Re: [RDA-L] A date between 1310 and 1319

[Moore, Richard]

Thanks Adam. If 1.9.2.5 provides a precedent for the text, then maybe I’ll 
write a proposal also to use it in 9.3, for JSC to consider next year.

 

Regards

Richard 

 

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam Schiff
Sent: 02 October 2013 19:11
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] A date between 1310 and 1319

 

I think you would have to say 

 

$d active 14th century

 

1.9.2.5 would allow you to do [between 1310 and 1319] for a publication date, 
but it does not apply to dates of birth.  It doesn’t appear that you could do 

 

$d [between 1310 and 1319]-

 

The only other option I could see would be to use an approximate date, 
splitting the difference in dates:

 

$d approximately 1315-

 

Adam

 

Adam Schiff

Principal Cataloger

University of Washington Libraries

From: Moore, Richard   

Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 5:56 AM

To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA 

Subject: [RDA-L] A date between 1310 and 1319

 

We have an author whose birth date is known to be between 1310 and 1319. We can 
record it in the 046 following edtf, but how would people deal with it in an 
RDA authorized access point? RDA 9.3.1.3 doesn’t have an example of “between 
1310 and 1319”, but should this mean we can’t do it? It’s as comprehensible as 
“approximately”.

 

If it’s considered unlawful then do people think it would be a useful addition 
to propose?

 

Regards

Richard

 

 

_

Richard Moore 

Authority Control Team Manager 

The British Library

  

Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806   

E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk

 

 

**

Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk  

 

The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : 
www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html 
 

 

Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. 
www.bl.uk/adoptabook  

 

The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled

 

*

 

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally 
privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the postmas...@bl.uk 
  : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed 
or copied without the sender's consent. 

 

The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author 
and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British 
Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. 

 

* 

 Think before you print

Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points

[J. McRee Elrod]

Adam said:

>As you all are probably aware, in RDA an alternative title is treated as 
>part of the title proper (2.3.2.1),
 
As it was in AACR2.  Granted it would be better if the $b were after
the ",or", before the alternate title.  (Earlier, it created a problem
with GMD placement, but that concern is past.)

The reason given for changing back to alternate title being part of
title proper from the RDA early draft, was how to code the "or".  We
had no difficulty coding the "and" in a collection without a
collective title as part of the first title proper, so that rationale
does not fly with me.  It was one of several unfortunate RDA
backtracks.  What's the point of new rules if they just carry foward
the faults of the old rules?
 
>but not as part of the preferred title of a work (6.2.2.4). 
 
Which should be reason enough to have that $b where it rightly
belongs.

>Therefore whenever you have a resource with an >alternative title, a
?130 or 240 is needed in addition to the 245 title proper.

In our shop, only the alternate titles gets a 246.

>100 1_  Owens, Jo, $d 1961- 
>240 10  Add kids, stir briskly 
>245 10  Add kids, stir briskly, or, How I learned to love my life / $c Jo
>Owens.
 
Our clients would consider that 240 redundant, since it would file and
index next to the 245.  Whether the patron keyed just the first title,
or first title plus alternate title, the same record would be seen in
a browse result.

>Now the question I have is, given that the 240 that would be required
>in an RDA record for this resource (because you have to name the
>work manifested in this resource)**, would one or two variant title
>246s be >required? ... 246 30  How I learned to love my life

Only the alternate title 246 is needed, since there is no number or
symbol within the title proper (before the "or") which needs to be
spelled out in a 246.

>I realize that instead of the 240 a 700 related work access point
>could be given ...

It's not a related work; it's the same work by another title.  A 700
would just duplicate the 100.  What is needed is access by the
alternate title, which the 246 provides.

For me, the resulting display and indexing should determine such
things, or in other words, what assists patrons?


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

[RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points

[Adam L. Schiff]

I'm wondering what the collective wisdom is regarding providing a variant 
access point in bibliographic records to the portion of a title proper 
that precedes an alternative title.


As you all are probably aware, in RDA an alternative title is treated as 
part of the title proper (2.3.2.1), but not as part of the preferred title 
of a work (6.2.2.4).  Therefore whenever you have a resource with an 
alternative title, a 130 or 240 is needed in addition to the 245 title 
proper.  For example:


100 1_  Owens, Jo, $d 1961-
240 10  Add kids, stir briskly
245 10  Add kids, stir briskly, or, How I learned to love my life /
$c Jo Owens.

Now the question I have is, given that the 240 that would be required in 
an RDA record for this resource (because you have to name the work 
manifested in this resource)**, would one or two variant title 246s be 
required?:


246 30  Add kids, stir briskly
246 30  How I learned to love my life

Or would only the second 246 for the alternative title suffice in an RDA 
record?



** I realize that instead of the 240 a 700 related work access point could 
be given:


700 12 $i Contains (work): $a Owens, Jo, $d 1961- $t Add kids, stir 
briskly.


If this approach is taken, would there be any difference in how many 
variant title 246s are made?



--Adam

^^
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] WEMI and Bibframe

[Robert Maxwell]

I personally find the expression level extremely useful for distinguishing 
between, e.g., different translations, different formats, etc. It's not a 
relationship between works. A translation isn't a different work from the 
original. A recording of a work isn't a different work from the text.

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568 

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to 
the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 1:59 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] WEMI and Bibframe

Benjamin said:

>I don't see what the category of "Expressions" give us that couldn't be 
>recorded and expressed through relationships among Works.

I agree.  And RDA should be reshuffled in arrangement to reflect Bibframe's 
W/I, even if we can't get ISBD arrangement.


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

Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designators, LC and PCC Core

[Michael Chopey]

  
  
I don't know either, but in the LC original cataloging we're getting
here (at least for monographs), it seems like it's rare for there
not to be at least one relationship designator for every
contributor, no matter what the contributor's role(s).

