[RDA-L] Title with embedded square brackets
I have a print title with a set of square brackets embedded in the first word on the piece itself. Here are the first few words of the title: D[a]edalus, my father's horse, taken from the mill I have looked in every place in the RDA Toolkit that I can think of, and every place listed under "square brackets" in the index, and cannot find instructions. I am aware that in RDA, you're supposed to describe what you see, so I assume the 245b should be exactly as I see it: D[a]edalus, my father's horse, taken from the mill and I can add a 246 with: Daedalus, my father's horse, taken from the mill Is this correct? Billie Hackney Senior Monograph Cataloger Getty Research Institute 1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688 (310) 440-7616 bhack...@getty.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16
Exactly, John. Thank you. I absolutely agree that there is no logical reason why this cannot be done by checking boxes in this day and age. And maybe it will happen at some point. And that would be great. During the RDA test, determining what terms to put in the X00/X10 $e took a lot of time and effort because of the type of material we catalog -- artists, curators, essayists, illustrators, photographers, editors, exhibition venues, host institutions and so on, most functions listed in small type and in a foreign language buried somewhere on the colophon. It will continue to take extra time and effort for nearly every title we catalog in RDA. There's the spelling out of place names, too. I was also longing for someone to simplify the rules for assignment of subject headings, which I know of course is outside the realm of RDA, but it would have been lovely if that had been a priority by the Powers that Be. Machines ought to be doing a lot of that work, too. Billie >>> "Myers, John F." 9/20/2012 11:00 AM >>> Billie Hackney wrote: But it doesn't change the fact that creating an RDA record is more work, more typing, and more effort for overworked catalogers. - This is not an invalid criticism of RDA, and an area where early criticisms felt that RDA did not go far enough in evolving from its AARC2 roots. The language of RECORDING element data in AACR2 was largely carried forward intact in RDA. In places where we are to transcribe information directly from the resource, this is fine. In many other places, it would be sufficient to INDICATE element data. As a particular example, describing the extent and nature of content. The arguments over abbreviating vs. not abbreviating is an unfortunate outcome of maintaining this RECORDING mindset. The further dithering over the creation of new MARC fields to translated the recorded data into corresponding coded data is another by-product. Is it really necessary to require a cataloger to record in a digital context the actual words "illustrations" or "colour/color" or "black and white"? (And then duplicate those details with codes elsewhere?) Should it not be sufficient to have interfaces on the cataloging and the public display modes that allow one to draft a record with "ill." "col." or "b&w", or corresponding coded values, or options from a drop-down menu, which are then converted when stored into an appropriate stored value and when displayed into the corresponding (and even language/script appropriate) text? (And at the risk of overgeneralizing and of drawing commonalities where few believe they exist, this seems to be the crux of many of the disagreements between the "pro" and "anti" RDA crowds -- they both see a problem but have widely divergent takes on the solutions -- change the way we deal with the data in the context of RDA or reject the changes RDA institutes outright.) So now, instead of moving forward by experimenting with different solutions to input/storage/display, we instead can't get past the point of thousands of catalogers having to type out "illustrations" "colour/color" "black and white" etc., because that's the only option RDA gives us. John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian Schaffer Library, Union College 807 Union St. Schenectady NY 12308 518-388-6623 mye...@union.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16
