Re: [RDA-L] Facsimile reprint
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, Dana Van Meter Cataloging
Re: [RDA-L] Varying form of publisher's name on t.p./t.p. verso
Thank you Mac and Trina, and thank you Trina for pointing out that I forgot to include Australia in my 264. I knew that it should be included, but somehow, even though I typed it in to my message, it just didn't register when I constructed my 264.It's nice to have a concrete answer so I don't have to waste time on this issue any longer. Kind regards, Dana From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Trina Pundurs Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:36 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Varying form of publisher's name on t.p./t.p. verso On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Dana Van Meter vanme...@ias.edu wrote: [...] My question is, in 2.2.2.2 when they say title page, they don't mean the t.p. verso, do they? [...] If I need to take the place of publication from the t.p. verso, should I then also take the publisher's name from the t.p. verso (follow rule 2.8.2.2)? Hi Dana, I find it helpful when struggling with a difficult 246 to begin by choosing and recording the publisher's name first, setting aside place for the moment. So for your resource, applying 2.8.4.2 and taking the publisher's name from the same source as the title proper, you'd have 264 _1 ... $b Hordern House and you are done with publisher's name. There is no need to revisit it once you've recorded it. After this you can turn your attention to place of publication. Considering your resource again, 2.8.2.2 tells you that the first spot to look for place of publication is the same source as the publisher's name. But there is no place of publication to be found there, so going back to 2.8.2.2 you can look anywhere else within the resource. (And this does mean *anywhere*; there is nothing special or privileged about the t.p. verso.) Once you choose your source, record the place of publication as it appears there. Using t.p. verso as the source, you'd have 264 _1 $a Potts Point, NSW, Australia (including Australia per 2.8.2.3) Then finish up with date of publication. You don't say whether there's a date on the title page -- if so, that's where you would take it from. But if it appears only on the t.p. verso, you can take it from there, without brackets, per 2.8.6.2. Put it all together and you get: 264 _1 $a Potts Point, NSW, Australia : $b Hordern House, $c 2004. This can get frustrating, but as with all things, it gets easier the more you do it. Trina Trina Pundurs Serials Cataloger Library Collection Services University of California, Berkeley tpund...@library.berkeley.edu http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/ Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1990
[RDA-L] Varying form of publisher's name on t.p./t.p. verso
This is a rudimentary question, but I keep seeing it happening, and as I have 4 books by the same author and same publisher for which I'm trying to upgrade the existing copy to RDA , I'm going to ask it anyway, since I've been hemming and hawing too long now. I know that rule 2.8.4.2 says to: Take publishers' names from the following sources (in order of preference) [naming only the first here]: a) the same source as the title proper (see 2.3.2.2 http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp2target=rda2-3388#rda 2-3388 http://access.rdatoolkit.org/images/rdalink.png) and rule 2.3.2.2 points you to rule 2.2.2.2, which basically says for books to use the title page, title sheet, or title card (or an image of it) as the preferred source of information. My question is, in 2.2.2.2 when they say title page, they don't mean the t.p. verso, do they? In the case of my 4 books, the title page has only the name of the publisher, it does not list the place of publication. The title page says: Hordern House. The t.p. verso says: First published 2004 by Hordern House Rare Books Pty. Ltd., 77 Victoria Street, Potts Point NSW 2011 Australia. Rule 2.8.2.2 says to take the place of publication from the same source as the publisher's name. In this case, the place of publication only appears with the fuller form of the publisher's name on the t.p. verso. If I need to take the place of publication from the t.p. verso, should I then also take the publisher's name from the t.p. verso (follow rule 2.8.2.2)? So for my 4 books would I then have a 264 that looks like this: 264 _1 Potts Point, NSW :|bHordern House Rare Books Pty. Ltd.,|c2004. I find varying forms of the completeness of a publisher's name on the t.p. vs. the t.p. verso, and the place of publication appearing only on the t.p. verso with other publishers, so this particular issue has been