Mike Chopey
University of Hawaii at Manoa Library

  
On 10/2/2013 8:24 AM, Adam Schiff
  wrote:


  
  
  
  
  

  The last time I looked at this LC-PCC PS (a few days
ago), it had not yet been changed.  I don’t know if LC plans
to follow the rest of the PCC on this.
   
  Adam Schiff
  University of Washington Libraries
  

   
  
From: Panchyshyn, Roman

Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 6:01 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA

Subject: [RDA-L] Relationship designators,
  LC and PCC Core
  

 
  
  

  Folks,
  I am looking to corroborate
some information about relationship designator use,
and this disgraceful government shutdown is giving
me problems accessing information from LC. Regarding
the use of relationship designators, right now the
LC-PCC-PS for 18.5.1.3 states that their use at LC
is only mandatory for use for illustrators of
children’s materials only. Earlier this year, a task
group called the PCC Relationship Designator Task
Force issued guidelines that were accepted by PoCo,
that stated:
   
  “Include a relationship
designator for all creators, whether they are
preferred access points or added access points.  If
the 1XX is not a creator, the addition of a
relationship designator is optional.”
   
  I believe a decision was
made that LC was going to change the LC-PCC-PS and
adopt this PCC recommendation, and I’m just looking
for confirmation that this is so. 
   
  Thank you.
   
  Roman S.
Panchyshyn, MLIS
  Catalog
Librarian, Assistant Professor
  University Libraries
  Kent State University
  tel: 330-672-1699
  e-mail: rpanc...@kent.edu
   
  
   

  

  


-- 
Michael A. Chopey
Cataloging Dept.
Hamilton 008
University of Hawaii at Manoa Libraries
Honolulu, HI  96822

phone (808) 956-2753
fax (808) 956-5968


  

Re: [RDA-L] WEMI and Bibframe

[J. McRee Elrod]

Benjamin said:

>I don't see what the category of "Expressions" give us that couldn't
>be recorded and expressed through relationships among Works.

I agree.  And RDA should be reshuffled in arrangement to reflect
Bibframe's W/I, even if we can't get ISBD arrangement.


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

Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designators, LC and PCC Core

[Adam Schiff]

The last time I looked at this LC-PCC PS (a few days ago), it had not yet been 
changed.  I don’t know if LC plans to follow the rest of the PCC on this.

Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries

From: Panchyshyn, Roman 
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 6:01 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA 
Subject: [RDA-L] Relationship designators, LC and PCC Core

Folks,

I am looking to corroborate some information about relationship designator use, 
and this disgraceful government shutdown is giving me problems accessing 
information from LC. Regarding the use of relationship designators, right now 
the LC-PCC-PS for 18.5.1.3 states that their use at LC is only mandatory for 
use for illustrators of children’s materials only. Earlier this year, a task 
group called the PCC Relationship Designator Task Force issued guidelines that 
were accepted by PoCo, that stated:

 

“Include a relationship designator for all creators, whether they are preferred 
access points or added access points.  If the 1XX is not a creator, the 
addition of a relationship designator is optional.”

 

I believe a decision was made that LC was going to change the LC-PCC-PS and 
adopt this PCC recommendation, and I’m just looking for confirmation that this 
is so. 

 

Thank you.

 

Roman S. Panchyshyn, MLIS

Catalog Librarian, Assistant Professor

University Libraries

Kent State University

tel: 330-672-1699

e-mail: rpanc...@kent.edu

 



 
<>

Re: [RDA-L] WEMI and Bibframe

[Li Kai]

Benjamin A Abrahamse  wrote:

But, speaking for myself, I think the FRBR model would be a lot simpler to
> grasp, not to mention more applicable to non-monographic resources, if the
> "expression" level were jettisoned altogether.
>

I have to say that I highly doubt if FRBR is more applicable than BF to
non-monographic resources, given the fact that FRBR is still not very
applicable to archive and music, if not more communities. (I am sorry that
I didn't look for the source. But I remember Ms. Sally McCallum talked
about that in a forum in ALA 2013.) And I would guess that a two-layered
structure will be more easily to be implemented than a four-layered one
anyway. I totally agree with you that Expression is definitely the pain
here. But after getting rid of it, I would argue that there are really not
a lot of differences between FRBR and BF.

Kai

-- 
Kai Li | 李恺
MLIS student

School of Information Studies, Syracuse University
343 Hinds Hall, Syracuse, New York 13244-4100

My Personal Page: http://kaili.us
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/kai.lee.nalsi
Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/Nalsi
博客: http://nalsi.net/
微博: http://weibo.com/nalsi

Re: [RDA-L] A date between 1310 and 1319

[Adam Schiff]

I think you would have to say 
$d active 14th century
1.9.2.5 would allow you to do [between 1310 and 1319] for a publication date, 
but it does not apply to dates of birth.  It doesn’t appear that you could do 
$d [between 1310 and 1319]-
The only other option I could see would be to use an approximate date, 
splitting the difference in dates:
$d approximately 1315-
Adam
Adam Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
From: Moore, Richard 
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 5:56 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA 
Subject: [RDA-L] A date between 1310 and 1319

We have an author whose birth date is known to be between 1310 and 1319. We can 
record it in the 046 following edtf, but how would people deal with it in an 
RDA authorized access point? RDA 9.3.1.3 doesn’t have an example of “between 
1310 and 1319”, but should this mean we can’t do it? It’s as comprehensible as 
“approximately”.

 

If it’s considered unlawful then do people think it would be a useful addition 
to propose?

