Re: [RDA-L] Facsimile reprint

[J. McRee Elrod]

Dana Van Meter posted:

>Thanks Mac. Do we really need a 501 note and 700$a$t for the Introduzione,
>and the bibliography? 
 
We would only consider it if written by a very well known person, and it is
lengthy.  Rather than $t, you could use $ewriter of added text.
 
>I kind of found the answer to my question of whether I need a 500 note if
>I use the 775 |i in LC's "Reconsidering the Cataloging Treatment of
>Reproductions"(April 29, 2010)--which I interpret to say that I don't need
>a 500 if I'm using a 775
 
True.  Of course ILS vary in the display and indexing of 77X. That's why
we like a 530 even if there is a 776, although we remove it for loading on
OCLC, since the PN standard lacks it.
 
>LC states that it will "generally use the relationship
>designators 'reproduction of (manifestation)' and 'reproduced as', rather
>than one of the more specific terms
 
 
Every client we have has rejected 7XX$i, I assume because $i comes first
while $e comes after.  We will remove #e for those who don't want them,
but not assign $i.

>There was an earlier discussion on RDA-L pertaining to whether the |w is
>mandatory in the 775 ...

We more often use LCCN in 77X$w.

>The training module states: "If a bibliographic record OR other
>detailed information about the original is not available, give instead a
>bibliographic history note with as much information as you have in a MARC
>500 field."
  
Field 503 should NOT have been made obsolete.  We still use it.

>Are others also interpreting these 2 statement to mean that the |w isn't
>mandatory in the 775 as long as you have other detailed information about
>the original? 
 
There are other candidates for 77X$w: LCCN, LAC or Amicus 001, as well 
as OCN.
 


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

Re: [RDA-L] Cost of Retrospective Conversion for Legacy Data (Was RDA Toolkit Price Change)

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

For the most part I don't think there is any pressing need to convert pre-RDA 
descriptive cataloging.  The changes to the descriptive portion of the record 
are more or less aesthetic ("p." vs "pages" for example).  We have lived with 
AACR2 and pre-AACR2 records living cheek-by-jowl in our catalogs for 
generations, and no catalog that I know has spontaneously combusted because of 
it.

But the real question is access points--and in particular, whether RDA relators 
can be retrospectively added to pre-AACR2 records. As someone has already 
pointed out, as it stands they are not going to be particularly useful in 
constructing indexes or underpinning faceted discovery unless they are 
uniformly present in every record in the catalog.  

If they are not consistently applied then users will either get "loosey" 
results (things showing up where they don't belong) or worse, "lossy" results 
(things NOT showing up where they do belong).  

I would be very curious to know if anyone with a systems background has thought 
about ways to batch-apply relators to existing records. Perhaps by making use 
of existing statements of responsibility?  It seems to me given the number of 
pre-RDA records out there that no one will ever have time and/or money to 
update them manually.

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 Gary L Strawn
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 4:33 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Cost of Retrospective Conversion for Legacy Data (Was RDA 
Toolkit Price Change)

If anyone is interested, Appendixes E, F and G of the documentation for the 
cataloger's toolkit describe many of the RDA-related changes we are making in 
our database.  At present we are changing one record at a time (as we do other 
work on the record), but I expect to have a batch program early in the new 
year; certainly, we intend to use such a batch program to finish the conversion 
of our database before the migration to Alma.  This batch program will probably 
be similar to the earlier program that made RDA-related changes to access 
fields: for anyone, it will read and write files of MARC records; for Voyager 
users, it will also be able to update the database directly.

You can start here:

http://files.library.northwestern.edu/public/CatalogersToolkit/Documentation/Online/#Appendix_E

I will emphasize that the generation of 33X fields becomes a knotty problem if 
a record combines expressions in different forms (such as print and online).  
We plan to untangle as many of our lumped-together records as we can before we 
RDA-ize our database with a batch program.

Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc.   Twitter: GaryLStrawn
Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300
e-mail: mrsm...@northwestern.edu   voice: 847/491-2788   fax: 847/491-8306
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit.   BatchCat version: 2007.25.428


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Guy Vernon Frost
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 8:13 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Cost of Retrospective Conversion for Legacy Data (Was RDA 
Toolkit Price Change)

You can also customize is "a little" for no additional charge. For example, we 
chose not to have MARCIVE convert the 250 which is a descriptive field. For the 
record, I'm not too happy with some of their choices for the 336-338 fields, 
but we send so little that isn't RDA converted already that I just accept what 
they send.

Re: [RDA-L] Facsimile reprint

[Dana Van Meter]

Thanks Mac. Do we really need a 501 note and 700$a$t for the Introduzione,
and the bibliography?  The $ts would be a bit generic wouldn't they?  I'm
not sure how useful they'd be.  