bothering me for a while now. One RDA rule tells you to take the name of the publisher from the same source you've taken the title from, but the place of publication isn't always on the the t.p., it is often only on the t.p. verso. I know that both rule 2.8.4.2 and rule 2.8.2.2 allow the option to take the information from another source within the resource itself, but I'm just wondering if it's preferred to take the 264 |a and |b from the exact same source, or if it's ok to mix the info. from the t.p. t.p. verso. Clearly with my books I have no choice but to take the place of publication from the t.p. verso, but I'm wondering where to take the publisher's name from? I have two options here, and I'm not sure if rule 2.8.4.2. overrides rule 2.8.2.2 in this case. I'd like to actually know what others would do in this case, because I find that what I do can vary based on my mood a particular day, and I'd like something more consistent! Thanks very much for your help. Sincerely, Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu inline: image001.png
[RDA-L] AACR2 2.14E1
Searching AACR2 in RDA Toolkit, I see that there isn't an equivalent rule in RDA (at least the toolkit hasn't added the RDA icon next to this AACR2 rule), yet I see catalogers substituting a u for a v in the 245 (and adding a 246 with the v unchanged). I thought at one time I had found a corresponding rule (or PS) in RDA, but much to my chagrin I can't find the notebook I originally used when I started taking notes on RDA. Everything I can think of today to search in RDA isn't leading me to a rule saying to substitute a u for v in cases on capitals being converted to lowercase. I've just cataloged 3 books where catalogers did in fact do this in the 245 though. I have no problem adopting this practice, but for my own sanity, I'd like to know where in RDA it says to do this. Can someone point me to the appropriate rule or policy statement? Thanks very much, Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu
Re: [RDA-L] AACR2 2.14E1
Yes! Thank you Kevin! I cannot believe I lost that notebook, I had a lot of rule-to-rule conversions in there that I'd stumbled upon that aren't so easy to wring out of RDA. I find the RDA index to not be that useful in many cases. Many thanks, Dana From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 12:38 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] AACR2 2.14E1 Dana: What you're looking for may be in LC-PCC PS 1.4, under Pre-Modern Forms of Letters. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Dana Van Meter Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 11:09 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] AACR2 2.14E1 Searching AACR2 in RDA Toolkit, I see that there isn't an equivalent rule in RDA (at least the toolkit hasn't added the RDA icon next to this AACR2 rule), yet I see catalogers substituting a u for a v in the 245 (and adding a 246 with the v unchanged). I thought at one time I had found a corresponding rule (or PS) in RDA, but much to my chagrin I can't find the notebook I originally used when I started taking notes on RDA. Everything I can think of today to search in RDA isn't leading me to a rule saying to substitute a u for v in cases on capitals being converted to lowercase. I've just cataloged 3 books where catalogers did in fact do this in the 245 though. I have no problem adopting this practice, but for my own sanity, I'd like to know where in RDA it says to do this. Can someone point me to the appropriate rule or policy statement? Thanks very much, Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu
[RDA-L] Punctuation surrounding another distinguishing characteristic of the expression
, and a date added. Now it seems that many of the testing institutions have switched over to instead adding the name of the language, followed by the name of the translator in parentheses, and not using a date at all. I will be following the practice of adding the name of the language in combination with the name of the editor for these translations of Greek and Latin works, but it seems that this might also be a useful practice for translations of books of the Bible (or other sacred texts), which are frequently translated in to other languages. Which brings me back to my original questions for the book I’m cataloging: 1. In LCCN 2012049301, when using the name of the translator, in addition to the name of the language the work has been translated into, shouldn’t the name of the translator be in parentheses? 