 

Regards

Richard

 

 

_

Richard Moore 

Authority Control Team Manager 

The British Library

  

Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806   

E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk

 

 

**
Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk

The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : 
www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html

Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. 
www.bl.uk/adoptabook

The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled

*

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally 
privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the postmas...@bl.uk : 
The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the 
sender's consent. 

The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author 
and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British 
Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. 

* 
 Think before you print

Re: [RDA-L] WEMI and Bibframe

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

I think what he's saying is that a "bibFrame:Work" is just a container into 
which both "FRBR:Works" and "FRBR:Expressions" can be put.  

But, speaking for myself, I think the FRBR model would be a lot simpler to 
grasp, not to mention more applicable to non-monographic resources, if the 
"expression" level were jettisoned altogether. 

I don't see what the category of "Expressions" give us that couldn't be 
recorded and expressed through relationships among Works.

--Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 12:57 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] WEMI and Bibframe

I said:

> As I understand it, what are Expressions in RDA (e.g. translations) 
>are Works in Bibframe.

Thomas Meehan responded:

>Not so. As I understand it, both RDA Works and RDA Expressions are 
>represented as Bibframe Works.

Isn't that what I just said?


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

Re: [RDA-L] A date between 1310 and 1319

[J. McRee Elrod]

Richard Moore posted:

>We have an author whose birth date is known to be between 1310 and 1319.
>We can record it in the 046 following edtf, but how would people deal
>with it in an RDA authorized access point? 

Of course we would use whatever form is in the LC/LAC authorities, but
left to our on devices, we would have $d1310s-, to avoid having to do
a phrase in different languages.  In imprint it would still be
$c[131-] for us. again to avoid phrases in different languages.  RDA
as now writen results in records which are too wordy.


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

Re: [RDA-L] WEMI and Bibframe

[J. McRee Elrod]

I said:

> As I understand it, what are Expressions in RDA (e.g. translations)
>are Works in Bibframe.

Thomas Meehan responded:

>Not so. As I understand it, both RDA Works and RDA Expressions are
>represented as Bibframe Works.

Isn't that what I just said?


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

[RDA-L] ACOC and DNB responses to JSC proposals

[JSC Secretary]

The following ACOC and DNB responses for the November 2013 JSC meeting are
available on the public website (http://www.rda-jsc.org/workingnew.html):

6JSC/ALA/22/DNB response
6JSC/ALA/24/ACOC response
6JSC/ALA/24/DNB response
6JSC/ALA/25/ACOC response
6JSC/ALA/26/ACOC response
6JSC/ALA/26/DNB response
6JSC/ALA/Discussion/1/ACOC response
6JSC/ALA rep/6/ACOC response
6JSC/ALA rep/6/DNB response

6JSC/BL/11/DNB response
6JSC/BL/13/DNB response

6JSC/CCC/13/DNB response

6JSC/CILIP rep/3/DNB response
6JSC/CILIP rep/3/ACOC response
6JSC/CILIP rep/3/Appendix/1/ACOC response
6JSC/CILIP rep/3/Appendix/2/ACOC response
6JSC/CILIP rep/3/Appendix/3/ACOC response
6JSC/CILIP rep/3/Appendix/4/ACOC response
6JSC/CILIP rep/3/Appendix/5/ACOC response

6JSC/ISBD/Discussion/1 and 2/JSC response/ISBDRG response/DNB response
6JSC/ISBD/Discussion/1 and 2/JSC response/ISBDRG response/ACOC response
6JSC/ISBD/Discussion/1 and 2/JSC response/ISBDRG response/Appendix D/ACOC
response

6JSC/ISSN/2/JSC response/ISSN response/DNB response

6JSC/LC rep/4/ACOC response
6JSC/LC rep/4/DNB response

6JSC/Music/1/DNB response



Regards, Judy Kuhagen
JSC Secretary

Re: [RDA-L] question about Publisher Name

[Jenifer K Marquardt]

Hello, Everyone.

Another aspect of this is that the place of publication varies on a lot on this 
sort of publication.  Routledge publications are a good example.  The title 
pages now usually say

Routledge
Taylor & Francis Group
London and New York

while the title page verso says

First published - year of publication -
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon

Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada
by Routledge
7111 Third Avenue, New York, NY

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

We have been seeing bibliographic records which record the title page places of 
publication AND there are also bibliographic records which choose to record the 
places of publication from the title page verso.  I think this stems from 
confusion over the presentation on the pieces, but it also hinges on what level 
of the corporate hierarchy we should record in our records.

For the numerous new series that Routledge has been issuing, I have been 
choosing the title page verso as my source of publication information.  Is 
there a right and wrong here?

Thanks for any insight!

Jenifer

Jenifer K. Marquardt
Asst. Head of Cataloging & Authorities Librarian
University of Georgia
Athens, GA 30602-1641


From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Alison Hitchens 
[ahitc...@uwaterloo.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 10:15 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] question about Publisher Name

Hi all

I’ve had several people ask me about what to record for Publisher Name when 
they see something like “Academic Press, an imprint of Elsevier.”

On the one hand publication place and name are transcribed as they appear on 
the source of information (2.8.1). On the other hand the scope for publisher 
name is “the name of a person, family, or corporate body responsible for 
publishing, releasing, or issuing a resource.” (2.8.4.1)

So in transcribing the publisher name are you really just transcribing the 
Academic Press part because that is what fits the scope? Another interpretation 
would be that this statement is showing corporate hierarchy in which case it 
would fit under the LC/PCC policy to generally not omit the hierarchy.

There are no examples in RDA at 2.8.4.3 showing a phrase like this.

Any opinions? I’m leaning towards telling people to treat it like hierarchy and 
transcribe the whole statement but wanted to check my interpretation

Thanks!
Alison

Alison Hitchens
Cataloguing & Metadata Librarian
University of Waterloo Library
ahitc...@uwaterloo.ca
519-888-4567 x35980

Re: [RDA-L] A date between 1310 and 1319

[M. E.]

