Re: [RDA-L] Prize winners in authority records
Adam Although you can't do this: 110 2_ $a Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons 386$a Nobel Prize winners $2 lcsh 100 1_ $a Aspect, Alain 386$a Balzan Prize winners $2 lcsh You can put these terms in 368: 110 2_ $a Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons 368 $c Nobel Prize winners $2 lcsh 100 1_ $a Aspect, Alain 368 $c Balzan Prize winners $2 lcsh The reason we argued at MARBI (as was) that 386 should be limited to name-title authorities is that in the personal NAR, controlled vocabularies are already used in 368 and 374 to record the same kinds of thing. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk
Re: [RDA-L] Corporate bodies as creators: festschrift, corporate brochure a.s.o.
Mac said: Our practice has changed drastically. For example, once Journal of the American Chemical Society would be been entered under the Society. Actually, it still is under the German rules. RAK has a rule which is similar (yet not identical) to RDA's idea of corporate bodies which are responsible for originating, issuing, or causing to be issued. The definition in RAK is: a corporate body which has either prepared *or* initiated and edited an anonymous work. So, there is a precondition here (unknown to the Anglo-American world) that there is no personal author. Such a corporate body is called the Urheber (a possible translation might be originator). If this corporate body is named in the title proper, it gets main entry (with an added entry under the title proper). If it's not named in the title proper, main entry will be under the title proper, and the corporate body gets an added entry. I must say that I find this a beautifully simple rule (unfortunately, quite incompatible with RDA). #1: a festschrift for a corporate body, e.g. for the 75th or 100th anniversary of the body No, the body would bet a 610 and perhaps a 710. but not a 110 (speaking in MARCese). It was not produced by the body. Festschrift has multiple authors. Maybe there are differences between what is common in Germany and in the Anglo-American world. Here, in the majority of cases a festschrift for a corporate body will have in fact been produced by the body itself (unless there is a Friends of ... corporate body, which may step in here). I assume that the usual thing is for the managing board to say We'll have an anniversary next year, wouldn't it be a good idea to put together a festschrift? In RDA terms, I think that these festschrifts (is that the correct English plural of this lovely German loan word? In German, it would be Festschriften) are either issued or, at least, caused to be issued by the corporate body. Quite often, the corporate body is also named as editor. That's what made me think that the corporate body might be seen as the creator under RDA. #2: a brochure produced by a corporate body to present itself and its services to the public Yes. 110 and 610, assuming no personal author. But is is borderline. #3: the website of a corporate body Depends of the nature of the website. Usually they are of mixed responsibility, and would have title main entry. My feeling as that all of these should have the corporate body as the creator. Make that a creator. Part of the ambiguity of RDA is creator. A creator may be a main entry or and added entry. The old terminology is clearer. The difficulty really seems to be the correct understanding of creator. Applying the rules in 19.2.1.1.1 is one thing, but bringing them into line with the idea of what a creator *should be* is quite another thing. If we take RDA's basic definition of creator as a person, family, or corporate body responsible for the creation of a work, it is hard to see how a corporate body could *not* be the creator of its own website. The resource should be both created by, *and* deal with, the body, e.g., an annual report. Being about the body is not enough. Anyone may write a history of a body, and that person would be the main entry. Yes, I quite understand that. This doesn't conflict with my idea of a creator at all, as here the corporate body is really the subject of the work. Corporate festschrifts and brochures are, I think, different in that they are mainly produced to present and, as it were, market the body to general public. Oh dear, this is all very difficult. German catalogers will need a lot of guidance here when we start with RDA. Perhaps one basic guiding principle might be to use corporate body as creator very sparingly, only in cases which clearly fit the examples given in 19.2.1.1.1. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Corporate bodies as creators: festschrift, corporate brochure a.s.o.
28.10.2013 09:11, Heidrun Wiesenmüller: RAK has a rule which is similar (yet not identical) to RDA's idea of corporate bodies which are responsible for originating, issuing, or causing to be issued. The definition in RAK is: a corporate body which has either prepared *or* initiated and edited an anonymous work. So, there is a precondition here (unknown to the Anglo-American world) that there is no personal author. Such a corporate body is called the Urheber (a possible translation might be originator). If this corporate body is named in the title proper,... ... or if the name would need to be added to the title proper in order to individualize the title [in the case of a generic title] ... ... it gets main entry (with an added entry under the title proper). If it's not named in the title proper, main entry will be under the title proper, and the corporate body gets an added entry. I must say that I find this a beautifully simple rule (unfortunately, quite incompatible with RDA). Its beauty is that it is a purely *formalistic* rule that does not require cataloger's judgement of the content. (In German, we have the term Formalkatalogisierung as opposed to Sachkatalogisierung (subject cataloging) The casuistic AACR2 rule was maybe the biggest objection that had been voiced many times against adopting AACR2. It turned out to be impossible to get our American partners to accept this point of view, although some of them did understand its virtue. With RDA, the opportunity seems to be forever lost now and we will be stuck with said casuistry. OTOH, this sort of issue may have long since become a non-issue when it comes to searching. The main entry idea is obsolete, though what remains is the necessity to form useful short descriptions for search result displays. There, it is an advantage to have an indication that a title is in need of an addition by the name of the issuing body. B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] Can corporate bodies only have one associated place?
