and other similar rules, e.g.
2.10.4.4) are all capitalized, e.g.:
Distributed by New York Graphic Society
Sold by Longman

I cannot find any justification for this in appendix A. It's certainly
not mentioned among the elements where the first word must always be
capitalized.

Corresponding examples in the ISBD consolidated (4.2.5) aren't
capitalized, e.g.:
distributed by Harvard University Press
to be sold by Jas. Gardner

So, is there something I've overlooked, or is this a mistake in RDA?

Heidrun

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


Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance



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

Re: [RDA-L] Date given in an incomplete form

[L'Écuyer-Coelho Marie-Chantal]

Thank you all for your help! 

 

I will follow Mrs Fritz recommendation. Also, I believe the proposed change to 
the last paragraph under 2.7.6.3 would be useful. When dealing with graphic 
materials and rare documents, one often finds incomplete dates ...

 

Greetings!

 

Marie-Chantal L'Ecuyer-Coelho

Bibliothécaire  

Direction du traitement documentaire des collections patrimoniales

Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec

2275, rue Holt

Montréal (Québec) H2G 3H1

Téléphone : 514-873-1101 poste 3730

mc.coe...@banq.qc.ca  

www.banq.qc.ca  

 

Avis de confidentialité Ce courriel est une communication confidentielle et 
l'information qu'il contient est réservée à l'usage exclusif du destinataire. 
Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire visé, vous n'avez aucun droit d'utiliser 
cette information, de la copier, de la distribuer ou de la diffuser. Si cette 
communication vous a été transmise par erreur, veuillez la détruire et nous en 
aviser immédiatement par courriel.



De : Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] De la part de Deborah Fritz
Envoyé : 8 août 2013 14:56
À : RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Objet : Re: [RDA-L] Date given in an incomplete form

 

Since RDA does not address this situation specifically, you must apply the RDA 
principles to your decision. Under the principle of representation (put down 
what you see), if you believe that '61' is the date of production, then you 
must record it as it appears on the source of information.

 

Here are the steps I used: 

--

2.7.6 Date of Production

2.7.6.2 Sources of Information (SOI): "Take dates of production from any 
source."

2.7.6.3 Recording Date of Production: " Record the date of production by 
applying the basic instructions at 2.7.1."

 

2.7.1 Basic Instructions on Recording Production Statements

2.7.1.4 Recording Production Statements: "Record dates of production as they 
appear on the source of information. Apply the general guidelines on 
transcription for words that are not numbers (see 1.7). Apply the general 
guidelines on numbers expressed as numerals or as words (see 1.8)."

 

2.7.6.7 Archival Resources and Collections: "If no date can be found in the 
resource or determined from any other source, estimate the nearest year, 
decade, century, or other interval as precisely as possible. Indicate that the 
information was taken from a source outside the resource itself (see 2.2.4)."

2.2.4. Other Sources of Information: LC-PCC PS: "LC practice/PCC practice: Use 
square brackets if information taken from a source outside a resource itself is 
supplied in any of the elements listed."

---

Since the 2.7.6.2 SOI is 'Any', I would interpret that to would mean that if 
you could not find the date in the resource, but could determine it from any 
other source, you would enter it without square brackets. But if '61' is indeed 
the date of production, and is given on the resource that way, your only 
option, as far as I can see is to enter it as given. Is it given as '61 by any 
chance? If so, I would include that punctuation.

 

Date of Production (264_0$c): 61

Note on Production (500$a):  The date of production that is given on the 
resource as "61" is actually 1961.

 

In MARC you would enter '1961' as the 008Date1, and in most OPACs that is the 
date that will display in lists. 

 

Once we are out of MARC we will be able to set up our displays more easily that 
we do now, and so could, if we choose, display a 'Note on Production' right 
after the Production Statement.

 

Personally, I rather like the idea of extending the optional addition allowed 
for dates not of the Gregorian or Julian calendars and for Chronograms, to 
incomplete dates (Date of Production: 61 [1961]). But if that is not in line 
with the RDA thinking on this, then I would suggest the following change to the 
last paragraph at 2.7.6.3, just to clarify matters:

 

Change:

"If the date as it appears in the resource is known to be fictitious or 
incorrect, make a note giving the actual date (see 2.20.6.3)."

To:

If the date as it appears in the resource is known to be fictitious, incorrect, 
or incomplete, make a note giving the actual date (see 2.20.6.3).

 

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 L'Écuyer-Coelho Marie-Chantal
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 2:15 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Date given in an incomplete form

 

Hi!

 

Yes, I am dealing with the original intaglio.

 

Marie-Chantal L'Ecuyer-Coelho

Bibliothécaire

Direction du traitement documentaire des collections patrimoniales Biblioth

Re: [RDA-L] Date given in an incomplete form

[Deborah Fritz]

Since RDA does not address this situation specifically, you must apply the
RDA principles to your decision. Under the principle of representation (put
down what you see), if you believe that '61' is the date of production, then
you must record it as it appears on the source of information.

 

Here are the steps I used: 

--

2.7.6 Date of Production

2.7.6.2 Sources of Information (SOI): "Take dates of production from any
source."

2.7.6.3 Recording Date of Production: " Record the date of production by
applying the basic instructions at 2.7.1."

 

2.7.1 Basic Instructions on Recording Production Statements

2.7.1.4 Recording Production Statements: "Record dates of production as they
appear on the source of information. Apply the general guidelines on
transcription for words that are not numbers (see 1.7). Apply the general
guidelines on numbers expressed as numerals or as words (see 1.8)."

 

2.7.6.7 Archival Resources and Collections: "If no date can be found in the
resource or determined from any other source, estimate the nearest year,
decade, century, or other interval as precisely as possible. Indicate that
the information was taken from a source outside the resource itself (see
2.2.4)."

2.2.4. Other Sources of Information: LC-PCC PS: "LC practice/PCC practice:
Use square brackets if information taken from a source outside a resource
itself is supplied in any of the elements listed."

---

Since the 2.7.6.2 SOI is ‘Any’, I would interpret that to would mean that if
you could not find the date in the resource, but could determine it from any
other source, you would enter it without square brackets. But if ‘61’ is
indeed the date of production, and is given on the resource that way, your
only option, as far as I can see is to enter it as given. Is it given as ’61
by any chance? If so, I would include that punctuation.

 

Date of Production (264_0$c): 61

Note on Production (500$a):  The date of production that is given on the
resource as “61” is actually 1961.

 

In MARC you would enter ‘1961’ as the 008Date1, and in most OPACs that is
the date that will display in lists. 

 

Once we are out of MARC we will be able to set up our displays more easily
that we do now, and so could, if we choose, display a ‘Note on Production’
right after the Production Statement.

 

Personally, I rather like the idea of extending the optional addition
allowed for dates not of the Gregorian or Julian calendars and for
Chronograms, to incomplete dates (Date of Production: 61 [1961]). But if
that is not in line with the RDA thinking on this, then I would suggest the
following change to the last paragraph at 2.7.6.3, just to clarify matters:

 

Change:

“If the date as it appears in the resource is known to be fictitious or
incorrect, make a note giving the actual date (see 2.20.6.3).”

To:

If the date as it appears in the resource is known to be fictitious,
incorrect, or incomplete, make a note giving the actual date (see 2.20.6.3).

 

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 L'Écuyer-Coelho
Marie-Chantal
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 2:15 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Date given in an incomplete form

 

Hi!