Moore, Richard  wrote:

>  We have an author whose birth date is known to be between 1310 and 1319.
> We can record it in the 046 following edtf, but how would people deal with
> it in an RDA authorized access point? RDA 9.3.1.3 doesn’t have an example
> of “between 1310 and 1319”, but should this mean we can’t do it? It’s as
> comprehensible as “approximately”.
>
> ** **
>
> If it’s considered unlawful then do people think it would be a useful
> addition to propose?
>

A similar question was asked in late May of this year on the PCCLIST
(Subject: Born between 1914 and 1916). From Bobby Bothmann:


> Neither RDA nor the Policy Statements provide any guidance for what to do
> when a person is “born between 1914 and 1916”.
>
> 9.3 gives [year] or [year] as one option and “approximately [year]” as
> another option. It seems silly to split the difference and say
> “approximately 1915,” but that might be easier, if less accurate than the
> information provided.
>
> I should think that in the spirit of flexibility we can simply record
> “between 1914 and 1916-” as the date element in a 100, correct?
>
> Does that make the 046 $f 1914-1916 or 1914,1916?



I added some examples in my response (the links sorta work during this
shutdown period):


> There are at least a handful of "born/died between a range of years"
> examples in the NAF, both RDA and older.  Here are few I found:
>
> http://lccn.loc.gov/n79150485
> http://lccn.loc.gov/n91059316
> http://lccn.loc.gov/n2012003715
> http://lccn.loc.gov/n87873238
> http://lccn.loc.gov/nb2009023360
>
> The most common method employs the earliest dates with "approximately" (or
> "ca." in their previous incarnations), at least in the sample records I
> looked at.  The 046s may need some tweaking in light of the comments made
> [in the thread] about the formatting of that field.



Paul Frank added the following at the end of the thread:


> The element "Date of Birth" is defined in RDA as the "year a person was
> born" -- not a span of years -- so if you have three possible birth years
> (1914, 1915, 1916), the formulation of the date of birth element in the
> authorized access point could be:
>
> $d approximately 1915-
>
> This is arrived at by "splitting the difference" in the three possible
> years.
>
> The date you pick for the 'approximately' date per RDA 9.3.1.3 is a
> judgment call, though. Splitting the difference is as good a choice as any,
> but any of the three dates could have been selected.
>
> But remember that when a precise birth year is debatable, NACO rules
> always allow you to omit the date altogether from the authorized access
> point. The 046 field allows you to record date information in a much more
> granular way.



-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

[RDA-L] question about Publisher Name

[Alison Hitchens]

Hi all

I've had several people ask me about what to record for Publisher Name when 
they see something like "Academic Press, an imprint of Elsevier."

On the one hand publication place and name are transcribed as they appear on 
the source of information (2.8.1). On the other hand the scope for publisher 
name is "the name of a person, family, or corporate body responsible for 
publishing, releasing, or issuing a resource." (2.8.4.1)

So in transcribing the publisher name are you really just transcribing the 
Academic Press part because that is what fits the scope? Another interpretation 
would be that this statement is showing corporate hierarchy in which case it 
would fit under the LC/PCC policy to generally not omit the hierarchy.

There are no examples in RDA at 2.8.4.3 showing a phrase like this.

Any opinions? I'm leaning towards telling people to treat it like hierarchy and 
transcribe the whole statement but wanted to check my interpretation

Thanks!
Alison

Alison Hitchens
Cataloguing & Metadata Librarian
University of Waterloo Library
ahitc...@uwaterloo.ca
519-888-4567 x35980

Re: [RDA-L] A date between 1310 and 1319

[Jack Wu]

For between 1310 and 1319, can you not say 1310s anymore. It says in the
draft version of RDA 1.9.2.5:
Decade Known: If the decade is known, record the first year of the
decade followed by an s. I don't find it in the Toolkit. Was there a
reason for taking it out.
Jack Wu
Franciscan University of Steubenville 

"Moore, Richard"  10/2/2013 9:50 AM >>>

Mary Charles
 
Thanks. I thought of the hyphen but can’t find an example in 9.3 that
uses it. Though a corner of my mind is naggingl certain that I’ve seen
it somewhere.
 
We are planning on making our training materials available on the
Internet, soon: I’m updating them at the moment for another round of
training. 
 
In the meantime, everything in them is covered in the BL Guide to RDA
Name Authority Records, which is in the RDA Toolkit, under
Tools-Workflows-Global Workflows.
 
Regards
Richard
 
_
Richard Moore 
Authority Control Team Manager 
The British Library


 
Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806   
E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk 
   
 
 
 

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Lasater, Mary
Charles
Sent: 02 October 2013 14:44
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] A date between 1310 and 1319

 
Richard,
 
This reminds me of an earlier discussion about the use of the question
mark instead of approximately. I can see your $d as: 1310?/1319?-  or
as: 1310/1319?-
I originally put it as 1310-1319?- But that looks like the person may
have only  lived 9 years.  The problem is one of training and
consistency… fewer options make it much easier to train and have
consistent records.
 
Thanks for raising concerns as you encounter them,
 
On another issue: Since LC’s materials for training are ‘down’, do you
have the materials you have created available ‘somewhere’?
 
Mary Charles Lasater
Vanderbilt
 

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 7:57 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] A date between 1310 and 1319

 

We have an author whose birth date is known to be between 1310 and
1319. We can record it in the 046 following edtf, but how would people
deal with it in an RDA authorized access point? RDA 9.3.1.3 doesn’t have
an example of “between 1310 and 1319”, but should this mean we can’t do
it? It’s as comprehensible as “approximately”.
 