Adam said: I think the instruction was written as it is because only one place may be used in a qualifier when needed to break a conflict. Yes, that seems very plausible. One gets the feeling that the person(s) who wrote the instruction were mainly thinking of access points and not of the recording of places as separate elements. But in MARC certainly more than one place can be recorded in the 370 $e. That's very good to hear. So there should be no objection to the German community recording more than one place, if appropriate. I think a simple fix would be to propose a wording change to 11.3.3.3 that says record the name of the local place or places ... Yes, and that might even go on a fast track. On the other hand, there is another thing in 11.3.3.3 which I find a bit odd, and which might warrant a full proposal: Doesn't the instruction mix up two quite different things? - the area in which a corporate body is active - the local place in which a corporate body has its headquarters A corporate body may well have a a character that is national, state, provincial, etc. and also have an easily identifiable local place where it is located. It should be possible to record both kinds of place, preferably in different elements. So it might be a good idea to define a new element place of activity to keep the two aspects apart. Mind, I quite understand that in such a case the state etc. will be more helpful for breaking a conflict than the place of the headquarters. But I believe this should be handled by a rule under 11.13 (Constructing access points to represent corporate bodies) and not by one in 11.3. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Corporate bodies as creators: festschrift, corporate brochure a.s.o.
Bernhard said: 28.10.2013 09:11, Heidrun Wiesenmüller: RAK has a rule which is similar (yet not identical) to RDA's idea of corporate bodies which are responsible for originating, issuing, or causing to be issued. The definition in RAK is: a corporate body which has either prepared *or* initiated and edited an anonymous work. So, there is a precondition here (unknown to the Anglo-American world) that there is no personal author. Such a corporate body is called the Urheber (a possible translation might be originator). If this corporate body is named in the title proper,... ... or if the name would need to be added to the title proper in order to individualize the title [in the case of a generic title] ... Quite. I was simplying matters here a bit. ... it gets main entry (with an added entry under the title proper). If it's not named in the title proper, main entry will be under the title proper, and the corporate body gets an added entry. I must say that I find this a beautifully simple rule (unfortunately, quite incompatible with RDA). Its beauty is that it is a purely *formalistic* rule that does not require cataloger's judgement of the content. This is a very valid assessment. Indeed, the German RAK rules have a decided preference for formal criteria. I think there is an implicit ideal here: That, using the rules, cataloger A would necessarily end up with the same result for a certain resource as cataloger B. This ideal (which is, of course, unachievable even under RAK) can obviously reached much easier by formal criteria than by using criteria of content. Another consequence of this ideal is that RAK has always tried to cover every possible case. So, German catalogers get very dissatisfied if they come upon a case which is not covered by the rules. Also, using formal criteria usually takes up less time than pondering criteria of content. On the other hand, my feeling is that cataloger's judgment is seen as something quite positive in the Anglo-American world, and it is accepted that this will lead to different results. There is more built-in freedom in the rules (even more so in RDA than in AACR2). The German community will need to learn to cope with this new freedom. It won't be easy ;-) Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Can corporate bodies only have one associated place?
Heidrun I agree. There's an inconsistency (inherited from FRAD) in the way places are defined as attributes in Chapter 9, and in Chapter 11. For persons, they are enumerated as separate elements for Place of Birth, Place of Death, Country Associated with the Person, and Place of Residence, Etc. However, for corporate bodies, Place Associated with the Corporate Body are lumped together in one element. There are sub-elements for Location of Conference, Etc., and Location of Headquarters, but in 11.3.1.1 these are just examples (note the instruction says .e.g.). So any kind of location associated with the body in any way would, it seems to me, be in scope. In FRAD 4.3, Place associated with the corporate body is a geographic area at any level associated with the corporate body. In MARC 21, You can record headquarters location in 370 $e, associated country in $c, and any other kind of associated place in $f (for example an area where a body is active). It would be useful if these could be broken down as separate elements in RDA Chapter 11, and the structure of Chapters 9 and 11 made consistent in this respect. We had a slightly different problem in Chapter 9, in that nothing in RDA corresponded to 370 $f. This is why 9.11 is now Place of Residence, Etc.. I think there's a problem with 11.3.3.3, that could be resolved by having clearly defined elements for the kinds of places associated with corporate bodies. In the examples, Ill. is not the location of headquarters of the Illinois Republican Party. According to its website, its headquarters are Springfield and Chicago. Illinois is the area where it is active (I would put this in 370 $f). There should be an element for it. Similarly, the National Measurement Laboratory (now the National Measurement Institute) has its headquarters in Sydney (370 $e). Australia is its associated country (370 $c). So these different types of place should be clearly distinguished as RDA elements. The text of 11.3.3.3 actually belongs in 11.13.1.3, as it's about constructing the access point, not about recording the element. I think a proposal is needed to restructure what is now in 11.3, on the lines above. There is a similiar issue with 11.7, which we've tried to resolve with 6JSC/BL/12rev. I guess the BL would be willing to draft something for JSC 2014, unless anyone else wants to. I'm sure cataloguers would like us to stop tinkering with RDA. But things like this keep coming up, that need to be done. 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 Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: 28 October 2013 08:51 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Can corporate bodies only have one associated place? Adam said: I think the instruction was written as it is because only one place may be used in a qualifier when needed to break a conflict. Yes, that seems very plausible. One gets the feeling that the person(s) who wrote the instruction were mainly thinking of access points and not of the recording of places as separate elements. But in MARC certainly more than one place can be recorded in the 370 $e. That's very good to hear. So there should be no objection to the German community recording more than one place, if appropriate. I think a simple fix would be to propose a wording change to 11.3.3.3 that says record the name of the local place or places ... Yes, and that might even go on a fast track. On the other hand, there is another thing in 11.3.3.3 which I find a bit odd, and which might warrant a full proposal: Doesn't the instruction mix up two quite different things? - the area in which a corporate body is active - the local place in which a corporate body has its headquarters A corporate body may well have a a character that is national, state, provincial, etc. and also have an easily identifiable local place where it is located. It should be possible to record both kinds of place, preferably in different elements. So it might be a good idea to define a new element place of activity to keep the two aspects apart. Mind, I quite understand that in such a case the state etc. will be more helpful for breaking a conflict than the place of the headquarters. But I believe this should be handled by a rule under 11.13 (Constructing access points to represent corporate bodies) and not by one in 11.3. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Can corporate bodies only have one associated place?