I kind of found the answer to my question of whether I need a 500 note if
I use the 775 |i in LC's "Reconsidering the Cataloging Treatment of
Reproductions"(April 29, 2010)--which I interpret to say that I don't need
a 500 if I'm using a 775 (i.e., if I'm doing a structured description
rather than an unstructured description of the related manifestation). In
this document LC states that it will "generally use the relationship
designators 'reproduction of (manifestation)' and 'reproduced as', rather
than one of the more specific terms (e.g., facsimile, reprinted as) to
simplify the process of choosing a relationship in an area where the
meaning of terms is open to interpretation."  Are others following that,
or are you using the more specific designators from Appendix J.4?

There was an earlier discussion on RDA-L pertaining to whether the |w is
mandatory in the 775, and if there is no OCLC record for the original work
and therefore nothing to put in the |w, if one must then use a 500 note
(http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca/msg07929.html).
I think Steven is saying that it's not mandatory, and given what's stated
in this LC training module (RDA: Module 4--Relationships in RDA (Hawkins &
Nguyen, Sept. 2012 (Revised Dec. 4, 2012)), I would say that the |w isn't
mandatory as long as one has "other detailed information" about the
original. The training module states: "If a bibliographic record OR other
detailed information about the original is not available, give instead a
bibliographic history note with as much information as you have in a MARC
500 field."  Likewise "Reconsidering the Cataloging Treatment of
Reproductions" mentioned above, also states: "The 775/776 field could be
used reciprocally on both records, if desired, BUT PRESENCE OF SEPARATE
RECORDS IS NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR THE USE OF LINKING ENTRY FIELDS IN MARC."
Are others also interpreting these 2 statement to mean that the |w isn't
mandatory in the 775 as long as you have other detailed information about
the original?  Forgive me if this was already settled on this list, I
couldn't find that it was when querying the Archives.

Thanks very much for your help,
Dana


-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: Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:07 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Facsimile reprint

Dana Van Meter posted:

>I have a facsimile reprint, which is not at first glance a facsimile 
>reprint, but it is.  My book has a new title page, followed by
>28 unnumbered pages which contain an added Introduction ...

I would certainly adjust the collation to include the added pages, record
the introduction (title and author) in 501, and trace in 700$a$t.

Our IT person would insert the 775, in addition to the cataloguer's note
identifying this as a reproduction.
__
__ 
I sent on 11/21/13

I'm cataloging my first reproduction in RDA, so of course I have a
question!  I have a facsimile reprint, which is not at first glance a
facsimile reprint, but it is.  My book has a new title page, followed by
28 unnumbered pages which contain an added Introduction (Introduzione, as
it's in Italian); and an "aggiornamento bibliografico" with the title:
L'epistolario di Plinio il Giovane tra letteratura e archeologia:
aggiornamento bibliografico (1936-2006).  After the 28 unnumbered pages of
the additional introd. & bibliographical references, is the facsimile
reprint, which includes the original title page, and retains the page
numbering of the original.  The only record I can find in OCLC for my book
is ocn124073548, which is in RDA, but totally ignores the unnumbered
pages, so I hesitate to accept this copy without editing.

My question is, do I need a 775 in this record?  I can find one example
(although there are probably more) in LC, of an RDA record for a facsimile
reprint which includes a new introduction and the 775 note is not used
(LCCN 2013361265), and one for a facsimile reprint without any new,
additional material added, which does include a 775 (LCCN 2013361265).
I'm having trouble grasping when a 775 is needed, and would like some
guidance.  Also, if we have a 775 with a |i,  do we not have a need then,
for a 500 note stating that the resource is a facsimile reprint? If I do
need a 500 note,  I see "Facsimile of:" in the examples at 27.1.1.3, do we
now say "Facsimile of" rather than "Facsimile reprint of"?  The examples
at LC-PCC PS 27.1.1.3 show |i Reproduction of (manifestation), do I use
that in this case, or can I use |i Facsimile of (manifestation) from
Appendix J.4.2?

Thanks very much for your help.

Sincerely,

Dan

Re: [RDA-L] Cost of Retrospective Conversion for Legacy Data (Was RDA Toolkit Price Change)

[Gary L Strawn]

If anyone is interested, Appendixes E, F and G of the documentation for the 
cataloger's toolkit describe many of the RDA-related changes we are making in 
our database.  At present we are changing one record at a time (as we do other 
work on the record), but I expect to have a batch program early in the new 
year; certainly, we intend to use such a batch program to finish the conversion 
of our database before the migration to Alma.  This batch program will probably 
be similar to the earlier program that made RDA-related changes to access 
fields: for anyone, it will read and write files of MARC records; for Voyager 
users, it will also be able to update the database directly.

