Re: [RDA-L] A date between 1310 and 1319
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 mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk 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 http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. www.bl.uk/adoptabook 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 postmas...@bl.uk 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
Re: [RDA-L] WEMI and Bibframe
-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: 02 October 2013 17:57 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? Yes, although I don't think the conclusion that The WEMI structure of RDA would be as irrelevant to Bibframe as it is to MARC follows since Bibframe as it currently stands and I understand it could distinguish between an RDA Work and Expression. Cheers, Tom
[RDA-L] ALA responses to JSC proposals
The following ALA responses for the November 2013 JSC meeting are available on the public website (http://www.rda-jsc.org/workingnew.html): 6JSC/Chair/8/ALA response 6JSC/CILIP rep/3/ALA response 6JSC/DNB/2/ALA response 6JSC/DNB/Discussion/1/ALA response 6JSC/EURIG/Discussion/3/ALA response 6JSC/EURIG/Discussion/4/ALA response 6JSC/EURIG/Discussion/5/ALA response 6JSC/LC rep/4/ALA response 6JSC/Music/1/ALA response Regards, Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary
Re: [RDA-L] WEMI and Bibframe
Surely, the difference between an original and its translation is a
difference that is a useful to everyone, and the difference between formats
of presentation is clearly a useful difference also, but it doesn't seem to
me that they are the same kind of difference or, at least, not always so.
I'm not sure where the boundary line between performances/recordings
that are mere expressions of a work, and performances/recordings that are
so cooperative as to merit being new works lies. (I'm told that a film and
is screenplay are separate works.) Surely, different performances of a
jazz standard may be so different as to be unrecognizably the same work to
the un-initiated.
There are whole groups of things: (mythology, folk-tales, fairy tales,
plots of Shakespeare plays (many of which come out of his Holinshead
anyway)) that get constantly recycled and re-used and we don't consider
each re-use to be an expression of the original work.
I think the categories of Work and Expression are quite stable in
their central parts, but they start to lose coherence the further away one
gets from the prototypical examples. (That's the nature of categories, of
course.) For those of us who get to work with the good examples of a
particular category, they make perfectly good sense; for those of us who
are doing more fringey things, they don't necessarily work too well.
Personally, I think the category Expression is too amorphous to stick
around, so I'm delighted to see if absent from Bibframe, but I still want
to be able to group like things together (Works) and then sort them by the
attributes that are ascribed to Expressions. I just don't think their
relations to a work are similar enough to each to make Expression a useable
category.
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Robert Maxwell robert_maxw...@byu.eduwrote:
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/
___} |__ \__
--
Adger Williams
Colgate University Library
315-228-7310
awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] WEMI and Bibframe
There is a handy diagram, Barbara Tillett's Family of Works that shows the categories for works and expressions, and where the cataloging conventions have put the boundary between new works and new expressions. For a working link, there is page 2 of http://www.frbr.org/files/denton-frbr-talk-handout.pdf The decision of the cut-off for new expression and new work has various dependencies. The main entry concept, reborn as the authorized access point for the work, is dependent on determining responsibility for the work. That identifier for the work remains the same for all expressions of that work. Subject relationships are typically defined at the work level. There has also been the idea of 'superworks' which draws in adaptations. I think such concepts can be handled on the fly by grouping works via the relationship designators. For example, a relevancy ranking in a search result could elevate adaptation of or even the whole category of derivative work relationships over other categories (even if those derivative works don't have the keyword used in the search). Displays of search results or within individual records could be co-ordinated around the categories of relationships (derivative, descriptive, whole-part, accompanying, sequential). Such an approach is dependent on underlying relationships being made and links established throughout, vertically from work to expression to manifestation to item, and horizontally at each of those levels. I see a lot of rich functionality at the manifestation-item relationship, where availability and location information at the item level can be embedded within the brief display at the manifestation level. It would be great if that consistent functionality could be extended into the other areas of the catalog data through rigorous relationship structures. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adger Williams [awilli...