If it’s considered unlawful then do people think it would be a useful
addition to propose?
 
Regards
Richard
 
 
_
Richard Moore 
Authority Control Team Manager 
The British Library


 
Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806   
E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk 

   
 
 

**

Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk

 

The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts :
www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html

 

Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book.
www.bl.uk/adoptabook

 

The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled

 

*

 

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be
legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are
not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the
postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or
copied without the sender's consent. 

 

The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the
author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The
British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the
author. 

 

*


 Think before you print

Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance 

Re: [RDA-L] A date between 1310 and 1319

[Lasater, Mary Charles]

Richard & All,

I’m also planning to do several days of NACO training later this month. I have 
downloaded the files and I hope I will be able to use them… However, when I 
started reviewing them I found that I would need to do significant work on the 
powerpoint presentation because the screen shots were too small to see. I do 
hate ‘reinventing the wheel’  so if you or  someone else has already taken care 
of that problem, please get in touch with me.

We are all struggling with too much to do and learn…

Mary Charles

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 8:50 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] A date between 1310 and 1319

Mary Charles

Thanks. I thought of the hyphen but can’t find an example in 9.3 that uses it. 
Though a corner of my mind is naggingl certain that I’ve seen it somewhere.

We are planning on making our training materials available on the Internet, 
soon: I’m updating them at the moment for another round of training.

In the meantime, everything in them is covered in the BL Guide to RDA Name 
Authority Records, which is in the RDA Toolkit, under Tools-Workflows-Global 
Workflows.

Regards
Richard

_
Richard Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library

Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806
E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Lasater, Mary Charles
Sent: 02 October 2013 14:44
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] A date between 1310 and 1319

Richard,

This reminds me of an earlier discussion about the use of the question mark 
instead of approximately. I can see your $d as: 1310?/1319?-  or as: 1310/1319?-
I originally put it as 1310-1319?- But that looks like the person may have only 
 lived 9 years.  The problem is one of training and consistency… fewer options 
make it much easier to train and have consistent records.

Thanks for raising concerns as you encounter them,

On another issue: Since LC’s materials for training are ‘down’, do you have the 
materials you have created available ‘somewhere’?

Mary Charles Lasater
Vanderbilt

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 7:57 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] A date between 1310 and 1319

We have an author whose birth date is known to be between 1310 and 1319. We can 
record it in the 046 following edtf, but how would people deal with it in an 
RDA authorized access point? RDA 9.3.1.3 doesn’t have an example of “between 
1310 and 1319”, but should this mean we can’t do it? It’s as comprehensible as 
“approximately”.

If it’s considered unlawful then do people think it would be a useful addition 
to propose?

Regards
Richard


_
Richard Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library

Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806
E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk


**
Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk

The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : 
www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html

Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. 
www.bl.uk/adoptabook

The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled

*

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally 
privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the 
postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must 
not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent.

The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author 
and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British 
Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author.

*
 Think before you print

Re: [RDA-L] A date between 1310 and 1319

[Moore, Richard]

Mary Charles

 

Thanks. I thought of the hyphen but can’t find an example in 9.3 that uses it. 
Though a corner of my mind is naggingl certain that I’ve seen it somewhere.

 

We are planning on making our training materials available on the Internet, 
soon: I’m updating them at the moment for another round of training. 

 

In the meantime, everything in them is covered in the BL Guide to RDA Name 
Authority Records, which is in the RDA Toolkit, under Tools-Workflows-Global 
Workflows.

 

Regards

Richard

 

_

Richard Moore 

Authority Control Team Manager 

The British Library

  

Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806   

E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk  

 

 

 

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Lasater, Mary Charles
Sent: 02 October 2013 14:44
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] A date between 1310 and 1319

 

Richard,

 

This reminds me of an earlier discussion about the use of the question mark 
instead of approximately. I can see your $d as: 1310?/1319?-  or as: 1310/1319?-

I originally put it as 1310-1319?- But that looks like the person may have only 
 lived 9 years.  The problem is one of training and consistency… fewer options 
make it much easier to train and have consistent records.

 

Thanks for raising concerns as you encounter them,

 

On another issue: Since LC’s materials for training are ‘down’, do you have the 
materials you have created available ‘somewhere’?

 

Mary Charles Lasater

Vanderbilt

 

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 7:57 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] A date between 1310 and 1319

 

We have an author whose birth date is known to be between 1310 and 1319. We can 
record it in the 046 following edtf, but how would people deal with it in an 
RDA authorized access point? RDA 9.3.1.3 doesn’t have an example of “between 
1310 and 1319”, but should this mean we can’t do it? It’s as comprehensible as 
“approximately”.

 

If it’s considered unlawful then do people think it would be a useful addition 
to propose?

 

Regards

Richard

 

 

_

Richard Moore 

Authority Control Team Manager 

The British Library

  

Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806   

E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk

 

 

**

Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk  

 

The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : 
www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html 
 

 

Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. 
www.bl.uk/adoptabook  

 

The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled

 

*

 

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally 
privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the postmas...@bl.uk 
  : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed 
or copied without the sender's consent. 

 

The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author 
and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British 
Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. 

 

* 

 Think before you print

Re: [RDA-L] A date between 1310 and 1319

[Lasater, Mary Charles]

Richard,

This reminds me of an earlier discussion about the use of the question mark 
instead of approximately. I can see your $d as: 1310?/1319?-  or as: 1310/1319?-
I originally put it as 1310-1319?- But that looks like the person may have only 
 lived 9 years.  The problem is one of training and consistency… fewer options 
make it much easier to train and have consistent records.

Thanks for raising concerns as you encounter them,

On another issue: Since LC’s materials for training are ‘down’, do you have the 
materials you have created available ‘somewhere’?