2. Is it mentioned specifically anywhere in RDA how to punctuate these types of headings, or do we need to refer to ISBD for that? (Or are we to infer how to punctuate them based on the examples?). If we need to go to ISBD, I have to say that I really miss the punctuation directives that were a part of many LCRIs, and wish LC would incorporate more of the punctuation directives in to the LC-PCC PSs. 3. In your opinion, is the date really necessary in this heading? It doesn’t seem, at least for the translations of Greek Latin works, that other institutions consider the date to be as useful as the translators name, and are not including a date in the authority headings. As with the Greek Latin works, I feel that the name of the translator of a book (or books) of the Bible, is a much more useful piece of information, than is the date the translation was published. I’m sorry my questions are always so wordy. Thanks again to anyone who tackles offering me some advice. Sincerely, Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu inline: image001.png
Re: [RDA-L] Dagger symbol
My apologies, the LC-PCC PS I was looking at is 1.7.5, not 1.4! -Dana From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Dana Van Meter Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 12:09 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Dagger symbol I have a question about the dagger symbol signifying death and RDA. From the examples under the LC-PCC PS for 1.4, it seems that in the 245 we should ignore the dagger and transcribe the title as if it is not there, and provide 246s with died (or gestorben, etc.) in [ ], and have a note stating that in the title the date is preceded by a dagger. I’m cataloging a book with this title: Die Concordia Novi ac Veteris Testamenti Joachims von Fiore († 1202) (it’s actually a different looking dagger, but I can’t duplicate the dagger as it appears) . Looking at LC-PCC PS 1.4, I would have thought the title should be transcribed in the 245 as: Die Concordia Novi ac Veteris Testamenti Joachims von Fiore (1202). Then a 246 30 of Concordia Novi ac Veteris Testamenti Joachims von Fiore ([gestorben] 1202) would be added (the title, although mostly in Latin, has German parts) and a 500 note stating: In the title “[gestorben]” appears as a dagger. However in OCLC, the majority of IRs show (gestorben 1202) in the 245, with no [ ] around gestorben, and no 246 or 500 note. One school has done ([dagger] 1202) in the 245, without a 246 or 500 note, and another has (1202) in the 245 without an added 246 or 500 note. (See OCLC master 844176294 for the book I’m discussing—the master record also has (gestorben 1202) in the 245 and no 246 or 500 referring to the dagger). My question is, am I correct in assuming that the master record and the attached IRs, with the exception of the record with (1202) in the 245 (however lacking a 246 and 500 note) are wrong, and that the record should look like this: 245 14 Die Concordia Novi ac Veteris Testamenti Joachims von Fiore (1202) 246 30 Concordia Novi ac Veteris Testamenti Joachims von Fiore ([gestorben] 1202) 500 __ In the title “[gestorben]” appears as a dagger. OR500 __ In the title “1202” is preceded by a dagger. Thanks very much for your help, Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Duplicate page numbering
Ok, I see what Robert and Mac are saying now. So you are considering the Greek
text, pages 1-47 as one sequence, and the French translation, pages 1-47, with
the following French commentary and editorial matter on pages 48-148, as
another sequence (1-148), right? I hadn't looked at it that way. Kind of back
at square one, but I'm starting to lean your way. I guess I had thought that
the duplicated numbering on the part of the publisher was just another way,
besides having the text and translation on facing pages, to drill in that the
portion of the text on one page is a translation of the same portion of the
text on the opposite page. So if considering the Greek text its own sequence,
then yes, cxciv, 47, 148 pages is the best option. I'm still going to add a 500
note stating that pages 1-47 are duplicated.
Thanks again. Now back to the weekend!
-Dana
- Original Message -
From: J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca
To: vanme...@ias.edu
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 10:20:26 PM
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Duplicate page numbering
.., the numbering continues on from the duplicated page numbered
section, rather than starting from page 1 ...
I was not aware that the 148 sequence continued the numbering of the
second 47, as opposed to beginning with 1; 47 should not be
repeated.
Wouldn't this describe the situation?
300 $acxciv, 47, 148 pages
This reflects what is in the text. The fact that the first 47 pages
of the 148 sequence has alternate text is not relevant to extent.
I think patrons can add them up! One difficulty with giving the total
is, are you including the roman numbered pages?