 

Yes, I am dealing with the original intaglio.

 

Marie-Chantal L'Ecuyer-Coelho

Bibliothécaire

Direction du traitement documentaire des collections patrimoniales
Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec 2275, rue Holt Montréal
(Québec) H2G 3H1 Téléphone : 514-873-1101 poste 3730
 mc.coe...@banq.qc.ca  
www.banq.qc.ca

Avis de confidentialité Ce courriel est une communication confidentielle et
l'information qu'il contient est réservée à l'usage exclusif du
destinataire. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire visé, vous n'avez aucun
droit d'utiliser cette information, de la copier, de la distribuer ou de la
diffuser. Si cette communication vous a été transmise par erreur, veuillez
la détruire et nous en aviser immédiatement par courriel.

 

-Message d'origine-

De : J. McRee Elrod [  mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca] Envoyé :
8 août 2013 13:26 À :

=?iso-8859-1?Q?L=27=C9cuyer-Coelho_Marie-Chantal?=@kepler.riq.qc.ca;
L'Écuyer-Coelho Marie-Chantal Cc :  
RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Objet : Re: [RDA-L] Date given in an incomplete
form

 

Marie-Chantal posted:

 

>I am presently describing an etching. The artist simply wrote  61 ...

 

264  0  $a]Place, Jurisdiction] :$bArtist's Name,$c[19]61.

 

This assumes the artist's name appears on the etching.  If it is a
reproduction as apposed to the original etching, the 264 2nd indic

Re: [RDA-L] Date given in an incomplete form

[L'Écuyer-Coelho Marie-Chantal]

And that's the paradox : it would have been easier to solve the problem had the 
artist not used the Gregorian calender :-) 

 

Marie-Chantal L'Ecuyer-Coelho

Bibliothécaire  

Direction du traitement documentaire des collections patrimoniales

Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec

2275, rue Holt

Montréal (Québec) H2G 3H1

Téléphone : 514-873-1101 poste 3730

mc.coe...@banq.qc.ca  

www.banq.qc.ca  

 

Avis de confidentialité Ce courriel est une communication confidentielle et 
l'information qu'il contient est réservée à l'usage exclusif du destinataire. 
Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire visé, vous n'avez aucun droit d'utiliser 
cette information, de la copier, de la distribuer ou de la diffuser. Si cette 
communication vous a été transmise par erreur, veuillez la détruire et nous en 
aviser immédiatement par courriel.



De : Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] De la part de Joan Wang
Envoyé : 8 août 2013 14:44
À : RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Objet : Re: [RDA-L] Date given in an incomplete form

 

According to RDA 1.4, date of production, as well as date of publication, is a 
transcribed element. But if the date as it appears in the resource is not of 
the Gregorian or Julian calendar, we are allowed to supply the corresponding 
date or dates of the Gregorian or Julian calendar. 

Thanks, 

Joan Wang

Illinois Heartland Library System

 

On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 1:33 PM, John Hostage  wrote:

The date of production is not a transcribed element.  2.7.6.3 says to "record 
the date of production" and then refers to 2.7.1.  In 2.7.1.4 it says 
"Transcribe places of production and producers' names as they appear on the 
source of information" but "Record dates of production as they appear on the 
source of information."  Supposedly there is a difference between "transcribe" 
and "record," but what it is here is entirely muddy.

 

--

John Hostage 

Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger //

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)

 

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of L'Écuyer-Coelho Marie-Chantal
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 10:54
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Date given in an incomplete form

 

Hi,

 

I am presently describing an etching. The artist simply wrote « 61 » as year of 
production, under the image. Does it means I must record « 61 » in 264 $c, and 
then write up a note ? As much as I can tell, we're not allowed to use « 61 
[i.e. 1961] » or « [19]61 ». What do you think ?

 

Thank you!

 

Marie-Chantal L'Ecuyer-Coelho

Bibliothécaire  

Direction du traitement documentaire des collections patrimoniales

Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec

2275, rue Holt

Montréal (Québec) H2G 3H1

Téléphone : 514-873-1101 poste 3730

mc.coe...@banq.qc.ca  

www.banq.qc.ca  

 

Avis de confidentialité Ce courriel est une communication confidentielle et 
l'information qu'il contient est réservée à l'usage exclusif du destinataire. 
Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire visé, vous n'avez aucun droit d'utiliser 
cette information, de la copier, de la distribuer ou de la diffuser. Si cette 
communication vous a été transmise par erreur, veuillez la détruire et nous en 
aviser immédiatement par courriel.

 




-- 

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] Date given in an incomplete form

[Joan Wang]

According to RDA 1.4, date of production, as well as date of publication,
is a transcribed element. But if the date as it appears in the resource is
not of the Gregorian or Julian calendar, we are allowed to supply the
corresponding date or dates of the Gregorian or Julian calendar.

Thanks,
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System


On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 1:33 PM, John Hostage wrote:

>  The date of production is not a transcribed element.  2.7.6.3 says to
> “record the date of production” and then refers to 2.7.1.  In 2.7.1.4 it
> says “Transcribe places of production and producers' names as they appear
> on the source of information” but “Record dates of production as they
> appear on the source of information.”  Supposedly there is a difference
> between “transcribe” and “record,” but what it is here is entirely muddy.*
> ***
>
> ** **
>
> --
>
> John Hostage 
>
> Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger //
>
> 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)
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *L'Écuyer-Coelho
> Marie-Chantal
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 08, 2013 10:54
> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> *Subject:* [RDA-L] Date given in an incomplete form
>
> ** **
>
> Hi,
>
> ** **
>
> I am presently describing an etching. The artist simply wrote « 61 » as
> year of production, under the image. Does it means I must record « 61 » in
> 264 $c, and then write up a note ? As much as I can tell, we’re not allowed
> to use « 61 [i.e. 1961] » or « [19]61 ». What do you think ?
>
> ** **
>
> Thank you!
>
> ** **
>
> *Marie-Chantal L'Ecuyer-Coelho*
>
> *Bibliothécaire  ***
>
> Direction du traitement documentaire des collections patrimoniales
>
> Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec
>
> 2275, rue Holt
>
> Montréal (Québec) H2G 3H1
>
> Téléphone : 514-873-1101 poste 3730
>
> mc.coe...@banq.qc.ca
>
> www.banq.qc.ca
>
>  
>
> *Avis de confidentialité *Ce courriel est une communication
> confidentielle et l’information qu’il contient est réservée à l’usage
> exclusif du destinataire. Si vous n’êtes pas le destinataire visé, vous
> n’avez aucun droit d’utiliser cette information, de la copier, de la
> distribuer ou de la diffuser. Si cette communication vous a été transmise
> par erreur, veuillez la détruire et nous en aviser immédiatement par
> courriel.
>
> ** **
>



-- 
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] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4

[Leonard, William]

The Canadian Committee on Cataloguing has also put forward a proposal 
concerning capitalization, 6JSC/CCC/12.
Please ignore the asterisks that were unintentionally included in the final 
draft.
http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-CCC-12.pdf

Bill

Bill Leonard
Information Standards Specialist  |  Spécialiste des normes de l'information
william.leon...@bac-lac.gc.ca
Telephone   |  Téléphone : +1-819-994-6936
Facsimile   |  Télécopieur : +1-819-934-6777 (new)
Content Management Division, Metadata Sharing, Open Data | Division de gestion 
des contenus, Échange de métadonnées, Données ouvertes
Library and Archives Canada  |  Bibliothèque et Archives Canada
550 De la Cité blvd  |  550, blvd de la Cité
Gatineau, Québec  K1A 0N4
Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada
www.collectionscanada.gc.ca



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Lapka, Francis
Sent: August-08-13 10:58 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4

This topic is the subject of proposal to be put forth to JSC later this year.