@colgate.edu] Sent: October-03-13 9:19 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] WEMI and Bibframe Surely, the difference between an original and its translation is a difference that is a useful to everyone, and the difference between formats of presentation is clearly a useful difference also, but it doesn't seem to me that they are the same kind of difference or, at least, not always so. I'm not sure where the boundary line between performances/recordings that are mere expressions of a work, and performances/recordings that are so cooperative as to merit being new works lies. (I'm told that a film and is screenplay are separate works.) Surely, different performances of a jazz standard may be so different as to be unrecognizably the same work to the un-initiated. There are whole groups of things: (mythology, folk-tales, fairy tales, plots of Shakespeare plays (many of which come out of his Holinshead anyway)) that get constantly recycled and re-used and we don't consider each re-use to be an expression of the original work. I think the categories of Work and Expression are quite stable in their central parts, but they start to lose coherence the further away one gets from the prototypical examples. (That's the nature of categories, of course.) For those of us who get to work with the good examples of a particular category, they make perfectly good sense; for those of us who are doing more fringey things, they don't necessarily work too well. Personally, I think the category Expression is too amorphous to stick around, so I'm delighted to see if absent from Bibframe, but I still want to be able to group like things together (Works) and then sort them by the attributes that are ascribed to Expressions. I just don't think their relations to a work are similar enough to each to make Expression a useable category. On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Robert Maxwell robert_maxw...@byu.edumailto:robert_maxw...@byu.edu wrote: 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)422-5568tel:%28801%29422-5568 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.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 1:59 PM To:
Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
Adam Schiff wrote: 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? Seems that only the second 246 would be appropriate. The first 246 is not a *variant* title, it is the preferred title. And since it is already there in 240 (or 700, per your alternate coding), a 246 field for the same thing would be quite redundant. Although, there is also the matter of system indexing capabilities, but it doesn't really seem like a good idea to add redundant access points to make up for (hopefully temporary) ILS-specific deficiencies. ** 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. You wouldn't believe how tickled I am to see you make this argument! This is much more in line with the FRBR WEMI concepts, and really should be the direction we end up moving in. And in this approach, the 100 field for the creator would not only be unnecessary, it would have no basis in the RDA guidelines. The 245 field is describing the *manifestation*, and the creator relationship is with the *work*. (This makes me think about all of the times people have argued that main entry isn't needed in online catalogs. I think those arguments didn't make sense in the contemporary context; but in the future, when we have metadata specific to the various WEMI entities, the what-we've-traditionally-called-main-entry concept won't apply at the manifestation level--it will only be at the work level, per RDA chapter 19. Hopefully, catalogers will start out describing *manifestations*, and then link those descriptions up to the expressions/works that are involved.) Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
Re: [RDA-L] WEMI and Bibframe
I agree that Work and Expression is too fine a hair to split.
Mary L. Mastraccio
Cataloging Authorities Manager
MARCIVE, Inc.
San Antonio, TX 78265
1-800-531-7678
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 12:33 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] WEMI and Bibframe
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] alternative titles and variant access points
I agree with Kevin and am tickled that he's tickled about this :-) I realize this isn't the PCC list or the MARC list, but would people be willing to push for officially switching to Adam's suggested 700 12 $i Contains (work): $a Owens, Jo, $d 1961- $t Add kids, stir briskly. (or alternately, without the relationship designator) 700 12 $a Owens, Jo, $d 1961- $t Add kids, stir briskly. instead of using the 1XX/240 technique for recording work/expression authorized access points? Are there any arguments for continuing to use 1XX/240 instead of recording all authorized access points for works in 7XX (aside from we've always done it that way)? At the moment we're recording an authorized access point for a work using 1XX/240 if there's only one work or expression involved in the resource; if there's more than one, all are recorded in 7XX. Why do we have this exception for just one work/expression? In my opinion it would be better for training (e.g., you only have to explain one way to record an AAP for a work/expression) and better for systems (e.g. OCLC and most other systems can't control 1XX/240, but can control the string in 7XX; and many can't index the name-title if it's split into two MARC fields) if we abandoned the clumsy 1XX/240 and instead consistently record the information in 7XX. Note: on the issue Kevin brings up about the 1XX itself, making this change does not necessarily make using 1XX for the creator unnecessary-that would be a separate discussion. I'd just like to sound people out about the possibility of making 240 obsolete in RDA bibliographic records. This doesn't necessarily mean we would also abandon 1XX altogether. 