Also for us, the cumbersome wordy solution would require us to come up
with it in more than one language. Have pity on your European and
Asian colleagues who may be using your records please, and try avoid
cumbersome English phrases when possible.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Duplicate page numbering
Thanks Mac. I haven't been able to get AACR2 to work via Cataloger's
Desktop for 3 days, and my customer service request to the Toolkit has
been ignored, but was able to access AACR2 via the Toolkit today, after I
sent my question and see that the AACR2 rule has pretty much the same
wording, and the exact same example as the RDA rule, and doesn't have an
LCRI. Not sure why this suddenly was so bothersome to me, as I would have
like further guidance with the AACR2 rule as well. I always dread these
books because of the page numbering, I must have blocked out the memory of
them!
I'm going to do what you suggest and repeat 47 in the 300 |a (cxciv, 47,
47, 148 pages)and will also add a 500 note stating pages 1-47 are
duplicated. It's odd that others are failing to do this, as they are
clearly seeing where the duplicated paging stops.
Thanks again,
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: Friday, August 30, 2013 1:24 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Duplicate page numbering
Dana Van Meter posted:
RDA Rule 3.4.5.12 says to record both pagings and make an explanatory
note, giving the example: xii, 35, 35 pages.
That's what you should do. The cases of one sequence missing is due to
the cataloguer just looking at the last page and not flipping through, I
suspect because they are too preoccupied with the complexities of RDA.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
[RDA-L] Duplicate page numbering
I have a question about duplicate page numbering. I very often catalog books which have Greek or Latin texts with a translation to another language appearing on parallel paging, numbered in duplicate. These books often include commentary or other extensive editorial matter, and it is usually only the pages with the Greek or Latin text and parallel translation which are numbered in duplicate. The editorial matter or commentary which follows the text and translation picks up the numbering with the page number following the last duplicated page of the translation. RDA Rule 3.4.5.12 says to record both pagings and make an explanatory note, giving the example: xii, 35, 35 pages. Yet what I am often seeing with the RDA records for the type of books I describe above, is catalogers just recording the last page number of the duplicate paging once, and then recording the last numbered page of the volume. For example, I'm cataloging a book which has cxciv preliminary pages, has a Greek text with parallel French translation on pages 1-47 (numbered in duplicate), with pages numbered 48-148 following (not numbered in duplicate). I would have recorded the paging as cxciv, 47, 47, 148 pages, yet what I am continually seeing in OCLC is people doing this: cxciv, 47, 148 pages, and without providing an explanatory note that there is some duplicate page numbering present in the volume. The example in RDA does not really fit my situation and isn't that useful, as it ends with the duplicate page numbering. Most of the books I catalog don't finish up with a duplicated page, but rather, the duplicated page section ends, and then the page numbering picks up from there, numbering pages singly. It would be helpful if RDA would incorporate an example showing the situation I am dealing with, or if LC PCC would come up with a Policy Statement. I'm just totally unsure of what to do in this case. I'm not really happy with either my take on the rule (cxciv, 47, 47, 148 pages), or with what I'm seeing other catalogers do in OCLC (cxciv, 47, 148 pages), as I find both to be very confusing. When I see either of these, I would think that this is perhaps a case where a book is split down the middle and has a run of pages in one language, followed by another run of the text (or some portion of the text) in another language. In other words, when I see either of the above options, I would think that the book had pages numbered 1-47, followed by pages numbered 1-148, which is not the case. Given that the page numbering picks up with the page following the last duplicated page, I would think it would be clearer to just record cxciv, 148 pages in the 300 |a and have a 500 note stating that pages 1-47 are numbered in duplicate. The book I'm talking about above is OCLC is master record number 840466545. Another example I can offer up is master record number 849517805 (this book has the following paging: clvi, 1-217 numbered in duplicate, and then 218-364. Would appreciate others' takes on what to do in this situation. Thanks very much, Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Duplicate page numbering
:46 À : RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Objet : Re: [RDA-L]
Duplicate page numbering
What about cxciv, 47, 47 pages, pages 48-148 with a note as per
3.22.2.7?