See 6JSC/LC/24 (particularly in the neighborhood of change #10):
http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-LC-24.pdf



_
Francis Lapka, Catalog Librarian
Yale Center for British Art, Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts
1080 Chapel Street, PO Box 208280, New Haven, CT  06520
203.432.9672francis.la...@yale.edu





From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joan Wang
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 10:29 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4

> OR, to simplify things further, and perhaps even better yet, we should get 
> rid > of the "(other than solely publishing)" instruction at 2.8.4.4 and just 
> apply the > 'principle of representation' (0.4.3.4) to  'put down what we 
> see' for publisher > data also.
Deborah, thanks for pointing it out. I actually thought about that. But my 
concern is that the element title is Publisher's Name. We transcribe a 
publisher's name in the form as it appears on the source (the representation 
principle). I am not sure if the statement of function is supposed to be a part 
of a publisher's name. I do not mind the removal of "other than solely 
publishing" in instruction at 2.8.4.4. But it seems to be a big difference :) 
At least the relevant instructions in the three statements are not consistent.
Thanks,
Joan Wang

On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Deborah Fritz 
mailto:debo...@marcofquality.com>> wrote:
This is a display issue that should be handled by the ILS setup.

If the distributor information is displayed in a single line, along with the 
publisher, etc. information, as ISBD requires, then it is logical to retain the 
words or phrases indicating functions other than publishing, as per AACR:

260$a Boulder : $b East European Monographs ; $a New York : $b Distributed 
by Columbia University Press, $c 2010.
Displays as:
Publication, etc.:  Boulder :  East European Monographs ; New York : 
Distributed by Columbia University Press, 2010.

If the distributor information is in a separate MARC field (264_2) and is 
therefore not displayed in a single line, then there should not be any point in 
including the 'Distributed by' wording, since the ILS can be set up to display 
the separate field labeled according to the second indicator:

264  1 $a London ; $a New York : $b I.B. Tauris, $c 2012.
264  2 $a New York : $b Distributed in the United States and Canada exclusively 
by Palgrave Macmillan, $c [2012]
Displays as:
Publication: London ; New York : I.B. Tauris, 2012.
Distribution: New York : Distributed in the United States and Canada 
exclusively by Palgrave Macmillan, [2012]

The only reason for not displaying the field label for separate 264, is to try 
to make it look like ISBD:

Displays as:
Publication: London ; New York : I.B. Tauris, 2012.
 New York : Distributed in the United States and Canada 
exclusively by Palgrave Macmillan, [2012]

But this doesn't display as per ISBD anyway, so it does seem that it might be 
time to treat these statements as separate and distinct, in which case I agree 
that the RDA instructions could be changed for both Distribution and 
Manufacture, with the addition of "(other than solely distributing)" and 
"(other than solely manufacturing)"

OR, to simplify things further, and perhaps even better yet, we should get rid 
of the "(other than solely publishing)" instruction at 2.8.4.4 and just apply 
the 'principle of representation' (0.4.3.4) to  'put down what we see' for 
publisher data also.

Deborah

P.S. It is good to know about A.7B1 after all these years (how did I miss 
that??) but I still wonder what the rationale was for this capitalization, 
given the way it was me

Re: [RDA-L] Date given in an incomplete form

[John Hostage]

The date of production is not a transcribed element.  2.7.6.3 says to "record 
the date of production" and then refers to 2.7.1.  In 2.7.1.4 it says 
"Transcribe places of production and producers' names as they appear on the 
source of information" but "Record dates of production as they appear on the 
source of information."  Supposedly there is a difference between "transcribe" 
and "record," but what it is here is entirely muddy.

--
John Hostage
Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger //
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)

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of L'Écuyer-Coelho Marie-Chantal
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 10:54
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Date given in an incomplete form

Hi,

I am presently describing an etching. The artist simply wrote « 61 » as year of 
production, under the image. Does it means I must record « 61 » in 264 $c, and 
then write up a note ? As much as I can tell, we're not allowed to use « 61 
[i.e. 1961] » or « [19]61 ». What do you think ?

Thank you!

Marie-Chantal L'Ecuyer-Coelho
Bibliothécaire
Direction du traitement documentaire des collections patrimoniales
Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec
2275, rue Holt
Montréal (Québec) H2G 3H1
Téléphone : 514-873-1101 poste 3730
mc.coe...@banq.qc.ca
www.banq.qc.ca

Avis de confidentialité Ce courriel est une communication confidentielle et 
l'information qu'il contient est réservée à l'usage exclusif du destinataire. 
Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire visé, vous n'avez aucun droit d'utiliser 
cette information, de la copier, de la distribuer ou de la diffuser. Si cette 
communication vous a été transmise par erreur, veuillez la détruire et nous en 
aviser immédiatement par courriel.

Re: [RDA-L] Date given in an incomplete form

[L'Écuyer-Coelho Marie-Chantal]

Hi again!

The problem is that we are send from 2.7.6 to 1.8, and then, from 1.8 to 1.7. 
So the same rules seem to apply to all « transcribed » elements (title, 
statement of responsibility, edition, production statement, etc ...). If 
characters are missing in a title, I must write up a note; therefore, the same 
is probably true for dates, yet, as Mr. Mac Elrod observes, correcting 
descriptive elements in a note is not always the most elegant solution... 

Marie-Chantal L'Ecuyer-Coelho
Bibliothécaire  
Direction du traitement documentaire des collections patrimoniales
Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec
2275, rue Holt
Montréal (Québec) H2G 3H1
Téléphone : 514-873-1101 poste 3730
mc.coe...@banq.qc.ca
www.banq.qc.ca
 

[RDA-L] NLM Job Announcement: Unit Head in the Cataloging Section, Technical Services Division

[Bushman, Barbara (NIH/NLM) [E]]

The Unit Head position in the Cataloging Section, Technical Services Division 
at the National Library of Medicine is now open on USAJOBS and will close on 
Tuesday, August 13, 2013. This brief posting period is because of the federal 
government's interest in accelerating the hiring process and should not be 
interpreted as an indication that someone has already been selected.

Supervisory Librarian (MP)
https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/348970600
MP stands for merit promotion. Applicants for MP announcements must be 
qualified current or former federal employees.
Supervisory Librarian (DE)
https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/348964400
DE stands for delegated examining. Typically, candidates who are entering 
Federal service for the first time from the private sector will need to apply 
for delegated examining positions.

The position is for  a Supervisory Librarian GS-1410-13, with a salary range 
from $89,033 to $115,742 including locality pay per annum.
The Unit Head in the Cataloging Section serves as the head of one of three 
cataloging units and is responsible for:
*   Providing supervisory leadership and direction to a staff of 
professional librarian catalogers and library technical support staff;
*   Ensuring the quality and consistency of NLM bibliographic records;
*   Creating and evaluating original bibliographic and authority records 
for compliance to national and local standards;
*   Advising management in establishing local policies for bibliographic 
control of library materials;
*   Developing and documenting cataloging policies and procedures; and
*   Representing the Cataloging Section on working groups within NLM and 
representing NLM to various professional and government organizations.