Heidrun I agree. There's an inconsistency (inherited from FRAD) in the way places are defined as attributes in Chapter 9, and in Chapter 11. For persons, they are enumerated as separate elements for Place of Birth, Place of Death, Country Associated with the Person, and Place of Residence, Etc. However, for corporate bodies, Place Associated with the Corporate Body are lumped together in one element. There are sub-elements for Location of Conference, Etc., and Location of Headquarters, but in 11.3.1.1 these are just examples (note the instruction says .e.g.). So any kind of location associated with the body in any way would, it seems to me, be in scope. In FRAD 4.3, Place associated with the corporate body is a geographic area at any level associated with the corporate body. In MARC 21, You can record headquarters location in 370 $e, associated country in $c, and any other kind of associated place in $f (for example an area where a body is active). It would be useful if these could be broken down as separate elements in RDA Chapter 11, and the structure of Chapters 9 and 11 made consistent in this respect. We had a slightly different problem in Chapter 9, in that nothing in RDA corresponded to 370 $f. This is why 9.11 is now Place of Residence, Etc.. I think there's a problem with 11.3.3.3, that could be resolved by having clearly defined elements for the kinds of places associated with corporate bodies. In the examples, Ill. is not the location of headquarters of the Illinois Republican Party. According to its website, its headquarters are Springfield and Chicago. Illinois is the area where it is active (I would put this in 370 $f). There should be an element for it. Similarly, the National Measurement Laboratory (now the National Measurement Institute) has its headquarters in Sydney (370 $e). Australia is its associated country (370 $c). So these different types of place should be clearly distinguished as RDA elements. The text of 11.3.3.3 actually belongs in 11.13.1.3, as it's about constructing the access point, not about recording the element. I think a proposal is needed to restructure what is now in 11.3, on the lines above. There is a similiar issue with 11.7, which we've tried to resolve with 6JSC/BL/12rev. I guess the BL would be willing to draft something for JSC 2014, unless anyone else wants to. I'm sure cataloguers would like us to stop tinkering with RDA. But things like this keep coming up, that need to be done. 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 Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: 28 October 2013 08:51 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Can corporate bodies only have one associated place? Adam said: I think the instruction was written as it is because only one place may be used in a qualifier when needed to break a conflict. Yes, that seems very plausible. One gets the feeling that the person(s) who wrote the instruction were mainly thinking of access points and not of the recording of places as separate elements. But in MARC certainly more than one place can be recorded in the 370 $e. That's very good to hear. So there should be no objection to the German community recording more than one place, if appropriate. I think a simple fix would be to propose a wording change to 11.3.3.3 that says record the name of the local place or places ... Yes, and that might even go on a fast track. On the other hand, there is another thing in 11.3.3.3 which I find a bit odd, and which might warrant a full proposal: Doesn't the instruction mix up two quite different things? - the area in which a corporate body is active - the local place in which a corporate body has its headquarters A corporate body may well have a a character that is national, state, provincial, etc. and also have an easily identifiable local place where it is located. It should be possible to record both kinds of place, preferably in different elements. So it might be a good idea to define a new element place of activity to keep the two aspects apart. Mind, I quite understand that in such a case the state etc. will be more helpful for breaking a conflict than the place of the headquarters. But I believe this should be handled by a rule under 11.13 (Constructing access points to represent corporate bodies) and not by one in 11.3. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32,
Re: [RDA-L] Corporate bodies as creators: festschrift, corporate brochure a.s.o.