--
John Hostage
Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger // Harvard Library--Information and
Technical Services // Langdell Hall 194 // Cambridge, MA 02138
host...@law.harvard.edu
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Dana Van Meter
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 14:10
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Duplicate page numbering
Thanks Mac. I haven't been able to get AACR2 to work via Cataloger's
Desktop for 3 days, and my customer service request to the Toolkit has
been
ignored, but was able to access AACR2 via the Toolkit today, after I
sent my
question and see that the AACR2 rule has pretty much the same wording,
and the exact same example as the RDA rule, and doesn't have an LCRI.
Not
sure why this suddenly was so bothersome to me, as I would have like
further guidance with the AACR2 rule as well. I always dread these
books
because of the page numbering, I must have blocked out the memory of
them!
I'm going to do what you suggest and repeat 47 in the 300 |a (cxciv, 47,
47,
148 pages)and will also add a 500 note stating pages 1-47 are
duplicated. It's
odd that others are failing to do this, as they are clearly seeing where
the
duplicated paging stops.
Thanks again,
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: Friday, August 30, 2013 1:24 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Duplicate page numbering
Dana Van Meter posted:
RDA Rule 3.4.5.12 says to record both pagings and make an explanatory
note, giving the example: xii, 35, 35 pages.
That's what you should do. The cases of one sequence missing is due to
the
cataloguer just looking at the last page and not flipping through, I
suspect
because they are too preoccupied with the complexities of RDA.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__
\__
Re: [RDA-L] Duplicate page numbering
Sent my message before I saw your message Deborah. So glad to hear that
you also agree with Daniel. Thanks for coming back to this. Still
advocating for some better examples under Rule 3.4.5.12 though!
Thanks again everyone! Have a great weekend!
-Dana
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Deborah Fritz
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 6:49 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Duplicate page numbering
My bad, I interpreted the issue as being one of parallel columns not
pages, obviously not having read the original post carefully enough. It
does appear however that a note is certainly in order in this situation,
given the wide variety of different ways that different catalogers
interpret that the numbering might be entered.
Having gone back to the original message, and with a clearer picture in my
mind (I hope) of the situation, I would still bear in mind that we are
recording Extent, and should try to indicate what we actually have in the
book; so I now agree with Daniel that we should apply 3.4.5.5 to clarify
the numbering on the last page of the sequence , cxciv, 148, that is, 195
pages and, as he says, add the note indicating that the numbering of
pages 1-47 is duplicated.
Otherwise, I guess we could always invoke 3.4.5.8 for complicated paging
and enter 1 volume (various pagings), with an explanatory note.
Deborah
Deborah Fritz
TMQ, Inc.
(321) 676-1904
debo...@marcofquality.com
www.marcofquality.com
-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2013 8:58 AM
To: debo...@marcofquality.com
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Duplicate page numbering
Deborah posted:
Remember that this element is Extent, so repeating the47 would
imply that there are 47 additional pages.
In the examples we see, there *are* 47 (or whatever) additional pages, a
sequence in each of the two languages or scripts.
The same applies to recording pagination of tete-beche items, but usually
not two equal paginations. The French text is usually longer than the
English one in the case of English/French tete-beche translations.
In many tete-beche of course, the two are not transitions of each other,
but (for example) two works on opposite sides of a controversial topic.
In all these cases there are two pagination sequences, less often missed
with tete-beche than opposite pages, interleaved, or one following the
other with the same orientation. Recording both sequences correctly gives
the pagination of the item.
Deborah, you used to always be *absolutely* correct on *everthing*.