The Technical Services Division contributes to the National Library of 
Medicine's mission of providing biomedical research and health information 
worldwide through a variety of programs and activities, including:
*   Formulating, implementing, and evaluating NLM collection development 
policies;
*   Selecting, acquiring, and processing the modern NLM collection of 
biomedical literature, including print and electronic resources and other 
digital content;
*   Producing and maintaining cataloging records and the official catalog 
for the NLM collection;
*   Creating and maintaining the NLM Classification System; and
*   Managing NLM's integrated library system, the online public catalogs 
LocatorPlus and NLM Catalog, and the NLM Digital Collections repository.

In addition to an interesting, challenging work environment, NLM has a great 
location on the campus of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, 
Maryland.  It is a short Metro ride from Washington D.C. and a short walk from 
Bethesda's thriving restaurant and retail district.
Please contact Diane Boehr, Head, Cataloging Section, Technical Services 
Division at 301.435.7059 or 
boe...@mail.nlm.nih.gov with questions.

Re: [RDA-L] Date given in an incomplete form

[L'Écuyer-Coelho Marie-Chantal]

Hi!

Yes, I am dealing with the original intaglio.

Marie-Chantal L'Ecuyer-Coelho
Bibliothécaire  
Direction du traitement documentaire des collections patrimoniales
Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec
2275, rue Holt
Montréal (Québec) H2G 3H1
Téléphone : 514-873-1101 poste 3730
mc.coe...@banq.qc.ca
www.banq.qc.ca
 
Avis de confidentialité Ce courriel est une communication confidentielle et 
l'information qu'il contient est réservée à l'usage exclusif du destinataire. 
Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire visé, vous n'avez aucun droit d'utiliser 
cette information, de la copier, de la distribuer ou de la diffuser. Si cette 
communication vous a été transmise par erreur, veuillez la détruire et nous en 
aviser immédiatement par courriel.

-Message d'origine-
De : J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca] 
Envoyé : 8 août 2013 13:26
À : =?iso-8859-1?Q?L=27=C9cuyer-Coelho_Marie-Chantal?=@kepler.riq.qc.ca; 
L'Écuyer-Coelho Marie-Chantal
Cc : RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Objet : Re: [RDA-L] Date given in an incomplete form

Marie-Chantal posted:

>I am presently describing an etching. The artist simply wrote  61 ...

264  0  $a]Place, Jurisdiction] :$bArtist's Name,$c[19]61.

This assumes the artist's name appears on the etching.  If it is a
reproduction as apposed to the original etching, the 264 2nd indicator
would be "1".

While we are not allowed to supply missing letters or numbers in 245,
we can in 264 as I understand it.

Waiting for a note to see a correction is one of the greatest
weaknesses of RDa.


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

Re: [RDA-L] Date given in an incomplete form

[J. McRee Elrod]

Marie-Chantal posted:

>I am presently describing an etching. The artist simply wrote  61 ...

264  0  $a]Place, Jurisdiction] :$bArtist's Name,$c[19]61.

This assumes the artist's name appears on the etching.  If it is a
reproduction as apposed to the original etching, the 264 2nd indicator
would be "1".

While we are not allowed to supply missing letters or numbers in 245,
we can in 264 as I understand it.

Waiting for a note to see a correction is one of the greatest
weaknesses of RDa.


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

Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4

[J. McRee Elrod]

Heidrun posted:

>It beats me why the examples in 2.9.4.4 (and other similar rules,
>e.g. 2.10.4.4) are all capitalized, e.g.: Distributed by New York
>Graphic Society

My reaction is, why is this phrase included, when function is covered
by 264 2nd indicators?   Whenever I confess to doing something because
the ILS's we support can't do this or that, I am told that we should
not catalogue for ILS weaknesses.  Not understanding that 2nd
indicator is certainly an ILS weakness.

Since OPACs fragment fields in display, each element, as opposed to
each field, should begin with an upper case letter, it seems to me.


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



 

Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4

[Jack Wu]

I don't know if this is oversimplification. The way I see it. If you
have Place Name followed by Distributed by, Published by or whatever,
it's entirely logical to capitalize the first word. I can say this is
great. Come. So what. O, no. Each is a separate statement. Regardless
whether Separated by : , by , by . We are not saying Place that is
distributed, or sold by.
 
Jack
Franciscan University
j...@franciscan.edu
 

>>> Heidrun Wiesenmüller 8/8/2013 5:54
AM >>>
It beats me why the examples in 2.9.4.4 (and other similar rules, e.g.

2.10.4.4) are all capitalized, e.g.:
Distributed by New York Graphic Society
Sold by Longman

I cannot find any justification for this in appendix A. It's certainly

not mentioned among the elements where the first word must always be 
capitalized.

Corresponding examples in the ISBD consolidated (4.2.5) aren't 
capitalized, e.g.:
distributed by Harvard University Press
to be sold by Jas. Gardner

So, is there something I've overlooked, or is this a mistake in RDA?

Heidrun

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


Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance

Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4

[Joan Wang]

Francis, thanks for letting me know. I have been wondering the issue for a
while :)




On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Lapka, Francis wrote:

>  This topic is the subject of proposal to be put forth to JSC later this
> year.
>
> ** **
>
> See 6JSC/LC/24 (particularly in the neighborhood of change #10):
>
> http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-LC-24.pdf
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> _
>
> *Francis Lapka, Catalog Librarian*
>
> Yale Center for British Art, Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts
>
> 1080 Chapel Street, PO Box 208280, New Haven, CT  06520
>
> 203.432.9672francis.la...@yale.edu
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Joan Wang
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 08, 2013 10:29 AM
> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4
>
> ** **
>
> > OR, to simplify things further, and perhaps even better yet, we should
> get rid > of the “(other than solely publishing)” instruction at 2.8.4.4
> and just apply the > ‘principle of representation’ (0.4.3.4) to  ‘put down
> what we see’ for publisher > data also.
>
> Deborah, thanks for pointing it out. I actually thought about that. But my
> concern is that the element title is Publisher's Name. We transcribe a
> publisher's name in the form as it appears on the source (the
> representation principle). I am not sure if the statement of function is
> supposed to be a part of a publisher's name. I do not mind the removal of 
> "other
> than solely publishing" in instruction at 2.8.4.4. But it seems to be a
> big difference :) At least the relevant instructions in the three
> statements are not consistent. 
>
> Thanks, 
>
> Joan Wang
>
> ** **
>
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Deborah Fritz 
> wrote:
>
> This is a display issue that should be handled by the ILS setup.
>
>  
>
> If the distributor information is displayed in a single line, along with
> the publisher, etc. information, as ISBD requires, then it is logical to
> retain the words or phrases indicating functions other than publishing, as
> per AACR:
>
>  
>
> 260$a Boulder : $b East European Monographs ; $a New York : $b
> Distributed by Columbia University Press, $c 2010.
>
> *Displays as:*
>
> Publication, etc.:  Boulder :  East European Monographs ; New York :
> Distributed by Columbia University Press, 2010.
>
>  
>
> If the distributor information is in a separate MARC field (264_2) and is
> therefore not displayed in a single line, then there should not be any
> point in including the ‘Distributed by’ wording, since the ILS can be set
> up to display the separate field labeled according to the second indicator:
> 
>
>  
>
> 264  1 $a London ; $a New York : $b I.B. Tauris, $c 2012.
>
> 264  2 $a New York : $b Distributed in the United States and Canada
> exclusively by Palgrave Macmillan, $c [2012]
>
> *Displays as:*
>
> Publication: London ; New York : I.B. Tauris, 2012.
>
> Distribution: New York : Distributed in the United States and Canada
> exclusively by Palgrave Macmillan, [2012]
>
>  
>
> The only reason for not displaying the field label for separate 264, is to
> try to make it look like ISBD:
>
>  
>
> *Displays as:*
>
> Publication: London ; New York : I.B. Tauris, 2012.
>
>  New York : Distributed in the United States and
> Canada exclusively by Palgrave Macmillan, [2012]
>
>  
>
> But this doesn’t display as per ISBD anyway, so it does seem that it might
> be time to treat these statements as separate and distinct, in which case I
> agree that the RDA instructions could be changed for both Distribution and
> Manufacture, with the addition of “(other than solely distributing)” and
> “(other than solely manufacturing)”
>
>  
>
> OR, to simplify things further, and perhaps even better yet, we should get
> rid of the “(other than solely publishing)” instruction at 2.8.4.4 and
> just apply the ‘principle of representation’ (0.4.3.4) to  ‘put down what
> we see’ for publisher data also.
>
>  
>
> Deborah
>
>  
>
> P.S. It is good to know about A.7B1 after all these years (how did I miss
> that??) but I still wonder what the rationale was for this capitalization,
> given the way it was meant to be displayed, in a string.
>
>  
>
> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  
>
> 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 *rball...@frontier.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 08, 2013 9:23 AM
> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4
>
>  
>
> Joan, I 

Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4

[Deborah Fritz]

Excellent! 

 

-  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  

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 Lapka, Francis
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 10:58 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4

 

This topic is the subject of proposal to be put forth to JSC later this
year.

 

See 6JSC/LC/24 (particularly in the neighborhood of change #10):

http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-LC-24.pdf

 

 

 

_

Francis Lapka, Catalog Librarian

Yale Center for British Art, Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts

1080 Chapel Street, PO Box 208280, New Haven, CT  06520

203.432.9672francis.la...@yale.edu

 

 

 

 

 

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joan Wang
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 10:29 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4

 

> OR, to simplify things further, and perhaps even better yet, we should get
rid > of the “(other than solely publishing)” instruction at 2.8.4.4 and
just apply the > ‘principle of representation’ (0.4.3.4) to  ‘put down what
we see’ for publisher > data also.

Deborah, thanks for pointing it out. I actually thought about that. But my
concern is that the element title is Publisher's Name. We transcribe a
publisher's name in the form as it appears on the source (the representation
principle). I am not sure if the statement of function is supposed to be a
part of a publisher's name. I do not mind the removal of "other than solely
publishing" in instruction at 2.8.4.4. But it seems to be a big difference
:) At least the relevant instructions in the three statements are not
consistent. 

Thanks, 

Joan Wang

 

On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Deborah Fritz 
wrote:

This is a display issue that should be handled by the ILS setup.

 

If the distributor information is displayed in a single line, along with the
publisher, etc. information, as ISBD requires, then it is logical to retain
the words or phrases indicating functions other than publishing, as per
AACR:

 

260$a Boulder : $b East European Monographs ; $a New York : $b
Distributed by Columbia University Press, $c 2010.

Displays as:

Publication, etc.:  Boulder :  East European Monographs ; New York :
Distributed by Columbia University Press, 2010.

 

If the distributor information is in a separate MARC field (264_2) and is
therefore not displayed in a single line, then there should not be any point
in including the ‘Distributed by’ wording, since the ILS can be set up to
display the separate field labeled according to the second indicator:

 

264  1 $a London ; $a New York : $b I.B. Tauris, $c 2012.

264  2 $a New York : $b Distributed in the United States and Canada
exclusively by Palgrave Macmillan, $c [2012]

Displays as:

Publication: London ; New York : I.B. Tauris, 2012.

Distribution: New York : Distributed in the United States and Canada
exclusively by Palgrave Macmillan, [2012]

 

The only reason for not displaying the field label for separate 264, is to
try to make it look like ISBD:

 

Displays as:

Publication: London ; New York : I.B. Tauris, 2012.

 New York : Distributed in the United States and
Canada exclusively by Palgrave Macmillan, [2012]

 

But this doesn’t display as per ISBD anyway, so it does seem that it might
be time to treat these statements as separate and distinct, in which case I
agree that the RDA instructions could be changed for both Distribution and
Manufacture, with the addition of “(other than solely distributing)” and
“(other than solely manufacturing)”

 

OR, to simplify things further, and perhaps even better yet, we should get
rid of the “(other than solely publishing)” instruction at 2.8.4.4 and just
apply the ‘principle of representation’ (0.4.3.4) to  ‘put down what we see’
for publisher data also.

 

Deborah

 

P.S. It is good to know about A.7B1 after all these years (how did I miss
that??) but I still wonder what the rationale was for this capitalization,
given the way it was meant to be displayed, in a string.

 

-  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  

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 rball...@frontier.com
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 9:23 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4

 

Joan, I disagree with your proposed rule change only because, unless one's
local system is set up to specifically display something to the user that
indicates that they are seeing a distribution statement (based on indicator
2), the user might wonder why 

[RDA-L] Date given in an incomplete form

[L'Écuyer-Coelho Marie-Chantal]

Hi,

 

I am presently describing an etching. The artist simply wrote « 61 » as year of 
production, under the image. Does it means I must record « 61 » in 264 $c, and 
then write up a note ? As much as I can tell, we're not allowed to use « 61 
[i.e. 1961] » or « [19]61 ». What do you think ?

 

Thank you!

 

Marie-Chantal L'Ecuyer-Coelho

Bibliothécaire  

Direction du traitement documentaire des collections patrimoniales

Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec

2275, rue Holt

Montréal (Québec) H2G 3H1

Téléphone : 514-873-1101 poste 3730

mc.coe...@banq.qc.ca  

www.banq.qc.ca  

 

Avis de confidentialité Ce courriel est une communication confidentielle et 
l'information qu'il contient est réservée à l'usage exclusif du destinataire. 
Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire visé, vous n'avez aucun droit d'utiliser 
cette information, de la copier, de la distribuer ou de la diffuser. Si cette 
communication vous a été transmise par erreur, veuillez la détruire et nous en 
aviser immédiatement par courriel.

 

Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4

[Lapka, Francis]

This topic is the subject of proposal to be put forth to JSC later this year.

See 6JSC/LC/24 (particularly in the neighborhood of change #10):
http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-LC-24.pdf



_
Francis Lapka, Catalog Librarian
Yale Center for British Art, Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts
1080 Chapel Street, PO Box 208280, New Haven, CT  06520
203.432.9672francis.la...@yale.edu





From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joan Wang
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 10:29 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4

> OR, to simplify things further, and perhaps even better yet, we should get 
> rid > of the "(other than solely publishing)" instruction at 2.8.4.4 and just 
> apply the > 'principle of representation' (0.4.3.4) to  'put down what we 
> see' for publisher > data also.
Deborah, thanks for pointing it out. I actually thought about that. But my 
concern is that the element title is Publisher's Name. We transcribe a 
publisher's name in the form as it appears on the source (the representation 
principle). I am not sure if the statement of function is supposed to be a part 
of a publisher's name. I do not mind the removal of "other than solely 
publishing" in instruction at 2.8.4.4. But it seems to be a big difference :) 
At least the relevant instructions in the three statements are not consistent.
Thanks,
Joan Wang

On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Deborah Fritz 
mailto:debo...@marcofquality.com>> wrote:
This is a display issue that should be handled by the ILS setup.

