Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print?
I have always wondered why the 650/655 term was Large type books. We have (or had): 245 |h [text (large print) 300 350 p. (large print) or 350 pages (large print) 655 Large type books People know what large print means, so why the discrepency? Dawn Grattino Senior Cataloger Catalog Department Cleveland Public Library 17133 Lakeshore Blvd. Cleveland, OH 44110-4006 (phone) 216.623.2885 (fax) 216.623.6980 e-mail: dawn.gratt...@cpl.org http://www.cpl.org - Original Message - From: Thomas Brenndorfer tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2013 9:23:13 AM Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print? -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mitchell, Michael Sent: August-01-13 9:10 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print? -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Brenndorfer, Thomas Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 8:26 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print? [...] 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 [...] Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library Since we are not analyzing books ABOUT large type books, one should use, rather than a 650 Topical subject, a 655 _0 Large type books. Particularly if one is trying to engage in some consistent separation of elements and precision in description. Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu That is on my to-do list. Because so many other new 655 headings have occupied my time over the last few years (these are the LC authorized ones), changing the 650 for Large type books has not been a priority, especially as we get records from multiple sources, many of which continue to use 650 (including LC). It would be about a 15-minute batch job to change just under 5000 large print bibliographic records. There does seem to be a need for greater co-ordination between genre/form/audience 650/655 terms and bibliographic elements (variable and controlled). Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print?
Look at this: 150 Large type books 450 Large print books On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Dawn Grattino dawn.gratt...@cpl.org wrote: I have always wondered why the 650/655 term was Large type books. We have (or had): 245 |h [text (large print) 300 350 p. (large print) or 350 pages (large print) 655 Large type books People know what large print means, so why the discrepency? Dawn Grattino Senior Cataloger Catalog Department Cleveland Public Library 17133 Lakeshore Blvd. Cleveland, OH 44110-4006 (phone) 216.623.2885 (fax) 216.623.6980 e-mail: dawn.gratt...@cpl.org http://www.cpl.org -- *From: *Thomas Brenndorfer tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca *To: *RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Sent: *Thursday, August 1, 2013 9:23:13 AM *Subject: *Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print? -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mitchell, Michael Sent: August-01-13 9:10 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print? -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Brenndorfer, Thomas Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 8:26 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print? [...] 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 [...] Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library Since we are not analyzing books ABOUT large type books, one should use, rather than a 650 Topical subject, a 655 _0 Large type books. Particularly if one is trying to engage in some consistent separation of elements and precision in description. Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu That is on my to-do list. Because so many other new 655 headings have occupied my time over the last few years (these are the LC authorized ones), changing the 650 for Large type books has not been a priority, especially as we get records from multiple sources, many of which continue to use 650 (including LC). It would be about a 15-minute batch job to change just under 5000 large print bibliographic records. There does seem to be a need for greater co-ordination between genre/form/audience 650/655 terms and bibliographic elements (variable and controlled). Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library -- 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
Hi! Perhaps the solution is to give rare/older materials cataloguers the possibility to record phrases such as « published by » as an optional addition ... Otherwise, the general instruction could simply ask cataloguers to record the name of the publisher, distributer, etc. ... 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 : Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] De la part de Heidrun Wiesenmüller Envoyé : 8 août 2013 17:10 À : RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Objet : Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4 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] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4
That is exactly the option that is available to them. The PCC RDA BIBCO standard record (BSR) metadata application profile (http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/scs/documents/PCC-RDA-BSR.pdf) states to use the Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Books for many of the transcribed fields. 4C2 says to include any preceding words or phrases as it appears on the publication. Guy Frost Associate Professor of Library Science Catalog Librarian Odum Library/Valdosta State University Valdosta, Georgia 31698-0150 229.259.5060 gfr...@valdosta.edu FDLP 0125 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of L'Écuyer-Coelho Marie-Chantal [mc.coe...@banq.qc.ca] Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 9:59 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4 Hi! Perhaps the solution is to give rare/older materials cataloguers the possibility to record phrases such as « published by » as an optional addition ... Otherwise, the general instruction could simply ask cataloguers to record the name of the publisher, distributer, etc. ... 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 : Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] De la part de Heidrun Wiesenmüller Envoyé : 8 août 2013 17:10 À : RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Objet : Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4 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] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4
I totally support that and especially like your remarks about the English language bias. Myriam. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Leonard, William Sent: August-08-13 2:38 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4 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.camailto:william.leon...@lac-bac.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.cahttp://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.CAmailto: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.edumailto:francis.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.CAmailto: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 debo...@marcofquality.commailto: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
Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print?