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 Kevin M Randall Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 11:09 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points Adam Schiff wrote: 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? Seems that only the second 246 would be appropriate. The first 246 is not a *variant* title, it is the preferred title. And since it is already there in 240 (or 700, per your alternate coding), a 246 field for the same thing would be quite redundant. Although, there is also the matter of system indexing capabilities, but it doesn't really seem like a good idea to add redundant access points to make up for (hopefully temporary) ILS-specific deficiencies. ** 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. You wouldn't believe how tickled I am to see you make this argument! This is much more in line with the FRBR WEMI concepts, and really should be the direction we end up moving in. And in this approach, the 100 field for the creator would not only be unnecessary, it would have no basis in the RDA guidelines. The 245 field is describing the *manifestation*, and the creator relationship is with the *work*. (This makes me think about all of the times people have argued that main entry isn't needed in online catalogs. I think those arguments didn't make sense in the contemporary context; but in the future, when we have metadata specific to the various WEMI entities, the what-we've-traditionally-called-main-entry concept won't apply at the manifestation level--it will only be at the work level, per RDA chapter 19. Hopefully, catalogers will start out describing *manifestations*, and then link those descriptions up to the expressions/works that are involved.) Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
My comments below Bob's. --Adam Schiff UW Libraries Seattle, WA On Thu, 3 Oct 2013, Robert Maxwell wrote: Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 23:49:22 + From: Robert Maxwell robert_maxw...@byu.edu 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] alternative titles and variant access points I agree with Kevin and am tickled that he's tickled about this :-) I realize this isn't the PCC list or the MARC list, but would people be willing to push for officially switching to Adam's suggested 700 12 $i Contains (work): $a Owens, Jo, $d 1961- $t Add kids, stir briskly. (or alternately, without the relationship designator) 700 12 $a Owens, Jo, $d 1961- $t Add kids, stir briskly. AS: Without the relationship designator, it is not clear whether the access point represents a work or an expression. I'm not sure how much that matters. We could make the second indicator value obsolete if we consistently used the designators. I regularly see it misused - it seems many catalogers don't fully understand what it means. For example I regularly see it in OCLC on video records for a film adapted from a novel where the cataloger has used second indicator value 2 with an access point for the novel. Possibly having to assign a relationship designator would alleviate some of these coding errors. instead of using the 1XX/240 technique for recording work/expression authorized access points? Are there any arguments for continuing to use 1XX/240 instead of recording all authorized access points for works in 7XX (aside from we've always done it that way)? AS: Well one argument that could be made is that if you record all work access points in 7XX, then you have to also when the 1XX/245 uniquely represents a work, or when you have a work without a creator whose title proper for a manifestation is in 245 with no 1XX. This means that every record would need an additional access point, and there is the concomitant authority work that would potentially be needed in order to control those authorized access points. At the moment we're recording an authorized access point for a work using 1XX/240 if there's only one work or expression involved in the resource; if there's more than one, all are recorded in 7XX. Why do we have this exception for just one work/expression? AS: You have a very good point here I think, Bob. In my opinion it would be better for training (e.g., you only have to explain one way to record an AAP for a work/expression) and better for systems (e.g. OCLC and most other systems can't control 1XX/240, but can control the string in 7XX; and many can't index the name-title if it's split into two MARC fields) if we abandoned the clumsy 1XX/240 and instead consistently record the information in 7XX. Note: on the issue Kevin brings up about the 1XX itself, making this change does not necessarily make using 1XX for the creator unnecessary-that would be a separate discussion. I'd just like to sound people out about the possibility of making 240 obsolete in RDA bibliographic records. This doesn't necessarily mean we would also abandon 1XX altogether. 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 Kevin M Randall Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 11:09 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points Adam Schiff wrote: 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? Seems that only the second 246 would be appropriate. The first 246 is not a *variant* title, it is the preferred title. And since it is already there in 240 (or 700, per your alternate coding), a 246 field for the same thing would be quite redundant. Although, there is also the matter of system indexing capabilities, but it doesn't really seem like a good idea to add redundant access points to make up for (hopefully temporary) ILS-specific deficiencies. ** I realize that instead of the 240 a 700 related work access point could be given: 700 12 $i Contains (work): $a