Mary Charles Lasater
Vanderbilt

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 7:57 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] A date between 1310 and 1319

We have an author whose birth date is known to be between 1310 and 1319. We can 
record it in the 046 following edtf, but how would people deal with it in an 
RDA authorized access point? RDA 9.3.1.3 doesn’t have an example of “between 
1310 and 1319”, but should this mean we can’t do it? It’s as comprehensible as 
“approximately”.

If it’s considered unlawful then do people think it would be a useful addition 
to propose?

Regards
Richard


_
Richard Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library

Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806
E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk


**
Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk

The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : 
www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html

Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. 
www.bl.uk/adoptabook

The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled

*

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally 
privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the 
postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must 
not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent.

The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author 
and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British 
Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author.

*
 Think before you print

[RDA-L] A date between 1310 and 1319

[Moore, Richard]

We have an author whose birth date is known to be between 1310 and 1319.
We can record it in the 046 following edtf, but how would people deal
with it in an RDA authorized access point? RDA 9.3.1.3 doesn't have an
example of "between 1310 and 1319", but should this mean we can't do it?
It's as comprehensible as "approximately".

 

If it's considered unlawful then do people think it would be a useful
addition to propose?

 

Regards

Richard

 

 

_

Richard Moore 

Authority Control Team Manager 

The British Library

  

Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806   

E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk 


 

 


**
Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/
 
The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : 
http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html
 
Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. 
http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook
 
The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled
 
*
 
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally 
privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the 
mailto:postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or 
copied without the sender's consent.
 
The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author 
and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British 
Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author.
 
*
 Think before you print

[RDA-L] Relationship designators, LC and PCC Core

[Panchyshyn, Roman]

Folks,
I am looking to corroborate some information about relationship designator use, 
and this disgraceful government shutdown is giving me problems accessing 
information from LC. Regarding the use of relationship designators, right now 
the LC-PCC-PS for 18.5.1.3 states that their use at LC is only mandatory for 
use for illustrators of children's materials only. Earlier this year, a task 
group called the PCC Relationship Designator Task Force issued guidelines that 
were accepted by PoCo, that stated:

"Include a relationship designator for all creators, whether they are preferred 
access points or added access points.  If the 1XX is not a creator, the 
addition of a relationship designator is optional."

I believe a decision was made that LC was going to change the LC-PCC-PS and 
adopt this PCC recommendation, and I'm just looking for confirmation that this 
is so.

Thank you.

Roman S. Panchyshyn, MLIS
Catalog Librarian, Assistant Professor
University Libraries
Kent State University
tel: 330-672-1699
e-mail: rpanc...@kent.edu

[Description: Description: cid:340CA688-84F9-46CF-97E9-1D715D86ACB5]

<>

Re: [RDA-L] Additional JSC response documents

[Moore, Richard]

Adam

 

I agree with you that "Fictitious character from Card" isn't an
appropriate qualifier.  9.19.1.2 instructs to add the term "Fictitious
character" to names for fictitious characters. There is no instruction
to modify this qualifier into a phrase. I don't think "Fictitious
character from Card" is either appropriate or clear. Nor would it be
appropriate at the element level (currently MARC 21 368 $c). 

 

9.6.1.7 says "For a fictitious or legendary person, record Fictitious
character, Legendary character, or another appropriate designation".
"Another appropriate designation" is intended to apply in cases where
"Fictitious character" or "Legendary character" are not appropriate
(Mythical animal, vampire, etc.). For a fictitious character, the
qualifier is "Fictitious character".

 

If the resulting authorized access point is not unique, it ought to be
additionally qualified under 9.19.1.7. As you say, current RDA syntax
would require: 

 

Bean (Fictitious character) (Card)

 

though I think this could be fixed by a proposal to change the syntax
and provide an example to legitimise LCSH practice: 

 

Bean (Fictitious character : Card)

 

which would make it easier to translate all those acess points from the
LCSH file into LC/NAF. 

 

I think your example would be coded "$a Bean $c (Fictitious character)
(Card)", with one $c, as multiple adjacent titles or words associated
with a name are contained in a single subfield $c.

 

 

Regards

Richard

 

_

Richard Moore 

Authority Control Team Manager 

The British Library



Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806

E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk 


 

 

 

 

-Original Message-

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
 ] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff

Sent: 02 October 2013 00:35

To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA  

Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional JSC response documents

 

Regarding the 6JSC/BL/13/LC response at
http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-BL-13-LC-response.pdf
 , please note a
typo in the first example on page 8:

 

Puymaigre, Th. de, (Theodore), comte

 

There should not be a comma after "de".

 

I also continue to have concerns that the current text nor the proposed
revisions deal with the very common issue of fictitious characters that
have same preferred name.  I would like to see RDA address this
somewhere. 

Under RDA it is not clear whether 9.6.1.7 or 9.6.1.9 is applicable in
such a case.

 

For example, some PCC libraries are contributing records to the LC/NACO
Authority File like this one:

 

100 0_ Bean $c (Fictitious character from Card)

 

Does the qualifier "Fictitious character from Card" fall under "another
appropriate designation" from 9.6.1.7 or does it fall under 9.6.1.9? 

9.6.1.9 is limited to use when non of the five attributes listed there
are sufficient or appropriate for distinguishing two or more persons
with the same name.  None of those five attributes includes the
designation for fictitious and legendary persons, and yet that
designation is equally appropriate for two fictitious persons with the
same name.

 

It seems to me therefore that for two fictitious persons who would
otherwise have the same access point, RDA tells you to record two

attributes: 1) Fictitious character, etc. from 9.6.1.7. 2) An other
designation to further distinguish the persons, from 9.6.1.9.  That
other designation could be the surname or name of the creator of the
character, or perhaps something else, but would the additions be made
like this?:

 

Bean (Fictitious character) (Card)

 

Bean (Fictitious character) (Barrows)

 

(and how would this be coded in MARC, with two $c's or one?)