But why is Large print books the see FROM in the AR when everyplace else in the record it is the term used? Dawn Grattino Senior Cataloger Catalog Department Cleveland Public Library 17133 Lakeshore Blvd. Cleveland, OH 44110-4006 (phone) 216.623.2885 (fax) 216.623.6980 e-mail: dawn.gratt...@cpl.org http://www.cpl.org - Original Message - From: Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.org To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Sent: Friday, August 9, 2013 9:43:05 AM Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print? Look at this: 150 Large type books 450 Large print books On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Dawn Grattino dawn.gratt...@cpl.org wrote: I have always wondered why the 650/655 term was Large type books. We have (or had): 245 |h [text (large print) 300 350 p. (large print) or 350 pages (large print) 655 Large type books People know what large print means, so why the discrepency? Dawn Grattino Senior Cataloger Catalog Department Cleveland Public Library 17133 Lakeshore Blvd. Cleveland, OH 44110-4006 (phone) 216.623.2885 (fax) 216.623.6980 e-mail: dawn.gratt...@cpl.org http://www.cpl.org From: Thomas Brenndorfer tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2013 9:23:13 AM Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print? -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA ] On Behalf Of Mitchell, Michael Sent: August-01-13 9:10 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print? -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA ] On Behalf Of Brenndorfer, Thomas Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 8:26 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print? [...] 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 [...] Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library Since we are not analyzing books ABOUT large type books, one should use, rather than a 650 Topical subject, a 655 _0 Large type books. Particularly if one is trying to engage in some consistent separation of elements and precision in description. Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu That is on my to-do list. Because so many other new 655 headings have occupied my time over the last few years (these are the LC authorized ones), changing the 650 for Large type books has not been a priority, especially as we get records from multiple sources, many of which continue to use 650 (including LC). It would be about a 15-minute batch job to change just under 5000 large print bibliographic records. There does seem to be a need for greater co-ordination between genre/form/audience 650/655 terms and bibliographic elements (variable and controlled). Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library -- 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
[RDA-L] Discussion lacuna
It bothers me in our discussions concerning RDA usage, that most parse
the rules without reference to patron service.
No set of rules can every cover all eventualities. In the absence of
a rule, e.g., how to record '61 as a date of production, the most
important consideration it seems to me should be what produces the
most helpful record?
How anyone would think 264 0 $c'61 is better for patrons than $c1761,
$c1861, or $c1961, with or without brackets, is beyond me.
In particular situations, for particular material, the rules may even
need bending a bit.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Discussion lacuna
I agree. And that is why we don't follow pcc rules altogether. For
instance, we will add the Translation of note, include pagination of
bibliographies if appropriate. We do think that entries should be
justified in the description. Why? Because we have to realize that
cataloging uses very truncated, coded language for some of the entries.
Put the justifications in straightforward English informs the patron/user
more adequately, sometimes, than the formal language of our entries.
That is why I wish we could go back to the GMD; the 33X fields could be a
bit mystifying to users: text unmediated volume. Maybe we have to have a
séance to get the to mediated ones
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 2:13 PM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
It bothers me in our discussions concerning RDA usage, that most parse
the rules without reference to patron service.
No set of rules can every cover all eventualities. In the absence of
a rule, e.g., how to record '61 as a date of production, the most
important consideration it seems to me should be what produces the
most helpful record?
How anyone would think 264 0 $c'61 is better for patrons than $c1761,
$c1861, or $c1961, with or without brackets, is beyond me.