28.10.2013 10:08, Heidrun Wiesenmüller: The German community will need to learn to cope with this new freedom. It won't be easy ;-) But worse, it won't be better than what we used to have. Freedom has a misleading positive connotation about it for these matters. We have a conflict with equality here like between Liberté and Egalité after the French Revolution. But here, other than there, Egalité is by far the more preferable ideal, and it is not inachievable either, as our historic example of RAK has clearly shown. It might be useful if the LC and the DNB conducted a test: Let both prepare some 20 or more records for selected resources, half German titles and half English language titles, to see what the differences and consequences might eventually be. But also, think very hard about the relevance for the usability of a catalog, esp, when not thinking exclusively in FRBR terms but in terms of real user expectations and how a catalog might satisfy them. B.Eversberg
[RDA-L] Relationship designators for art technique books
We've been discussing appropriate relationship designators for art technique books when the creator is the author of the instructions and the artist who created the demonstration pieces (whether watercolour or quilt). Should they have two $e’s with artist and author or should they only be author? Some cataloguers feel that when the creator is well known as a painter, say, they're inclined to add $e artist. I would like a stable basis for the decision, rather than how renowned the practitioner is, and therefore wondered what others thought? Many thanks in advance Regards Jenny Wright
Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designators for art technique books
Jenny, The choice of relationship designator should be determined by the role in relation to the resource being described. The artist is the creator of the art work and if the art work were being described, they may be designated artist. However, if the art work is being used to illustrate another work, we have to assign the relationship the individual has to that resource i.e. is as a contributor to an expression of the work, which can be refined to illustrator. For example, E.H. Shepherd is the creator of a series of pictures of Winnie-the-Pooh, etc. However, when these are included in an edition of The House at Pooh Corner, his relationship is that of illustrator. If appropriate, a relationship to the work used as an illustration could be given, although most of us couldn't afford to do so. Alan Alan Danskin Metadata Standards Manager British Library Boston Spa Wetherby West Yorkshire LS23 7BY Tel: +44(0)1937 546669 mobile: 07833401117 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jenny Wright Sent: 28 October 2013 10:52 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Relationship designators for art technique books We've been discussing appropriate relationship designators for art technique books when the creator is the author of the instructions and the artist who created the demonstration pieces (whether watercolour or quilt). Should they have two $e’s with artist and author or should they only be author? Some cataloguers feel that when the creator is well known as a painter, say, they're inclined to add $e artist. I would like a stable basis for the decision, rather than how renowned the practitioner is, and therefore wondered what others thought? Many thanks in advance Regards Jenny Wright
Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designators for art technique books
That makes sense, thank you Alan Regards Jenny -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Danskin, Alan Sent: 28 October 2013 11:20 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designators for art technique books Jenny, The choice of relationship designator should be determined by the role in relation to the resource being described. The artist is the creator of the art work and if the art work were being described, they may be designated artist. However, if the art work is being used to illustrate another work, we have to assign the relationship the individual has to that resource i.e. is as a contributor to an expression of the work, which can be refined to illustrator. For example, E.H. Shepherd is the creator of a series of pictures of Winnie-the-Pooh, etc. However, when these are included in an edition of The House at Pooh Corner, his relationship is that of illustrator. If appropriate, a relationship to the work used as an illustration could be given, although most of us couldn't afford to do so. Alan Alan Danskin Metadata Standards Manager British Library Boston Spa Wetherby West Yorkshire LS23 7BY Tel: +44(0)1937 546669 mobile: 07833401117 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jenny Wright Sent: 28 October 2013 10:52 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Relationship designators for art technique books We've been discussing appropriate relationship designators for art technique books when the creator is the author of the instructions and the artist who created the demonstration pieces (whether watercolour or quilt). Should they have two $e’s with artist and author or should they only be author? Some cataloguers feel that when the creator is well known as a painter, say, they're inclined to add $e artist. I would like a stable basis for the decision, rather than how renowned the practitioner is, and therefore wondered what others thought? Many thanks in advance Regards Jenny Wright This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk
[RDA-L] NOTSL (Northern Ohio TS Librarians) 2014 Scholarship Application - Deadline Friday, Nov. 1, 2013
Please excuse any cross-postings. Applications for the 2014 Northern Ohio Technical Services Librarians (NOTSL) Scholarships are still being accepted through this Friday, Nov. 1, 2013. Scholarship(s) will be awarded at the discretion of the NOTSL Scholarship Committee, not to exceed $3,000.00, dependent upon need and number of applicants. Applicants must either be currently working in an Ohio library in a professional, paraprofessional, or support position in a technical services area, or be students (residing or studyingin Ohio) currently taking coursework in librarianship. The content of the proposed educational activity must relate to technical services, cataloging, serials, acquisitions, preservation, processing or management of technical services. Typically funded activities can include costs for workshops, conferences, coursework, professional meetings or research, but not training required by an employer. Applicants must specify the nature and cost of proposed activities in order for the Scholarship Board to properly determine eligibility and the allocation of funds. Scholarships will be applied for the calendar year, from January to December, 2014. The deadline for submissions is Friday, November 1, 2013, and recipients will receive notification no later than December 2013. Details can be found at: http://notsl.org.scholarships/scholarship-requirements-for2014/ The application form is located at: http://notsl.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/2014-scholarship-application.pdf Kathleen F. Lamantia, MLIS Technical Services Librarian Stark County District Libraryhttp://www.starklibrary.org/ 715 Market Avenue North Canton, OH 44702 330-458-2723 klaman...@starklibrary.orgmailto:klaman...@starklibrary.org Inspiring Ideas ∙ Enriching Lives ∙ Creating Communityhttp://www.starklibrary.org/
[RDA-L] JSC response documents
The responses listed below for the November 2013 JSC meeting are available on the public website (http://www.rda-jsc.org/workingnew.html): 6JSC/ISBD/Discussion/1 and 2/JSC response/ISBDRG response/LC response 6JSC/ISBD/Discussion/1 and 2/JSC response/ISBDRG response/Appendix D/LC response Regards, Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary
Re: [RDA-L] Corporate body main entry
Bernhard said:
.. or if the name would need to be added to the title proper in order
to individualize the title [in the case of a generic title] ...