 

If 9.6.1.7 is not appropriate in a situation like the one above, then I
think RDA needs to say so and indicate that 9.6.1.9 would be applicable
instead and an example should be provided to show that.

 

Adam Schiff

University of Washington Libraries

 

**

* 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 
* 

**

 


**
Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/
 
The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : 
http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html
 
Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. 
http://www.bl.uk/ado

Re: [RDA-L] WEMI and Bibframe

[Meehan, Thomas]

J. McRee (Mac) Elrod said:
> As I understand it, what are Expressions in RDA (e.g. translations) are Works
> in Bibframe.  The WEMI structure of RDA would  be as irrelevant to Bibframe
> as it is to MARC.

Not so. As I understand it, both RDA Works and RDA Expressions are represented 
as Bibframe Works. This is not to say that they are to be collapsed as such. 
You will no doubt have noticed that the draft(!) Bibframe Work 
(http://bibframe.org/vocab/Work.html) includes both expressionOf and 
hasExpression properties so that, for example:

Shakespeare's Hamlet (Bibframe Work representing an RDA Work)
- hasExpression: 1945 French edition of Hamlet

1945 French edition of Hamlet (Bibframe Work representing an RDA Expression)
- expressionOf: Shakespeare's Hamlet

I don't think you could do that so explicitly in MARC. I'll admit it might have 
been preferable had they chosen a different name for it than Work to avoid 
confusion. Bibframe is I understand designed to accommodate other kinds of 
bibliographic data, some that use FRBR (like RDA) and some that don't (like 
AACR2).

Cheers,

Tom


> 
> Mark said:
> 
> >Presumably the RDA profile will incorporate the WEMI entities and all
> >the other whiz-bang components of that standard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>__   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
>   {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
>   ___} |__
> \__


---

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

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

Re: [RDA-L] Names found in a non-preferred script (8.4 vs. 9.2.2.5.3 and 11.2.2.12)

[James Weinheimer]

On 02/10/2013 12.21, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:


Adam wrote:
I recently taught at RDA at the National Library of Israel.  They do 
not have a single preferred script, nor a single language of 
cataloging.  In fact they have four: Hebrew, Arabic, roman, and 
Cyrillic.  Depending on the script of the resource they are 
cataloging, they will use an authorized access point in that script 
and the language of cataloging will depend on the language of the 
resource.  They have a unique authority record structure which uses a 
single record with multiple 1XXs for the authorized form in different 
scripts.


I'm not a specialist for original script cataloging, but I can try and 
explain (at least roughly) what is being done in Germany. I'll take my 
own union catalog, the Southwest German Library Network (SWB), as an 
example.


In the title records, the most important fields are duplicated: One 
version of the field is then used for the transliterated text and the 
other for the same text in the original script. A code for the script 
is recorded in a subfield. Note that the format for the title records 
is not MARC.


If you want to see what this looks like in the catalog, try this:
http://swb.bsz-bw.de/DB=2.1/PPNSET?PPN=336050186&INDEXSET=1



Interesting. You can see the National Library of Israel practice in 
VIAF, e.g. for Leo Tolstoy 
http://www.viaf.org/viaf/96987389/#Tolstoy,_Leo,_graf,_1828-1910 and 
Tolstoy has several valid forms of heading. In fact, you can compare to 
compare the National Library of Israel cyrillic form vs. the Russian 
form. Of course, both are in cyrillic, but the Russian form does not 
have "" (graf, or Count).


There are other options however. At the Food and Agriculture 
Organization of the United Nations, they have authorized forms but they 
vary depending on the language of the item. They publish in 6 languages 
and when something is in English, they use the English form, in Spanish, 
the Spanish form and so on. Here is an example: bit.ly/1eZeOrO 
 with a corporate body form of "FAO, Rome 
(Italy). Rural Infrastructure and Agro-Industries Div." If you look 
toward the bottom of the record, you'll see "Rel. lang. versions". Click 
on French and you'll see "FAO, Rome (Italy). Div. des Infrastructures 
Rurales et des Agro-industries" or Spanish, "FAO, Rome (Italy). 
Direccion de Infraestructura Rural y Agroindustrias". There are other 
practices as well.


The reality for our users is changing from single authorized forms to 
multiple authorized forms, not only as we see in the Israeli library and 
FAO, or even in VIAF, but probably even more available to the public 
will be something as we see in dbpedia 
http://dbpedia.org/page/Leo_Tolstoy. That is, if the public ends up 
using authorized forms at all or if we expect computers to do everything 
automatically.


If they are going to use these forms, based on URIs or whatever, the 
real problem will not be technical since that is relatively simple now 
(and that is an amazing fact!), but the real problem will be practical: 
how can we take this huge amount of content and make something coherent 
and comprehensible for people who will refuse to spend 20 hours in a 
searching workshop?


That's a challenge.

--
James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com
First Thus http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
First Thus Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus
Cooperative Cataloging Rules 
http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Cataloging Matters Podcasts 
http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html

Re: [RDA-L] Names found in a non-preferred script (8.4 vs. 9.2.2.5.3 and 11.2.2.12)

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

Adam wrote:

I recently taught at RDA at the National Library of Israel.  They do 
not have a single preferred script, nor a single language of 
cataloging.  In fact they have four: Hebrew, Arabic, roman, and 
Cyrillic.  Depending on the script of the resource they are 
cataloging, they will use an authorized access point in that script 
and the language of cataloging will depend on the language of the 
resource.  They have a unique authority record structure which uses a 
single record with multiple 1XXs for the authorized form in different 
scripts.