In particular situations, for particular material, the rules may even
need bending a bit.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Discussion lacuna
Or to the manifestations. As illustrated in this 19th-century engraving:
http://macabremuseum.com/collections-database/spirits-and-their-manifestations-an-evening-seance-engraving/
Liz O'Keefe
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Gene Fieg gf...@cst.edu wrote:
I agree. And that is why we don't follow pcc rules altogether. For
instance, we will add the Translation of note, include pagination of
bibliographies if appropriate. We do think that entries should be
justified in the description. Why? Because we have to realize that
cataloging uses very truncated, coded language for some of the entries.
Put the justifications in straightforward English informs the patron/user
more adequately, sometimes, than the formal language of our entries.
That is why I wish we could go back to the GMD; the 33X fields could be a
bit mystifying to users: text unmediated volume. Maybe we have to have a
séance to get the to mediated ones
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 2:13 PM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
It bothers me in our discussions concerning RDA usage, that most parse
the rules without reference to patron service.
No set of rules can every cover all eventualities. In the absence of
a rule, e.g., how to record '61 as a date of production, the most
important consideration it seems to me should be what produces the
most helpful record?
How anyone would think 264 0 $c'61 is better for patrons than $c1761,
$c1861, or $c1961, with or without brackets, is beyond me.
In particular situations, for particular material, the rules may even
need bending a bit.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.
--
Elizabeth O'Keefe
Director of Collection Information Systems
The Morgan Library Museum
225 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016-3405
TEL: 212 590-0380
FAX: 2127685680
NET: eoke...@themorgan.org
Visit CORSAIR, the Libraryððs comprehensive collections catalog:
http://corsair.themorgan.org
Re: [RDA-L] Discussion lacuna
That is why I like to do RDA workshops in October. All those entities and
manifestations, and the occasional medium.
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Elizabeth O'Keefe eoke...@themorgan.orgwrote:
Or to the manifestations. As illustrated in this 19th-century engraving:
http://macabremuseum.com/collections-database/spirits-and-their-manifestations-an-evening-seance-engraving/
Liz O'Keefe
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Gene Fieg gf...@cst.edu wrote:
I agree. And that is why we don't follow pcc rules altogether. For
instance, we will add the Translation of note, include pagination of
bibliographies if appropriate. We do think that entries should be
justified in the description. Why? Because we have to realize that
cataloging uses very truncated, coded language for some of the entries.
Put the justifications in straightforward English informs the patron/user
more adequately, sometimes, than the formal language of our entries.
That is why I wish we could go back to the GMD; the 33X fields could be a
bit mystifying to users: text unmediated volume. Maybe we have to have a
séance to get the to mediated ones
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 2:13 PM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
It bothers me in our discussions concerning RDA usage, that most parse
the rules without reference to patron service.
No set of rules can every cover all eventualities. In the absence of
a rule, e.g., how to record '61 as a date of production, the most
important consideration it seems to me should be what produces the
most helpful record?
How anyone would think 264 0 $c'61 is better for patrons than $c1761,
$c1861, or $c1961, with or without brackets, is beyond me.
In particular situations, for particular material, the rules may even
need bending a bit.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.
--
Elizabeth O'Keefe
Director of Collection Information Systems
The Morgan Library Museum
225 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016-3405
TEL: 212 590-0380
FAX: 2127685680
NET: eoke...@themorgan.org
Visit CORSAIR, the Libraryððs comprehensive collections catalog:
http://corsair.themorgan.org
--
Richard A. Stewart
Cataloging Supervisor
Indian Trails Library District
355 Schoenbeck Road
Wheeling, Illinois 60090-4499
USA
Tel: 847-279-2214
Fax: 847-459-4760
rstew...@indiantrailslibrary.org
http://www.indiantrailslibrary.org/
Re: [RDA-L] Discussion lacuna
Haha, is there a nice illustration showing medium of performance for a spirit
expression?