When rules for serials changed, so did they for series. Field 410 is
not used, and 810 is much less used. What used to be 410 2
$aSociaty.$tReport is now 830 0 $aReport (Society).
OTOH, this sort of issue may have long since become a non-issue when
it comes to searching. The main entry idea is obsolete ...
The main entry concept is not obsolete (despite the name change) so
long as we are Cuttering, creating subject and added entries for
works, single entry bibliographies, and assisting scholars with
citations and footnotes. Granted a searcher may not care whether the
searched corporate body is 110 or 710; all it affects is Cutter.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Corporate bodies as creators: festschrift, corporate brochure a.s.o.
Hedrun said:
RAK has a rule which is similar (yet not identical) to RDA's idea of
corporate bodies which are responsible for originating, issuing, or
causing to be issued. The definition in RAK is: a corporate body which
has either prepared *or* initiated and edited an anonymous work. So,
there is a precondition here (unknown to the Anglo-American world) that
there is no personal author.
In our practice, it is not enough to have produced the work, the work
must be official. An art galley produces as exhibition catalogue,
but the main entry is the artist, due to the reproductions of the
artist's works being the prominent feature (336 still image precedes
336 text). Both the gallery and writer of added text are added
entries. This distinction confuses our clients and cataloguers most
when applied to law reform commission reports. If a report is
informational, it has main entry under personal author or title; if it
contains the official recommendations of the commission for change to
law, the main entry is the commission. This looks very inconsistent
to patrons, and separates (by Cutter) the initial report from the
final one.
Such a corporate body is called the Urheber (a possible translation
might be originator).
Atlases would be the nearest we have come to that I suspect.
That's what made me think that the corporate body might be seen as
the creator under RDA.
In the absence of official nature, I would see it as *a* creator
(710) but not *the* creator (110). Again, I think we have more
clarity with the traditional terms.
Our head cataloguer is telling our cataloguers that when RDA is silent
or fuzzy, just do what you would have done in AACR2, but spell it out
:-{)}. Perhaps you should do that in reltion to RAK?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designators for art technique books
Jenny said:
We've been discussing appropriate relationship designators for art techni=
que books when the creator is the author of the instructions and the arti=
st who created the demonstration pieces...
If the person both wrote the text and produced the art reproduced, and
both still image and text are used in 336, seems to me it should be
$eauthor,$eillustrator. Were the art reproductions the major content,
then $eartist,$eauthor.
For exhibition catalogues, we use just $eartist, since the text is
usually by a curator. Some clients only want the LC minimum relator,
$eillustrator for children's material. In that case we remove the
other relators on export. We like to have complete records in our
file; for one aggregator we even remove 300 for online resources, but
we don't want that in our files.
LEADER 00797cam 22002417i 4500
000 00797cam 22002417a 4500@
001 slc30620010082732
003 CaBNVSL
005 20131003093904.0
008 131003s2013nyu c0 eng u
020 |a9780982431573
040 |aCaBNVSL|beng|erda|cCaBNVSL|dCaBNVSL
100 1 |aMolloy, Tom,$eartist. (May remove $e term on export]
245 10 |aTom Molloy :|bissue /|cTom Molloy ; [essay, Gavin Delahunty].
246 30 |aIssue
264 1 |aNew York [New York] |bFLAG Art Foundation,|c2013.
300 |a39 pages :|billustrations (some colour) ;|c30 cm
336 |astill image|2rdacontent
336 |atext|2rdacontent
337 |aunmediated|2rdamedia
338 |avolume|2rdacarrier
504 |aIncludes bibliographical references.
518 |aCatalog of an exhibition held Feb. 8-May 18, 2013 at the FLAG Art
Foundation, New York.
588 |aTitle from cover.
600 10 |aMolloy, Tom|vExhibitions.