You can start here:

http://files.library.northwestern.edu/public/CatalogersToolkit/Documentation/Online/#Appendix_E

I will emphasize that the generation of 33X fields becomes a knotty problem if 
a record combines expressions in different forms (such as print and online).  
We plan to untangle as many of our lumped-together records as we can before we 
RDA-ize our database with a batch program.

Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc.   Twitter: GaryLStrawn
Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300
e-mail: mrsm...@northwestern.edu   voice: 847/491-2788   fax: 847/491-8306
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit.   BatchCat version: 2007.25.428


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Guy Vernon Frost
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 8:13 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Cost of Retrospective Conversion for Legacy Data (Was RDA 
Toolkit Price Change)

You can also customize is "a little" for no additional charge. For example, we 
chose not to have MARCIVE convert the 250 which is a descriptive field. For the 
record, I'm not too happy with some of their choices for the 336-338 fields, 
but we send so little that isn't RDA converted already that I just accept what 
they send.

[RDA-L] NETSL 2014 Annual Spring Conference - Call for Proposals

[Eileen Chandler]

Please excuse any cross-postings

NETSL 2014 Annual Spring Conference - Call for Proposals


"Coming Up Roses: Growing Towards The Future"
The New England Technical Services Librarians 2014 Annual Spring Conference
College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, MA
April 11, 2014


Got an innovating idea, project, or technology? Share it with New England
Technical Services Librarians (NETSL – http://netsl.wordpress.com) at our
2014 Annual Spring Conference, “Coming Up Roses: Growing Towards The
Future”.

NETSL seeks forward-thinking proposals in all areas related to technical
services librarianship:  acquisitions, cataloging, serials, electronic
resources, and preservation in academic, public, and special libraries.
 Participants are strongly encouraged to think about innovative services
that meet current challenges in technical services, and how we are leaders
of change within technical services and in our libraries as a whole.

Our 2014 Annual Spring Conference will focus on how technical services
librarians are increasingly asked to adapt and change in relation to
quickly changing trends and current and future users’ needs. How do we
cultivate these trends to improve and/or create better services that meet
the challenges we face today and tomorrow?

Participants are invited to submit proposals for breakout presentations,
posters show and tell for our poster session, and lightning talks.
Breakouts are a full one hour presentation. Posters show and tell will last
an hour.  Lightning talks are approximately 6-15 minutes in length where
each presenter speaks one after another. Questions and answers follow the
end of the breakout session presentation and the end of all the lightning
talks but occur throughout the poster session.

To submit a proposal, follow this link: http://tinyurl.com/ ltnzq4b

The deadline for proposal submission is midnight on February 2, 2014:

For more information contact Jennifer Eustis, Past President, New England
Technical Services Librarians, jennifer.eus...@lib.uconn.edu.


Eileen Chandler
NETSL Outreach Officer


Member Services Manager
CLAMS (Cape Libraries Automated Materials Sharing Inc.)
Unit 4E, 270 Communication Way
Hyannis MA 02601
echand...@clamsnet.org
508-790-4399 x113

Re: [RDA-L] Cost of Retrospective Conversion for Legacy Data (Was RDA Toolkit Price Change)

[Guy Vernon Frost]

You can also customize is "a little" for no additional charge. For example, we 
chose not to have MARCIVE convert the 250 which is a descriptive field. For the 
record, I'm not too happy with some of their choices for the 336-338 fields, 
but we send so little that isn't RDA converted already that I just accept what 
they send.

Guy Frost
Associate Professor of Library Science
Catalog Librarian
Odum Library/Valdosta State University
Valdosta, Georgia 31698-0150
229.259.5060
gfr...@valdosta.edu
FDLP 0125


From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
 on behalf of Jenifer K Marquardt 
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 12:29 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Cost of Retrospective Conversion for Legacy Data (Was RDA 
Toolkit Price Change)

Some basic conversion is being done by vendors, though, of course, adding 
relationship designators isn't an easily automated process.  Just as an 
example, here is the announcement from our authorities vendor MARCIVE.   I've 
left in the contact and marketing information just in case anyone is 
interested.  Jenifer


MARCIVE RDA Conversion Service Underway
September 9, 2013

Since January 2013, MARCIVE has begun offering standard RDA Conversion (RDACS) 
as a part of both backfile and ongoing authorities processing at no additional 
cost, and a number of libraries have come on board.   These libraries chose to 
have RDACS performed as a part of their authorities projects for different 
reasons. For example, the Univ. of Houston did it as a part of a migration 
project. For more information see the presentation that Richard Guajardo gave 
on this at the ALA Annual Conference at 
http://home.marcive.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/ALA2013-RDA-Guajardo-Final.ppt.

We’ve performed this processing on a variety of libraries with different 
integrated library systems.