Very interesting.

I'm not a specialist for original script cataloging, but I can try and 
explain (at least roughly) what is being done in Germany. I'll take my 
own union catalog, the Southwest German Library Network (SWB), as an 
example.


In the title records, the most important fields are duplicated: One 
version of the field is then used for the transliterated text and the 
other for the same text in the original script. A code for the script is 
recorded in a subfield. Note that the format for the title records is 
not MARC.


If you want to see what this looks like in the catalog, try this:
http://swb.bsz-bw.de/DB=2.1/PPNSET?PPN=336050186&INDEXSET=1

First click on the British flag to change to English. Then you see "Show 
original script" (above the title information). Click on "Cyrillic" to 
change to the original script version. You can change back by clicking 
on "Latin script only".


I do hope that this works globally and that you can all see the cyrillic 
script in your browsers!


In authority data (where we use a MARC based format), the transliterated 
form of the preferred name of a person is recorded in 100, and the 
original script form of the preferred name is recorded in 700. Further 
variant names in original script can be recorded in 400. Again, a code 
for the script is always recorded in a subfield.


Some examples for authority data can be found in this document (sorry, 
it's in German) on page 9:

http://verbund-swop.bsz-bw.de/volltexte/2013/345/pdf/kathb_Originalschrift.pdf

The example for Lenin shows the preferred name in Cyrillic script in 
700, but there is also another Cyrillic version in a 400 and even two 
Japanese forms.


Heidrun

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

Re: [RDA-L] WEMI and Bibframe

[Bernhard Eversberg]

Am 02.10.2013 01:55, schrieb J. McRee Elrod:


ISBD is the most successful international library standard ever, and a
major component of the hoped for UBC.  It is sad to see it
sidetracked.


We don't know if the last word on that has been spoken yet.
Right now, lacking any proof-of-concept and reality check on
large-scale levels, as well as assessments of affordability
and technical viability we just have to wait and see. About linked
data, all we have now is assumptions).

OTOH, input systems with promptings in ISBD order as well as ISBD
displays, should not be outside the scope of the doable even with RDA.
The rules themselves are silent about display as well as indexing! The
latter, as it is about the "A" aspect, is more troubling than the
former.
Convincing reasons should nonetheless be given for any new concepts.

B.Eversberg

Re: [RDA-L] Additional JSC response documents

[Moore, Richard]

Adam

I agree with you that "Fictitious character from Card" isn't an
appropriate qualifier.  9.19.1.2 instructs to add the term "Fictitious
character" to names for fictitious characters. There is no instruction
to modify this qualifier into a phrase. I don't think "Fictitious
character from Card" is either appropriate or clear. Nor would it be
appropriate at the element level (currently MARC 21 368 $c). 

9.6.1.7 says "For a fictitious or legendary person, record Fictitious
character, Legendary character, or another appropriate designation".
"Another appropriate designation" is intended to apply in cases where
"Fictitious character" or "Legendary character" are not appropriate
(Mythical animal, vampire, etc.). For a fictitious character, the
qualifier is "Fictitious character".

If the resulting authorized access point is not unique, it ought to be
additionally qualified under 9.19.1.7. As you say, current RDA syntax
would require: 

Bean (Fictitious character) (Card)

though I think this could be fixed by a proposal to change the syntax
and provide an example to legitimise LCSH practice: 

Bean (Fictitious character : Card)

which would make it easier to translate all those acess points from the
LCSH file into LC/NAF. 

I think your example would be coded "$a Bean $c (Fictitious character)
(Card)", with one $c, as multiple adjacent titles or words associated
with a name are contained in a single subfield $c.


Regards
Richard

_
Richard Moore 
Authority Control Team Manager 
The British Library

Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806
E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk
 



-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: 02 October 2013 00:35
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional JSC response documents

Regarding the 6JSC/BL/13/LC response at
http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-BL-13-LC-response.pdf, please note a
typo in the first example on page 8:

Puymaigre, Th. de, (Theodore), comte

There should not be a comma after "de".

I also continue to have concerns that the current text nor the proposed
revisions deal with the very common issue of fictitious characters that
have same preferred name.  I would like to see RDA address this
somewhere. 
Under RDA it is not clear whether 9.6.1.7 or 9.6.1.9 is applicable in
such a case.

For example, some PCC libraries are contributing records to the LC/NACO
Authority File like this one:

100 0_ Bean $c (Fictitious character from Card)

Does the qualifier "Fictitious character from Card" fall under "another
appropriate designation" from 9.6.1.7 or does it fall under 9.6.1.9? 
9.6.1.9 is limited to use when non of the five attributes listed there
are sufficient or appropriate for distinguishing two or more persons
with the same name.  None of those five attributes includes the
designation for fictitious and legendary persons, and yet that
designation is equally appropriate for two fictitious persons with the
same name.

It seems to me therefore that for two fictitious persons who would
otherwise have the same access point, RDA tells you to record two
attributes: 1) Fictitious character, etc. from 9.6.1.7. 2) An other
designation to further distinguish the persons, from 9.6.1.9.  That
other designation could be the surname or name of the creator of the
character, or perhaps something else, but would the additions be made
like this?:

Bean (Fictitious character) (Card)

Bean (Fictitious character) (Barrows)

(and how would this be coded in MARC, with two $c's or one?)

If 9.6.1.7 is not appropriate in a situation like the one above, then I
think RDA needs to say so and indicate that 9.6.1.9 would be applicable
instead and an example should be provided to show that.

Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries

**
* 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   * 
**


**
Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/
 
The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : 
http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html
 
Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. 
http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook
 
The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled
 
*
 
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally 
privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If y