700 1 |aDelahunty, Gavin,$ewriter of added text. [May remmov $e on export]
710 2 |aFLAG Art Foundation$ehost institution. [May remove $e on export]
Notes on the sample:
Some limit 588 to sources outside the item, but our clients prefer not
having sources split up, and we see their point. In AACR2/MARC21
there was too much splitting of of related data, e.g., 245/$c and 508
noncast credits, 506 and 540 restrictions on access and usage. We
like exact note field coding (e,g, 518 for date and place of event)
because one does not need to manually create note order for
consistency.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
[RDA-L] Question about multiple authors on an OCLC record
OCLC #87852529 Understanding Employment Law There are 3 authors, all listed as shown on title page (including the Univ info) in the 245 tag $c Jeffrey M. Hirsch, Paul M. Secunda and Richard A. Bales. This is the order shown on title page. The record shows Bales, Richard A. as the author in the 100 tag. I know in AACR2, I always used the first author listed on title page. RDA toolkit is confusing to me and I could not find information on this. Jinny Wesson Library Resource Center Library Coordinator Technical Services/Cataloging 3000 NE 4th St. Renton, WA 98056 (425) 235-2331 jwes...@rtc.edu inline: image001.jpg
Re: [RDA-L] Question about multiple authors on an OCLC record
The 1st ed. listed Bales as primary author so presumably whoever created the record for the 2nd ed. preserved the main entry. If you look at RDA 6.27.1.3 (Authorized access points ... Collaborative works) you'll see that the person with principal responsibility is assigned to the access point. (To translate from RDA-ese: gets Main Entry/1xx), but if principal responsibility is uncertain then choose the first-named author. So presumably the cataloger of #87852529 felt that even though the 2nd edition lists Hirsch as the first-named author, the fact that Bales is primarily responsible for the original edition is more indicative of principal responsibility. --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Wesson, Jinny Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 2:59 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: [RDA-L] Question about multiple authors on an OCLC record OCLC #87852529 Understanding Employment Law There are 3 authors, all listed as shown on title page (including the Univ info) in the 245 tag $c Jeffrey M. Hirsch, Paul M. Secunda and Richard A. Bales. This is the order shown on title page. The record shows Bales, Richard A. as the author in the 100 tag. I know in AACR2, I always used the first author listed on title page. RDA toolkit is confusing to me and I could not find information on this. Jinny Wesson [Description: RTC new logo email signature] Library Resource Center Library Coordinator Technical Services/Cataloging 3000 NE 4th St. Renton, WA 98056 (425) 235-2331 jwes...@rtc.edumailto:jwes...@rtc.edu inline: image001.jpg
Re: [RDA-L] Prize winners in authority records
Richard, Interesting, although I find it to be a bit of a stretch to say that using terms like this in 368 $c connotes an “other designation” in the RDA sense. Although the field is defined as “Other Attributes of Person or Corporate Body”, I think I’d prefer a new subfield for “other attribute” rather than “other designation” which is RDA terminology. Or else perhaps rename the subfield $c as “Other attribute” which would be more understandable to put terms like Nobel Prize winner. But the more I think about it, however, I can almost see how terms like this could even be used (in the singular) in a $c qualifier in an access point to break a conflict. I think I’ve come around (didn’t take long!) but I think we should rename 368 $c “Other attribute” or “Other attribute or designation”. Adam From: Moore, Richard Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 12:52 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Prize winners in authority records Adam Although you can’t do this: 110 2_ $a Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons 386$a Nobel Prize winners $2 lcsh 100 1_ $a Aspect, Alain 386$a Balzan Prize winners $2 lcsh You can put these terms in 368: 110 2_ $a Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons 368 $c Nobel Prize winners $2 lcsh 100 1_ $a Aspect, Alain 368 $c Balzan Prize winners $2 lcsh The reason we argued at MARBI (as was) that 386 should be limited to name-title authorities is that in the personal NAR, controlled vocabularies are already used in 368 and 374 to record the same kinds of thing. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk
Re: [RDA-L] Question about multiple authors on an OCLC record
Thank you for putting this in language I could understand. Jinny Wesson Library Resource Center Library Coordinator Technical Services/Cataloging 3000 NE 4th St. Renton, WA 98056 (425) 235-2331 jwes...@rtc.edu mailto:jwes...@rtc.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 12:12 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about multiple authors on an OCLC record The 1st ed. listed Bales as primary author so presumably whoever created the record for the 2nd ed. preserved the main entry. If you look at RDA 6.27.1.3 (Authorized access points ... Collaborative works) you'll see that the person with principal responsibility is assigned to the access point. (To translate from RDA-ese: gets Main Entry/1xx), but if principal responsibility is uncertain then choose the first-named author. So presumably the cataloger of #87852529 felt that even though the 2nd edition lists Hirsch as the first-named author, the fact that Bales is primarily responsible for the original edition is more indicative of principal responsibility. --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Wesson, Jinny Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 2:59 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: [RDA-L] Question about multiple authors on an OCLC record OCLC #87852529 Understanding Employment Law There are 3 authors, all listed as shown on title page (including the Univ info) in the 245 tag $c Jeffrey M. Hirsch, Paul M. Secunda and Richard A. Bales. This is the order shown on title page. The record shows Bales, Richard A. as the author in the 100 tag. I know in AACR2, I always used the first author listed on title page. RDA toolkit is confusing to me and I could not find information on this. Jinny Wesson Library Resource Center Library Coordinator Technical Services/Cataloging 3000 NE 4th St. Renton, WA 98056 (425) 235-2331 jwes...@rtc.edu This message has been scanned by McAfee EWS3200 at the RTC internet gateway. inline: image002.jpginline: image003.jpg
Re: [RDA-L] Can corporate bodies only have one associated place?