My two biggest issues with RDA are (1) difficulties with the legacy data, which Jim Weinheimer has already addressed much better and more completely than I ever could, and (2) the practical fact that creating an RDA record is more work, more typing, more effort for overworked catalogers. Whenever this second point is brought up, RDA proponents say that it will all be worth it, really it will, take our word for it. And maybe it will eventually turn out that they're right, and that RDA will surprise the naysayers and turn out to be a boon several years down the road when we're no longer chained to MARC. Maybe the effort of finding programmatic ways to convert the legacy data (as Benjamin just said, adding "creator", since it could apply to every 100/700) will help lessen the problem. But it doesn't change the fact that creating an RDA record is more work, more typing, and more effort for overworked catalogers. I'll admit that I'm having a hard time getting past that one, because there doesn't seem to be a solution. Before it came out, I hoped RDA would simplify the rules and lessen the amount of work we had to do because I wanted to catalog *more* titles for our patrons instead of less. The adoption of RDA means I'll be spending more time on each record -- in other words, fewer titles. The answer I keep getting to that one is that we'll get used to it, and it won't take all that much more time, and that may be so. But it's sad that we lost the opportunity to make cataloging more efficient and easier to do, instead of harder. It's also interesting, and quite discouraging, that the very few times in the past two years that I've posted a comment on this list, I was subsequently directly or indirectly dismissed or insulted. I can't even count the number of times Jim or Mac have been insulted. It's unfortunate that some RDA proponents feel they must resort to name calling to defend their point of view. I know what my mom would have said about that. Billie Hackney Senior Monograph Cataloger Getty Research Institute 1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688 (310) 440-7616 bhack...@getty.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16
In our library, a high percentage of 100 fields are for the artist, photographer or architect, and there is nothing in the 245 to indicate that is what they are. Adding "author" would make no sense. It's the same situation with the 700 field. And it would be nearly impossible to work out which is author and which is artist programmatically. Billie Hackney 1) I cannot agree that no role in the 100 almost always means "author" Billie Hackney Senior Monograph Cataloger Getty Research Institute 1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688 (310) 440-7616 bhack...@getty.edu
Re: [RDA-L] RDA as the collaboratively created way forward[?]; was Is RDA the Only Way? An Alternative Option Through International Cooperation
Billie Hackney Senior Monograph Cataloger Getty Research Institute 1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688 (310) 440-7616 bhack...@getty.edu >>> James Weinheimer 2/15/2012 2:31 PM >>> >But I tire of stating the same points over and over again. I very much appreciate that you are trying. You're certainly speaking for me.
Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement
Determining that there is a contributor and providing a fast access point is
much easier and quicker than figuring out all of the ways that a person or
organization contributed, looking up the terms in the poorly presented and
designed list in the RDA toolkit, and then typing them all in. When we were
doing original cataloging in RDA here, it was definitely the element of the
work that took up most of the group's time -- it wasn't just me.
Perhaps it is just a difficulty associated with original cataloging of the type
of materials we do here, and all of the other testers didn't experience the
same difficulty that we did? Everyone else found assigning multiple relator
terms easy?
Billie Hackney
Senior Monograph Cataloger
Getty Research Institute
1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
(310) 440-7616
bhack...@getty.edu
>>> John Attig 11/9/2011 9:42 AM >>>
Billie, I think part of Karen's point is that the intellectual analysis and
decision-making is mostly the same whether you are determining which name to
put in the 1XX and which in the 7XXs or assigning relationship designators.
Compared with that intellectual process, the actual keying of the designators
is rather modest.
I would hope that no one undervalues that intellectual work -- at least they
shouldn't. And I would hope that one of the functions of RDA is to provide a
more robust set of ways in which you can record the conclusions you draw from
that intellectual work and convey the information to the users of your records.
John Attig
Authority Control Librarian
Penn State University
jx...@psu.edu
On 11/9/2011 12:09 PM, Billie Hackney wrote:
I apologize for being testy. It's just that anything that catalogers
themselves say about the difficulties they've experiences with RDA seem to be
passed over and ignored during all of this theoretical discussion on why RDA is
so wonderful. Being told that assigning relator terms is easy when it's not is
rather frustrating.