If you are a current customer of our Overnight Authorities Service, you can 
request that we turn on RDACS for free beginning with the next file you send to 
us. Here are the instructions:

Send an email to dthom...@marcive.com and include
MARCIVE ID code or codes to be updated
Full name of your library
Your name and email address
State “Perform full RDACS processing for OA”
Provide your library’s organizational code from the MARC Code List for 
Organizations
Choose an option for your General Material Designation (GMD):

“Retain GMD in 245 $h”
“Delete GMD from 245.”
“Copy GMD to 500 note.”

Does your system still require the GMD (at least for now)? We can create one 
where lacking for a one-time nominal fee.

Want more information on what is included in RDACS? Start with this brief 
presentation at 
http://home.marcive.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ALA2013-RDA-July.ppt

Or contact a Marketing Representative at 800-531-7678 with any questions you 
have. We speak RDA!
ALA Midwinter 201


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 Julie Moore 
[julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 12:01 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Cost of Retrospective Conversion for Legacy Data (Was RDA 
Toolkit Price Change)

James Weinheimer wrote:
But if we are to make all of these relators and relationships useful for the 
public, the simple undeniable fact is: incredible retrospective conversions 
will have to be done and I have never heard of estimates of how much those will 
cost. The RDA subscriptions are peanuts by comparison. Was any of that 
discussed during the decision making for RDA? Maybe it wasn't discussed then, 
but it sure will be in the future! You can only ignore it for so long.

So let's talk about it! I'm curious about this, too! Has this been considered? 
All I have ever heard was that RDA records would work fine with other legacy 
records in our catalogs.

Julie Moore

--
Julie Renee Moore
Head of Cataloging
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

“Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from 
themselves.”
... James Matthew Barrie

Re: [RDA-L] RDA Toolkit Price Change

[ford davey]

Ahoj!
 
Has anybody, other than libraries - or, specifically, library cataloguers - 
adopted, or plan to adopt RDA? Google? Amazon
 
As a secondary question; if all the people mwho think that they understand RDA 
were to disappear overnight . would anybody be able to "learn" RDA from 
scratch?
 
Ford
 
> Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 10:16:33 +0100
> From: e...@biblio.tu-bs.de
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA Toolkit Price Change
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> 
> Am 23.11.2013 17:55, schrieb Melissa Powell:
> > ...  There is no 'choice', the rules have
> > changed.
> They *got* changed.
> 
> >  This is the first step to compliance with the rest of the
> > information industry.
> >
> Really? Has anyone out there in the industry even noticed?
> What *might* get noticed is a change in communication formats,
> but not in rules.
> 
> As Mac and James indicated, there *are* choices. These will likely
> be taken, to varying degrees, by those who see no choice but
> to avoid compliance.
> And the result will be more variety in the local systems and,
> very likely, in OCLC data as well. How does that bode for
> interoperability? This could have been avoided if access to the rules
> were free or not much more expensive than with AACR.
> 
> RDA *might* become a success, but not in the way the access to
> it is now prohibitively expensive for too many libraries. Not
> to speek of other communities. Or are there many registered
> and paying users now who are not libraries?
> RDA will not be a success for reasons James has listed, but
> certainly not because of the text being monopolized. This
> is incompatible with the ideals of libraries.
> 
> B.Eversberg
  

[RDA-L] The Future of Search

[James Weinheimer]

Apologies for cross-posting.

I just thought I would share this TEDxMünchen: The future of search by 
Marcus Tandler (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa4jQIW2etI), who calls 
himself a "Compulsive Entrepreneur". He gives a very interesting talk on 
the latest developments in "Search". His takes on what the Googles want 
are quite perceptive but I personally do not share much of his enthusiasm.


Of course, I am not above blatant self-promotion, so if you would like 
to see(hear) what a librarian/cataloger thinks about this same topic 
(rather difference from his), you can listen to my podcast "Search" 
http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2010/12/cataloging-matters-podcast-no-7-search.html


--
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] RDA Toolkit Price Change

[Bernhard Eversberg]

Am 23.11.2013 17:55, schrieb Melissa Powell:

...  There is no 'choice', the rules have
changed.

They *got* changed.


 This is the first step to compliance with the rest of the
information industry.


Really? Has anyone out there in the industry even noticed?
What *might* get noticed is a change in communication formats,
but not in rules.

As Mac and James indicated, there *are* choices. These will likely
be taken, to varying degrees, by those who see no choice but
to avoid compliance.
And the result will be more variety in the local systems and,
very likely, in OCLC data as well. How does that bode for
interoperability? This could have been avoided if access to the rules
were free or not much more expensive than with AACR.

RDA *might* become a success, but not in the way the access to
it is now prohibitively expensive for too many libraries. Not
to speek of other communities. Or are there many registered
and paying users now who are not libraries?
RDA will not be a success for reasons James has listed, but
certainly not because of the text being monopolized. This
is incompatible with the ideals of libraries.

B.Eversberg