Richard, There are sub-elements for Location of Conference, Etc., and Location of Headquarters, but in 11.3.1.1 these are just examples (note the instruction says .e.g.). I did indeed notice the e.g. and found that odd as well. If location of conference and location of headquarters are just examples, one would at least have expected a third element called Other place associated with the corporate body to be used for other cases. I think there's a problem with 11.3.3.3, that could be resolved by having clearly defined elements for the kinds of places associated with corporate bodies. In the examples, Ill. is not the location of headquarters of the Illinois Republican Party. According to its website, its headquarters are Springfield and Chicago. Illinois is the area where it is active (I would put this in 370 $f). There should be an element for it. Similarly, the National Measurement Laboratory (now the National Measurement Institute) has its headquarters in Sydney (370 $e). Australia is its associated country (370 $c). So these different types of place should be clearly distinguished as RDA elements. The text of 11.3.3.3 actually belongs in 11.13.1.3, as it's about constructing the access point, not about recording the element. I absolutely agree. I think a proposal is needed to restructure what is now in 11.3, on the lines above. There is a similiar issue with 11.7, which we've tried to resolve with 6JSC/BL/12rev. I guess the BL would be willing to draft something for JSC 2014, unless anyone else wants to. If the BL would be willing to prepare a proposal for 2014, I'd be very happy. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Question about multiple authors on an OCLC record
Jinny Wesson said concerning Understanding emplyment law, 2nd ed.:
The record shows Bales, Richard A. as the author in the 100 tag. I know
in AACR2, I always used the first author listed on title page. RDA
toolkit is confusing to me and I could not find information on this.
When cataloguing a later edition, we keep the original Cutter, but not
the main entry, if the order of authors changes on the title page.
To guess at major responsibility among more than one author is *not* a
good idea. Unless there is some other clear indication (such as
larger type face) the first author should be main entry.
Using RDA's fuzzy language to justify such guessing will result in
different descriptions and multiple records for the same
manifestation, and unacceptable variation in subject and added
entries, as well as differing citations.
I suspect this might be an error in editing the record from the
earlier edition record, as opposed to a choice made by the cataloguer.
Since this is a DLC record, it could be a carry over from a CIP
record, with order of authors changing during the publication process.
Somebody please correct that record on OCLC. I've reported it to LC.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Corporate bodies as creators: festschrift, corporate brochure a.s.o.
Mac said: In our practice, it is not enough to have produced the work, the work must be official. An art galley produces as exhibition catalogue, but the main entry is the artist, due to the reproductions of the artist's works being the prominent feature (336 still image precedes 336 text). Both the gallery and writer of added text are added entries. The gallery would be added entry according to our rules as well. But exhibition catalogs fall under a special rule (they always have main entry under title - don't ask me why), so I won't dwell on this example. I'm afraid I haven't explained the gist of the relevant RAK rules very well. I can try again for those who are interested (although, of course, the whole thing is of a somewhat academic nature considering that we'll start using RDA in 2015). The corporate originator (if I may use this term as a translation for the German Urheber) is not necessarily the producer in the sense you mentioned above. In many cases, the producing will be done by a commercial publisher. Also, there can - by definition - be no conflict between a personal author and a corporate body. The German cataloging tradition has always been a bit guarded with respect to corporate bodies. Our older code of rules, the Prussian Instructions, didn't have entries under corporate bodies at all. Interestingly enough, this seems to have worked quite well ;-) But lets get back to RAK. For a corporate body to be main entry, three conditions must be met: #1 The work doesn't have a personal author #2 The body must be the corporate originator #3 The body must be named in the title proper (or its name would need to be added, in the case of a generic title proper) Corporate bodies are considered to be the originator if A) they have prepared the work or B) they have initiated and edited the work Case A): Sometimes this is explicitly mentioned in the s-o-r (e.g., prepared by the Scientific Advisory Board of the Federal Medical Association), in other cases you'd assume it from other evidence like the type of publication (e.g., in the case of a corporate brochure) or the wording of the title proper (e.g., Guidelines of the body XY for topic Z). Case B): Quite often the corporate body is named as editor or is placed on the t.p. in what might be called editor position. If there is no evidence to the contrary, you'd assume that it has also initiated the work (this fact usually isn't explicitly mentioned in the resources). Case B) often covers publications which are not official in the sense of RDA 19.2.1.1.1 b) (works that record the collective thought of the body). But in most of these cases, the corporate body will not be named in the title and therefore only get added entry. I've never taken a sample, but I think that in the majority of cases, the German rules and RDA lead to the same results. But there are some noteworthy examples. We've already mentioned journals of the type Journal of body XY, which always get main entry under the corporate body according to RAK. Another example would be official statements, guidelines etc. of the corporate body, if the body is not named in the title: The corporate body would then get main entry under RDA, but added entry under RAK. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Corporate bodies as creators: festschrift, corporate brochure a.s.o.