If the distributor information is displayed in a single line, along with the 
publisher, etc. information, as ISBD requires, then it is logical to retain the 
words or phrases indicating functions other than publishing, as per AACR:

260$a Boulder : $b East European Monographs ; $a New York : $b Distributed 
by Columbia University Press, $c 2010.
Displays as:
Publication, etc.:  Boulder :  East European Monographs ; New York : 
Distributed by Columbia University Press, 2010.

If the distributor information is in a separate MARC field (264_2) and is 
therefore not displayed in a single line, then there should not be any point in 
including the 'Distributed by' wording, since the ILS can be set up to display 
the separate field labeled according to the second indicator:

264  1 $a London ; $a New York : $b I.B. Tauris, $c 2012.
264  2 $a New York : $b Distributed in the United States and Canada exclusively 
by Palgrave Macmillan, $c [2012]
Displays as:
Publication: London ; New York : I.B. Tauris, 2012.
Distribution: New York : Distributed in the United States and Canada 
exclusively by Palgrave Macmillan, [2012]

The only reason for not displaying the field label for separate 264, is to try 
to make it look like ISBD:

Displays as:
Publication: London ; New York : I.B. Tauris, 2012.
 New York : Distributed in the United States and Canada 
exclusively by Palgrave Macmillan, [2012]

But this doesn't display as per ISBD anyway, so it does seem that it might be 
time to treat these statements as separate and distinct, in which case I agree 
that the RDA instructions could be changed for both Distribution and 
Manufacture, with the addition of "(other than solely distributing)" and 
"(other than solely manufacturing)"

OR, to simplify things further, and perhaps even better yet, we should get rid 
of the "(other than solely publishing)" instruction at 2.8.4.4 and just apply 
the 'principle of representation' (0.4.3.4) to  'put down what we see' for 
publisher data also.

Deborah

P.S. It is good to know about A.7B1 after all these years (how did I miss 
that??) but I still wonder what the rationale was for this capitalization, 
given the way it was meant to be displayed, in a string.

-  -  -  -  -  -  -  -
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 rball...@frontier.com
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 9:23 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4

Joan, I disagree with your proposed rule change only because, unless one's 
local system is set up to specifically display something to the user that 
indicates that they are seeing a distribution statement (based on indicator 2), 
the user might wonder why there are two separate statements with no seeming 
difference. If the "distributed by" statement is included in $b of the 264, the 
role of the distributor is clear.

Thanks,

Kevin Roe
Supervisor, Media Processing
Fort Wayne Community Schools
Fort Wayne, IN 46802

Fr

Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4

[Joan Wang]

> OR, to simplify things further, and perhaps even better yet, we should
get rid > of the “(other than solely publishing)” instruction at 2.8.4.4
and just apply the > ‘principle of representation’ (0.4.3.4) to  ‘put down
what we see’ for publisher > data also.

Deborah, thanks for pointing it out. I actually thought about that. But my
concern is that the element title is Publisher's Name. We transcribe a
publisher's name in the form as it appears on the source (the
representation principle). I am not sure if the statement of function is
supposed to be a part of a publisher's name. I do not mind the removal
of "other
than solely publishing" in instruction at 2.8.4.4. But it seems to be a big
difference :) At least the relevant instructions in the three statements
are not consistent.

Thanks,
Joan Wang


On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Deborah Fritz wrote:

> This is a display issue that should be handled by the ILS setup.
>
> ** **
>
> If the distributor information is displayed in a single line, along with
> the publisher, etc. information, as ISBD requires, then it is logical to
> retain the words or phrases indicating functions other than publishing, as
> per AACR:
>
> ** **
>
> 260$a Boulder : $b East European Monographs ; $a New York : $b
> Distributed by Columbia University Press, $c 2010.
>
> *Displays as:*
>
> Publication, etc.:  Boulder :  East European Monographs ; New York :
> Distributed by Columbia University Press, 2010.
>
> ** **
>
> If the distributor information is in a separate MARC field (264_2) and is
> therefore not displayed in a single line, then there should not be any
> point in including the ‘Distributed by’ wording, since the ILS can be set
> up to display the separate field labeled according to the second indicator:
> 
>
> ** **
>
> 264  1 $a London ; $a New York : $b I.B. Tauris, $c 2012.
>
> 264  2 $a New York : $b Distributed in the United States and Canada
> exclusively by Palgrave Macmillan, $c [2012]
>
> *Displays as:*
>
> Publication: London ; New York : I.B. Tauris, 2012.
>
> Distribution: New York : Distributed in the United States and Canada
> exclusively by Palgrave Macmillan, [2012]
>
> ** **
>
> The only reason for not displaying the field label for separate 264, is to
> try to make it look like ISBD:
>
> ** **
>
> *Displays as:*
>
> Publication: London ; New York : I.B. Tauris, 2012.
>
>  New York : Distributed in the United States and
> Canada exclusively by Palgrave Macmillan, [2012]
>
> ** **
>
> But this doesn’t display as per ISBD anyway, so it does seem that it might
> be time to treat these statements as separate and distinct, in which case I
> agree that the RDA instructions could be changed for both Distribution and
> Manufacture, with the addition of “(other than solely distributing)” and
> “(other than solely manufacturing)”
>
> ** **
>
> OR, to simplify things further, and perhaps even better yet, we should get
> rid of the “(other than solely publishing)” instruction at 2.8.4.4 and
> just apply the ‘principle of representation’ (0.4.3.4) to  ‘put down what
> we see’ for publisher data also.
>
> ** **
>
> Deborah
>
> ** **
>
> P.S. It is good to know about A.7B1 after all these years (how did I miss
> that??) but I still wonder what the rationale was for this capitalization,
> given the way it was meant to be displayed, in a string.
>
> ** **
>
> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  
>
> 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 *rball...@frontier.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 08, 2013 9:23 AM
> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4
>
> ** **
>
> Joan, I disagree with your proposed rule change only because, unless one's
> local system is set up to specifically display something to the user that
> indicates that they are seeing a distribution statement (based on indicator
> 2), the user might wonder why there are two separate statements with no
> seeming difference. If the "distributed by" statement is included in $b of
> the 264, the role of the distributor is clear.
>
>  
>
> Thanks,
>
>  
>
> Kevin Roe
>
> Supervisor, Media Processing
>
> Fort Wayne Community Schools
>
> Fort Wayne, IN 46802
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Joan Wang 
> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 8, 2013 8:53 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4
>
> ** **
>
> I look at corresponding examples in AACR2, they are capitalized.  
>
> Also, the following examples in RDA 2.9.4.4 are misleading. The recording
> or supplying of the function, such as distributed by and [distributor], is
> not necessary in RDA records. The second indicator 2 of 264 fields already
> indicates its function

Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4

[Deborah Fritz]

This is a display issue that should be handled by the ILS setup.