On Fri, 9 Aug 2013, Stewart, Richard wrote:
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 17:12:10 -0500
From: Stewart, Richard rstew...@indiantrailslibrary.org
Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Discussion lacuna
That is why I like to do RDA workshops in October. All those entities and
manifestations, and the occasional medium.
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Elizabeth O'Keefe eoke...@themorgan.orgwrote:
Or to the manifestations. As illustrated in this 19th-century engraving:
http://macabremuseum.com/collections-database/spirits-and-their-manifestations-an-evening-seance-engraving/
Liz O'Keefe
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Gene Fieg gf...@cst.edu wrote:
I agree. And that is why we don't follow pcc rules altogether. For
instance, we will add the Translation of note, include pagination of
bibliographies if appropriate. We do think that entries should be
justified in the description. Why? Because we have to realize that
cataloging uses very truncated, coded language for some of the entries.
Put the justifications in straightforward English informs the patron/user
more adequately, sometimes, than the formal language of our entries.
That is why I wish we could go back to the GMD; the 33X fields could be a
bit mystifying to users: text unmediated volume. Maybe we have to have a
séance to get the to mediated ones
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 2:13 PM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
It bothers me in our discussions concerning RDA usage, that most parse
the rules without reference to patron service.
No set of rules can every cover all eventualities. In the absence of
a rule, e.g., how to record '61 as a date of production, the most
important consideration it seems to me should be what produces the
most helpful record?
How anyone would think 264 0 $c'61 is better for patrons than $c1761,
$c1861, or $c1961, with or without brackets, is beyond me.
In particular situations, for particular material, the rules may even
need bending a bit.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.
--
Elizabeth O'Keefe
Director of Collection Information Systems
The Morgan Library Museum
225 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016-3405
TEL: 212 590-0380
FAX: 2127685680
NET: eoke...@themorgan.org
Visit CORSAIR, the Libraryððs comprehensive collections catalog:
http://corsair.themorgan.org
--
Richard A. Stewart
Cataloging Supervisor
Indian Trails Library District
355 Schoenbeck Road
Wheeling, Illinois 60090-4499
USA
Tel: 847-279-2214
Fax: 847-459-4760
rstew...@indiantrailslibrary.org
http://www.indiantrailslibrary.org/
^^
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] Discussion lacuna
LOL, good Friday humor, Liz.
On Fri, 9 Aug 2013, Elizabeth O'Keefe wrote:
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 18:01:39 -0400
From: Elizabeth O'Keefe eoke...@themorgan.org
Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Discussion lacuna
Or to the manifestations. As illustrated in this 19th-century engraving:
http://macabremuseum.com/collections-database/spirits-and-their-manifestations-an-evening-seance-engraving/
Liz O'Keefe
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Gene Fieg gf...@cst.edu wrote:
I agree. And that is why we don't follow pcc rules altogether. For
instance, we will add the Translation of note, include pagination of
bibliographies if appropriate. We do think that entries should be
justified in the description. Why? Because we have to realize that
cataloging uses very truncated, coded language for some of the entries.
Put the justifications in straightforward English informs the patron/user
more adequately, sometimes, than the formal language of our entries.
That is why I wish we could go back to the GMD; the 33X fields could be a
bit mystifying to users: text unmediated volume. Maybe we have to have a
séance to get the to mediated ones
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 2:13 PM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
It bothers me in our discussions concerning RDA usage, that most parse
the rules without reference to patron service.
No set of rules can every cover all eventualities. In the absence of
a rule, e.g., how to record '61 as a date of production, the most
important consideration it seems to me should be what produces the
most helpful record?
How anyone would think 264 0 $c'61 is better for patrons than $c1761,
$c1861, or $c1961, with or without brackets, is beyond me.
In particular situations, for particular material, the rules may even
need bending a bit.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.
--
Elizabeth O'Keefe
Director of Collection Information Systems
The Morgan Library Museum
225 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016-3405
TEL: 212 590-0380
FAX: 2127685680
NET: eoke...@themorgan.org
Visit CORSAIR, the Libraryððs comprehensive collections catalog:
http://corsair.themorgan.org
^^
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
~~