Hedrun said:
Corporate bodies are considered to be the originator if
A) they have prepared the work or
B) they have initiated and edited the work
What about prepared by Alpha Consulting for Beta Society? Often
societies, government offices, and other corporate bodies, commission
a study, e.g., environmental assessments.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Question about multiple authors on an OCLC record
Under RDA, revised editions are interpreted to be expressions of the original edition, unless the creator who was used in the authorized access point for the original edition is no longer named in the statement of responsibility. Go to http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/Refresher_training_dec_2011.html and review the presentation Revised editions, especially starting at slide 14. The first edition of Understanding employment law on LCCN 2007026152 had Bales named first. The 2nd ed. on LCCN 2013004371 had Bales named 3rd, so the authorized access point for the work still consists of his authorized access point in the 100 plus the title in the 245. This is a change from AACR2 practice. -- John Hostage Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services Langdell Hall 194 Harvard Law School Library Cambridge, MA 02138 host...@law.harvard.edumailto:host...@law.harvard.edu +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax) From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Wesson, Jinny [jwes...@rtc.edu] Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 14:58 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Question about multiple authors on an OCLC record OCLC #87852529 Understanding Employment Law There are 3 authors, all listed as shown on title page (including the Univ info) in the 245 tag $c Jeffrey M. Hirsch, Paul M. Secunda and Richard A. Bales. This is the order shown on title page. The record shows Bales, Richard A. as the author in the 100 tag. I know in AACR2, I always used the first author listed on title page. RDA toolkit is confusing to me and I could not find information on this. Jinny Wesson [Description: RTC new logo email signature] Library Resource Center Library Coordinator Technical Services/Cataloging 3000 NE 4th St. Renton, WA 98056 (425) 235-2331 jwes...@rtc.edumailto:jwes...@rtc.edu inline: image001.jpg
Re: [RDA-L] Corporate bodies as creators: festschrift, corporate brochure a.s.o.
Isn't a festschrift by definition a compilation of of works by different persons, families, or corporate bodies? As such it would fall under RDA 6.27.1.4 and the authorized access point would be the preferred title of the compilation, so no corporate main entry. Festschrift isn't used often enough in English for there to be a well-established plural. The online Oxford English Dictionary gives 4 possible plurals: both festschrifts and festschriften, and each either upper or lower case. -- John Hostage Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services Langdell Hall 194 Harvard Law School Library Cambridge, MA 02138 host...@law.harvard.edu +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax) Maybe there are differences between what is common in Germany and in the Anglo-American world. Here, in the majority of cases a festschrift for a corporate body will have in fact been produced by the body itself (unless there is a Friends of ... corporate body, which may step in here). I assume that the usual thing is for the managing board to say We'll have an anniversary next year, wouldn't it be a good idea to put together a festschrift? In RDA terms, I think that these festschrifts (is that the correct English plural of this lovely German loan word? In German, it would be Festschriften) are either issued or, at least, caused to be issued by the corporate body. Quite often, the corporate body is also named as editor. That's what made me think that the corporate body might be seen as the creator under RDA.
[RDA-L] Multiple edition statements
Greetings everyone I have a feeling that this has been discussed before, but I am unable to locate it What is the feeling regarding multiple edition statements? We have books that have completely separate statements such as '3rd edition' AND a little further down the page 'New Zealand edition' There is no indication anywhere that it is a 3rd New Zealand edition'. My gut feeling says 2 separate edition statements, but am I interpreting things correctly? Cheers Anne Laguna Librarian, Resource Access Management CityLibraries Townsville P 07 4773 8509 F 07 4773 8608 E anne.lag...@townsville.qld.gov.au W www.townsville.qld.gov.au Townsville City Council 103-141 Walker Street PO Box 1268 Townsville QLD 4810 PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The information contained in this email is intended for the named recipients only. It may contain privileged and confidential information and if you are not the named intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by email or the telephone number or email listed above.
Re: [RDA-L] Multiple edition statements
Hi Everyone again I have located the thread. Cheers :) Anne Laguna From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Anne Laguna Sent: Tuesday, 29 October 2013 1:05 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Multiple edition statements Greetings everyone I have a feeling that this has been discussed before, but I am unable to locate it What is the feeling regarding multiple edition statements? We have books that have completely separate statements such as '3rd edition' AND a little further down the page 'New Zealand edition' There is no indication anywhere that it is a 3rd New Zealand edition'. My gut feeling says 2 separate edition statements, but am I interpreting things correctly? Cheers Anne Laguna Librarian, Resource Access Management CityLibraries Townsville P 07 4773 8509 F 07 4773 8608 E anne.lag...@townsville.qld.gov.aumailto:anne.lag...@townsville.qld.gov.au W www.townsville.qld.gov.auhttp://www.townsville.qld.gov.au Townsville City Council 103-141 Walker Street PO Box 1268 Townsville QLD 4810 PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The information contained in this email is intended for the named recipients only. It may contain privileged and confidential information and if you are not the named intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by email or the telephone number or email listed above.
Re: [RDA-L] Question about multiple authors on an OCLC record
John said:
The first edition of Understanding employment law on LCCN 2007026152
had Bales named first. The 2nd ed. on LCCN 2013004371 had Bales
named 3rd, so the authorized access point for the work still consists
of his authorized access point in the 100 plus the title in the 245.
This is a change from AACR2 practice.
This RDA idiocy had so far escaped my attention. Under which AACR2
rule should this go in the MRIs?
I suspect some of our clients would bounce this back to us as an
error, particularly if they don't own the earlier edition, and thus
have no clue what's going on. What if the author of the first edition
is dead, as is often the case with law books in their umpteenth
edition?
How will this work in Bibframe, where the later edition is a new work?
How does an edition statement of responsibility relate to this? Are
we back to putting Smith's Torts, 15th ed. by Tom Jones, under Smith
as main entry? That was an earlier pre AACR2 revision practice.
We are going to have to give some thought whether we will follow this
rule or not. It would not go over well.
Thanks for the explication John.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Multiple edition statements
Anne Laguna asked:
What is the feeling regarding multiple edition statements?
No problem. Field 250 has been made repeating.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