Billie Hackney
Senior Monograph Cataloger
Getty Research Institute
1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
(310) 440-7616
bhack...@getty.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement
I apologize for being testy. It's just that anything that catalogers themselves say about the difficulties they've experiences with RDA seem to be passed over and ignored during all of this theoretical discussion on why RDA is so wonderful. Being told that assigning relator terms is easy when it's not is rather frustrating. Billie Hackney Senior Monograph Cataloger Getty Research Institute 1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688 (310) 440-7616 bhack...@getty.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement
Hi, Karen: I didn't realize I was mistaken about the amount of work I do for original cataloging of materials about art, where there are curators, editors and essayists, galleries that are host institutions as well as publishers, artists who also wrote some or all of the text, and all this often without a title page and in a foreign language. Thank you for enlightening me. Billie Billie Hackney Senior Monograph Cataloger Getty Research Institute 1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688 (310) 440-7616 bhack...@getty.edu >>> Karen Coyle 11/9/2011 8:33 AM >>> Quoting Billie Hackney : > But it *is* more work. Adding relator terms took a lot of extra > time while I was doing original cataloging in RDA. I know we've > been through the argument a number of times before, but I just don't > understand why the creators of RDA feel that it's necessary to make > original catalogers do *more* instead of less when nearly all of us > are supposed to get more done with fewer catalogers. I can't imagine how calling someone "artist" can be more work. It *is* more work if you have to look up a role code in order to put it into a MARC subfield, but it's only *different* work if you have: artist: [person name] illustrator: [person name] composer: [person name] conductor: [person name] rather than 100 or 700, which only tells that you're coding a name for a person, and then requires you to qualify it with a less-than-intuitive code. It must be a rare piece that doesn't tell you what role a person plays. That piece probably takes as much to catalog today, because you have to determine if the named person is worth including in the record. If the role is right there before you, using it isn't more work if we finally get beyond MARC coding and stupid input interfaces that make people look up codes. kc p.s. We really need to mock up a couple of potential new input "views" so that people can see "beyond MARC" > > > Billie Hackney > Senior Monograph Cataloger > Getty Research Institute > 1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100 > Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688 > (310) 440-7616 > bhack...@getty.edu >>>> "Brenndorfer, Thomas" >>>> 11/9/2011 7:49 AM >>> >> It is that precision (which carries forward the same amount of >> intellectual work in traditional >cataloging-- it's not really >> "more work") that makes the RDA element set more amenable to >> >modern encoding and data management methods. > > -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement
But it *is* more work. Adding relator terms took a lot of extra time while I was doing original cataloging in RDA. I know we've been through the argument a number of times before, but I just don't understand why the creators of RDA feel that it's necessary to make original catalogers do *more* instead of less when nearly all of us are supposed to get more done with fewer catalogers. Billie Hackney Senior Monograph Cataloger Getty Research Institute 1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688 (310) 440-7616 bhack...@getty.edu >>> "Brenndorfer, Thomas" 11/9/2011 7:49 AM >>> >>> >It is that precision (which carries forward the same amount of intellectual >work in traditional >cataloging-- it's not really "more work") that makes the >RDA element set more amenable to >modern encoding and data management methods.
Re: [RDA-L] Justification of added entries
Is cataloger time important? Looking up and adding relator terms was one of the most frustrating and time-consuming tasks for me while I was creating RDA records during the test. And I've never understood how three or four of them will help the patron when the other three hundred entries for Picasso doesn't have them. Billie Hackney Senior Monograph Cataloger Getty Research Institute 1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688 (310) 440-7616 bhack...@getty.edu >>> James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com> 8/22/2011 2:40 AM >> ( >>> mailto:weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com ) wrote: These are great examples. I just wish someone would actually demonstrate what would be the impact on the public of adding the relator codes, plus, if the idea is to try to get other metadata creators to provide records that are useful to us (and ours to them), the ISBD statement of responsibility is easy and simple, and it will be exactly the same thing for everyone. Plus, copy and paste is possible today avoiding the old idea of double work.
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
Every time I see a discussion about how hard FRBR is to understand (which it is), how difficult the RDA Toolkit is to use (which it is), and the fact that RDA will actually increase the amount of work we have to do to each bibliographic record (which it does), I get more and more discouraged. Cataloging as a profession has been gasping for breath. It desperately needed to become simpler, more transparent, and more attractive to library school students, easier for management to understand. Instead, it seems to me that the opposite is happening, and at the worst possible time. It seems to me that our leaders are taking us over a cliff, and they keep explaining to us why what they're doing is very, very important, as we're plummeting to the ground. This is my own personal opinion as someone who has been cataloging for twenty years -- not that of my employer. Billie Hackney Senior Monograph Cataloger Getty Research Institute 1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688 (310) 440-7616 bhack...@getty.edu