 

If the distributor information is displayed in a single line, along with the
publisher, etc. information, as ISBD requires, then it is logical to retain
the words or phrases indicating functions other than publishing, as per
AACR:

 

260$a Boulder : $b East European Monographs ; $a New York : $b
Distributed by Columbia University Press, $c 2010.

Displays as:

Publication, etc.:  Boulder :  East European Monographs ; New York :
Distributed by Columbia University Press, 2010.

 

If the distributor information is in a separate MARC field (264_2) and is
therefore not displayed in a single line, then there should not be any point
in including the ‘Distributed by’ wording, since the ILS can be set up to
display the separate field labeled according to the second indicator:

 

264  1 $a London ; $a New York : $b I.B. Tauris, $c 2012.

264  2 $a New York : $b Distributed in the United States and Canada
exclusively by Palgrave Macmillan, $c [2012]

Displays as:

Publication: London ; New York : I.B. Tauris, 2012.

Distribution: New York : Distributed in the United States and Canada
exclusively by Palgrave Macmillan, [2012]

 

The only reason for not displaying the field label for separate 264, is to
try to make it look like ISBD:

 

Displays as:

Publication: London ; New York : I.B. Tauris, 2012.

 New York : Distributed in the United States and
Canada exclusively by Palgrave Macmillan, [2012]

 

But this doesn’t display as per ISBD anyway, so it does seem that it might
be time to treat these statements as separate and distinct, in which case I
agree that the RDA instructions could be changed for both Distribution and
Manufacture, with the addition of “(other than solely distributing)” and
“(other than solely manufacturing)”

 

OR, to simplify things further, and perhaps even better yet, we should get
rid of the “(other than solely publishing)” instruction at 2.8.4.4 and just
apply the ‘principle of representation’ (0.4.3.4) to  ‘put down what we see’
for publisher data also.

 

Deborah

 

P.S. It is good to know about A.7B1 after all these years (how did I miss
that??) but I still wonder what the rationale was for this capitalization,
given the way it was meant to be displayed, in a string.

 

-  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  

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 rball...@frontier.com
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 9:23 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4

 

Joan, I disagree with your proposed rule change only because, unless one's
local system is set up to specifically display something to the user that
indicates that they are seeing a distribution statement (based on indicator
2), the user might wonder why there are two separate statements with no
seeming difference. If the "distributed by" statement is included in $b of
the 264, the role of the distributor is clear.

 

Thanks,

 

Kevin Roe

Supervisor, Media Processing

Fort Wayne Community Schools

Fort Wayne, IN 46802

 

From: Joan Wang 
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA 
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2013 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4

 

I look at corresponding examples in AACR2, they are capitalized.  

Also, the following examples in RDA 2.9.4.4 are misleading. The recording or
supplying of the function, such as distributed by and [distributor], is not
necessary in RDA records. The second indicator 2 of 264 fields already
indicates its function. 

 

Distributed by Independent Publishers Group

Distribution by: MapArt Publishing Corporation 

Distributed by Coach House Records Ltd.


Voluntary Committee on Overseas Aid & Development [distributor]
Guild Sound and Vision [distributor]

The rule should be changed like this: 

2.9.4.4 Record words or phrases indicating the function (other than solely
distributing) performed by a person, family, or corporate body as they
appear on the source of information.

My opinion!

 

Thanks, 

Joan Wang

Illinois Heartland Library System

 

On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 4:54 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller
 wrote:

It beats me why the examples in 2.9.4.4 (and other similar rules, e.g.
2.10.4.4) are all capitalized, e.g.:
Distributed by New York Graphic Society
Sold by Longman

I cannot find any justification for this in appendix A. It's certainly not
mentioned among the elements where the first word must always be
capitalized.

Corresponding examples in the ISBD consolidated (4.2.5) aren't capitalized,
e.g.:
distributed by Harvard University Press
to be sold by Jas. Gardner

So, is there something I've overlooked, or is this a mistake in RDA?

Heidrun

-- 
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media Universit

Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

Kevin,

Thanks for pointing me to the right instruction in AACR2.

Personally, I don't really mind whether these words or phrases are 
capitalized or not (although I don't quite see why a deviation from ISBD 
should be necessary here). One can probably find arguments for both 
solutions.


But what I *do* mind is that RDA doesn't explicitly say that these 
things are always capitalized (unlike AACR2 did). This is a bit 
worrying, as it means you can't be really certain that appendix A lists 
all the bits which have to be capitalized.


It's not the first flaw I've noticed in appendix A, by the way. For 
example, A.5 only mentions the designation of edition (2.5.2), but not 
the parallel designation of edition (2.5.3).


Heidrun


Kevin said:
Heidrun, AACR2 A.7B1 calls for capitalization of words or phrases that 
do not make up part of the name of the publisher, distributor etc., 
e.g. "Released by", "Printed in association with", etc. My thinking is 
that this is simply a holdover from AACR2, and does not really make 
any difference at all to the user. Outt of habit, I capitalize. You 
are correct in that it doesn't seem to be part of ISBD, so where it 
came from, I don't know.

Kevin Roe
Supervisor, Media Processing
Fort Wayne Community Schools
Fort Wayne IN 46802

*From:* Heidrun Wiesenmüller 
*To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
*Sent:* Thursday, August 8, 2013 5:54 AM
*Subject:* [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4

It beats me why the examples in 2.9.4.4 (and other similar rules, e.g.
2.10.4.4) are all capitalized, e.g.:
Distributed by New York Graphic Society
Sold by Longman

I cannot find any justification for this in appendix A. It's certainly
not mentioned among the elements where the first word must always be
capitalized.

Corresponding examples in the ISBD consolidated (4.2.5) aren't
capitalized, e.g.:
distributed by Harvard University Press
to be sold by Jas. Gardner

So, is there something I've overlooked, or is this a mistake in RDA?

Heidrun

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





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

Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4

[rball...@frontier.com]

Heidrun, AACR2 A.7B1 calls for capitalization of words or phrases that do not 
make up part of the name of the publisher, distributor etc., e.g. "Released 
by", "Printed in association with", etc. My thinking is that this is simply a 
holdover from AACR2, and does not really make any difference at all to the 
user. Outt of habit, I capitalize. You are correct in that it doesn't seem to 
be part of ISBD, so where it came from, I don't know.
 
Kevin Roe
Supervisor, Media Processing
Fort Wayne Community Schools
Fort Wayne IN 46802

From: Heidrun Wiesenmüller 
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA 
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2013 5:54 AM
Subject: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4


It beats me why the examples in 2.9.4.4 (and other similar rules, e.g. 
2.10.4.4) are all capitalized, e.g.:
Distributed by New York Graphic Society
Sold by Longman

I cannot find any justification for this in appendix A. It's certainly 
not mentioned among the elements where the first word must always be 
capitalized.

Corresponding examples in the ISBD consolidated (4.2.5) aren't 
capitalized, e.g.:
distributed by Harvard University Press
to be sold by Jas. Gardner

So, is there something I've overlooked, or is this a mistake in RDA?

Heidrun

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

Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4

[Meehan, Thomas]

Kevin,

I understand that to some extent although at some point the data that RDA 
records has to be separate from the display. Another example is copyright date 
which is recorded as, for example, "©2004" rather than simply "2004": the 
effect is that this element isn't actually a date, but a string from which the 
date has to be extracted (manually or otherwise). Presumably the 264 would also 
need to be set up anyway as it is a new field?

Thanks,

Tom

---

Thomas Meehan
Head of Current Cataloguing
Library Services
University College London
Gower Street
London WC1E 6BT

t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of rball...@frontier.com
Sent: 08 August 2013 14:23
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4

Joan, I disagree with your proposed rule change only because, unless one's 
local system is set up to specifically display something to the user that 
indicates that they are seeing a distribution statement (based on indicator 2), 
the user might wonder why there are two separate statements with no seeming 
difference. If the "distributed by" statement is included in $b of the 264, the 
role of the distributor is clear.

Thanks,

Kevin Roe
Supervisor, Media Processing
Fort Wayne Community Schools
Fort Wayne, IN 46802

From: Joan Wang 
mailto:jw...@illinoisheartland.org>>
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2013 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4

I look at corresponding examples in AACR2, they are capitalized.
Also, the following examples in RDA 2.9.4.4 are misleading. The recording or 
supplying of the function, such as distributed by and [distributor], is not 
necessary in RDA records. The second indicator 2 of 264 fields already 
indicates its function.

Distributed by Independent Publishers Group
Distribution by: MapArt Publishing Corporation
Distributed by Coach House Records Ltd.

Voluntary Committee on Overseas Aid & Development [distributor]
Guild Sound and Vision [distributor]

The rule should be changed like this:

2.9.4.4 Record words or phrases indicating the function (other than solely 
distributing) performed by a person, family, or corporate body as they appear 
on the source of information.
My opinion!

Thanks,
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System

On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 4:54 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller 
mailto:wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de>> wrote:
It beats me why the examples in 2.9.4.4 (and other similar rules, e.g. 
2.10.4.4) are all capitalized, e.g.:
Distributed by New York Graphic Society
Sold by Longman

I cannot find any justification for this in appendix A. It's certainly not 
mentioned among the elements where the first word must always be capitalized.

Corresponding examples in the ISBD consolidated (4.2.5) aren't capitalized, 
e.g.:
distributed by Harvard University Press
to be sold by Jas. Gardner

So, is there something I've overlooked, or is this a mistake in RDA?

Heidrun

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



--
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] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4

[rball...@frontier.com]

Joan, I disagree with your proposed rule change only because, unless one's 
local system is set up to specifically display something to the user that 
indicates that they are seeing a distribution statement (based on indicator 2), 
the user might wonder why there are two separate statements with no seeming 
difference. If the "distributed by" statement is included in $b of the 264, the 
role of the distributor is clear.
 
Thanks,
 
Kevin Roe
Supervisor, Media Processing
Fort Wayne Community Schools
Fort Wayne, IN 46802

From: Joan Wang 
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA 
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2013 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4



I look at corresponding examples in AACR2, they are capitalized.  

Also, the following examples in RDA 2.9.4.4 are misleading. The recording or 
supplying of the function, such as distributed by and [distributor], is not 
necessary in RDA records. The second indicator 2 of 264 fields already 
indicates its function. 



Distributed by Independent Publishers Group
Distribution by: MapArt Publishing Corporation 
Distributed by Coach House Records Ltd.
Voluntary Committee on Overseas Aid & Development [distributor]
Guild Sound and Vision[distributor]

The rule should be changed like this: 

2.9.4.4 Record words or phrases indicating the function (other than solely 
distributing) performed by a person, family, or corporate body as they appear 
on the source of information.


My opinion!


Thanks, 

Joan Wang

Illinois Heartland Library System




On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 4:54 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller 
 wrote:

It beats me why the examples in 2.9.4.4 (and other similar rules, e.g. 
2.10.4.4) are all capitalized, e.g.:
>Distributed by New York Graphic Society
>Sold by Longman
>
>I cannot find any justification for this in appendix A. It's certainly not 
>mentioned among the elements where the first word must always be capitalized.
>
>Corresponding examples in the ISBD consolidated (4.2.5) aren't capitalized, 
>e.g.:
>distributed by Harvard University Press
>to be sold by Jas. Gardner
>
>So, is there something I've overlooked, or is this a mistake in RDA?
>
>Heidrun
>
>-- 
>-
>Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
>Stuttgart Media University
>Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
>www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
>


-- 

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] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4

[Joan Wang]

I look at corresponding examples in AACR2, they are capitalized.

Also, the following examples in RDA 2.9.4.4 are misleading. The recording
or supplying of the function, such as distributed by and [distributor], is
not necessary in RDA records. The second indicator 2 of 264 fields already
indicates its function.

 *Distributed by Independent Publishers Group*
* *
* *
* *
 *Distribution by: MapArt Publishing Corporation *
 * *
 *Distributed by Coach House Records Ltd.*
 *
Voluntary Committee on Overseas Aid & Development [distributor]
Guild Sound and Vision [distributor]*

The rule should be changed like this:

2.9.4.4 Record words or phrases indicating the function (other than solely
distributing) performed by a person, family, or corporate body as they
appear on the source of information.

My opinion!

Thanks,
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System


On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 4:54 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller <
wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote:

> It beats me why the examples in 2.9.4.4 (and other similar rules, e.g.
> 2.10.4.4) are all capitalized, e.g.:
> Distributed by New York Graphic Society
> Sold by Longman
>
> I cannot find any justification for this in appendix A. It's certainly not
> mentioned among the elements where the first word must always be
> capitalized.
>
> Corresponding examples in the ISBD consolidated (4.2.5) aren't
> capitalized, e.g.:
> distributed by Harvard University Press
> to be sold by Jas. Gardner
>
> So, is there something I've overlooked, or is this a mistake in RDA?
>
> Heidrun
>
> --
> -
> Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
> Stuttgart Media University
> Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
> www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
>



-- 
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] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4

[Deborah Fritz]

This is a carry-over from what has always been a mystery to me in AACR (see
1.4D3). I never could find an explanation of why we capitalized the first
word or phrase indicating the function, but since the examples showed it
that way, that's what we did. Those examples came over as they were given in
AACR.

This capitalization actually makes sense in a data world, where each element
is its own statement, but always has looked strange in an ISBD 'sentence'
display.

If there *is* an explanation for this, I, too, would be interested in
learning about it at last, since it has always been an aberration in the
'sentence capitalization' guidelines.

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 Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 5:55 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4

It beats me why the examples in 2.9.4.4 (and other similar rules, e.g. 
2.10.4.4) are all capitalized, e.g.:
Distributed by New York Graphic Society
Sold by Longman

I cannot find any justification for this in appendix A. It's certainly not
mentioned among the elements where the first word must always be
capitalized.

Corresponding examples in the ISBD consolidated (4.2.5) aren't capitalized,
e.g.:
distributed by Harvard University Press
to be sold by Jas. Gardner

So, is there something I've overlooked, or is this a mistake in RDA?

Heidrun

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

[RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

It beats me why the examples in 2.9.4.4 (and other similar rules, e.g. 
2.10.4.4) are all capitalized, e.g.:

Distributed by New York Graphic Society
Sold by Longman

I cannot find any justification for this in appendix A. It's certainly 
not mentioned among the elements where the first word must always be 
capitalized.


Corresponding examples in the ISBD consolidated (4.2.5) aren't 
capitalized, e.g.:

distributed by Harvard University Press
to be sold by Jas. Gardner

So, is there something I've overlooked, or is this a mistake in RDA?

Heidrun

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