Are you no longer cataloguing, and therefore not seeing what is coming
avcross our desks these days?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Main series subseries
Thank you everyone! Sorry I made this more complicated by not including the information about fonts, superscript and the color of the text in my first message. I don't know why I didn't think of that initially. Thank you all for revisiting this after my mess up. I never would have come up with the 500/830 combination on my own, so thank you all so much for your input. Sincerely, Dana From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 10:45 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Main series subseries Wow, Dana, that is *exactly* the kind of thing that I picturing as a possibility (and hoping wasn't the case...)! That would make Deborah's and John's approaches (take your pick) seem appropriate. Personally, I'd lean more toward Deborah's Numbering in the main series: 988 since it gives significantly more information than just the number alone in a quoted note. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Dana Van Meter Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 5:19 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Main series subseries Hi Kevin and others, I started writing this message before John Deborah's comments came in, but I'm going to include some further information because it seems that it might change Kevin's decision. Thanks everyone for your thoughts. I'm sorry I didn't include this information in my first message, as it could be useful. On the cover Champs is in red text and it's larger text, essais is in smaller black text in a different font and it appears somewhat in superscript next to Champs. It appears the same way on the t.p., however it's all in black lettering on the t.p. The subtitle essais follows directly after Champs, there is no space in between the two titles. Perhaps Champs being in red text that is larger is to represent/suggest the main series, even though it is immediately followed by essais. I guess I have to get used to the 500 with the numbering and the 830 combination, it seems so foreign to me, although it shouldn't, it was done with Republications in AACR2, although the 830 in question with republications is for the earlier publication. A 490 with Champs in square brackets also seemed odd to do in RDA, but subseries are always a mess due to layout issues by publishers, and I do fairly often have a similar situation to this where series titles appear separately from their numbering and transcribing becomes a bit tricky, so I thought I'd ask for advice sooner rather than later. I didn't know it was acceptable to have an 830 without a paired 490 in RDA, so it is good to know that that is an option. If my above further info. about the color of the text and the differing fonts and superscript text changes anyone's decision please let me know. Thanks everyone for your patience and help. Sincerely, Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu P.S. Thank you Deborah for the rule numbers. I'm wondering if in the 490 if I would do what John suggested, which is to do Champs essais, as it appears with the lower case e in essais on the book, and without a period, and then do it Champs (Flammarion (Firm)). Essais in the 830. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 4:56 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Main series subseries I fully agree with Dana's initial determination that the main series title should be recorded in brackets. As described below, the word Champs appearing on the resource seems to be clearly referring to the subseries title. I suppose it's possible that the two words could be presented in different ways graphically, giving the sense of the statement referring to the two separate entities: Champs and Essais. But if it reads as as single phrase Champs essais, then the main series is only implicit, and should be given in brackets. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Dana Van Meter Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 2:46 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Main series subseries I have a book which is issued in both a main series: Champs (Flammarion (Firm)), which is numbered
Re: [RDA-L] honouree vs. honoree
Thank you everyone. I kind of knew this would be the answer, so I probably shouldn't have wasted everyone's time, I just thought that the LC or PCC people on the list might know of a change in the works, but it seems to not be the case. Will feel comfortable now using the British, etc. spelling, without going back and forth over which spelling to use. Thank you all for your input. Sincerely, Dana -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Deborah Fritz Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 9:14 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] honouree vs. honoree With a 'Registry' of terms, which will hopefully be 'officially' up and running soon, alternate spellings of terms should be handled like alternate languages, for indexing, filing, and displays, i.e., you get to pick which 'registered' term you want to enter and have display, and underneath (for indexing and filing) all 'like' terms get treated the same way. Until that registry is in common use by our OPACs, it seems logical that we have to continue to stick to the official spellings of vocabulary terms, for consistency in indexing and filing. This is another example of the need for yet another important piece of the puzzle to be in place (a Registry) so that we can move the RDA dream closer to reality. Deborah - - - - - - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. debo...@marcofquality.com www.marcofquality.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 2:26 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] honouree vs. honoree Adam To be fair, this is the British/Canadian/Australian/New Zealand/ South African/Indian/Rest of the World spelling ;-) RDA had to choose one spelling or the other, and having made its choice, there would be no particular reason to change it. LC use color in their descriptions (e.g. LC-PCC-PS for 7.17.1.3), but as you say, relationship designators are from a controlled vocabulary. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: 06 August 2013 00:15 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] honouree vs. honoree The list of designators is a controlled list, and as best as I can say, you must use the term there as found, with the British/Canadian spelling. The records that you've found that don't are, in my opinion, incorrect. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries On Mon, 5 Aug 2013, Dana Van Meter wrote: Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 14:33:59 -0400 From: Dana Van Meter vanme...@ias.edu Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] honouree vs. honoree Still seeking info. on this, especially now as I see that the MARC Code List for Relators (http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html) advises to use the spelling Honoree rather than Honouree. Anyone from LC or PCC know if there is anything in the works to create a PS stating to use the spelling Honoree for RDA? Thanks, Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Dana Van Meter Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 1:18 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] honouree vs. honoree I know there is an LC-PCC PS stating to use the American spelling of color, but don't see any such LC-PCC PS for the spelling of the relationship designator honouree. Doing a keyword search for rda and honouree in a personal name yields 282 hits in LC's catalog, but doing the same search with honoree yields 24 hits. Most of the 24 records have an 040 with only DLC in it, however many of these are In Process. We get a lot of Feschrifts at my institution, so while it appears honouree is the predominately used spelling (and indeed the spelling in RDA), I'm just wondering if anyone knows if LC or PCC has looked at the spelling of honouree and if there might be a PS in the future saying to use the spelling honoree. Thanks, Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900
Re: [RDA-L] Difference between Introduction and Preface
The MARC Code List for Relators does lump some of them together: Author of afterword, colophon, etc. [aft] A person or organization responsible for an afterword, postface, colophon, etc. but who is not the chief author of a work Author of introduction, etc. [aui] A person or organization responsible for an introduction, preface, foreword, or other critical introductory matter, but who is not the chief author This has come up before, but not sure why there are MARC relators for terms which dont exist in RDA. Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mary Mastraccio Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 10:17 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Difference between Introduction and Preface I think the point that was being made--and with which I was agreeing--is that sometimes too much specificity isn't really that helpful. In other words, it is nice there is a higher-level designator but have we gone too far in some lower-level designators? In most cases the very specific relationship designators is/will be very helpful but when it comes to introduction, preface, afterwords, forewords it might be more helpful to have them all lumped together. Just how some of us see it. But as Adam Schiff said --in another setting--some of us are lumpers and some are splitters. In a shared cataloging environment this difference of viewpoint can cause unexpected results in our catalogs. At least the lumpers can make global changes to move terms to the higher-level designators to improve search results. Mary L. Mastraccio Cataloging Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78265 1-800-531-7678 _ From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of JSC Secretary Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 9:04 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Difference between Introduction and Preface You can choose the higher-level designator writer of supplementary textual content if you don't want to or cannot identify a more specific relationship. Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Mary Mastraccio ma...@marcive.com wrote: Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: Sometimes I think RDA makes too many distinctions. It would be far more sensible to have only one relationship designator covering writers of things like prefaces, introductions, forewords and afterwords. Then we wouldn't have to wreck our brains about the differences. Writer of added text would do the trick, if it wasn't restricted to primarily non-textual work. I agree!! Mary L. Mastraccio Cataloging Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78265 1-800-531-7678
[RDA-L] honouree vs. honoree
Still seeking info. on this, especially now as I see that the MARC Code List for Relators (http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html) advises to use the spelling Honoree rather than Honouree. Anyone from LC or PCC know if there is anything in the works to create a PS stating to use the spelling Honoree for RDA? Thanks, Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Dana Van Meter Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 1:18 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] honouree vs. honoree I know there is an LC-PCC PS stating to use the American spelling of color, but don't see any such LC-PCC PS for the spelling of the relationship designator honouree. Doing a keyword search for rda and honouree in a personal name yields 282 hits in LC's catalog, but doing the same search with honoree yields 24 hits. Most of the 24 records have an 040 with only DLC in it, however many of these are In Process. We get a lot of Feschrifts at my institution, so while it appears honouree is the predominately used spelling (and indeed the spelling in RDA), I'm just wondering if anyone knows if LC or PCC has looked at the spelling of honouree and if there might be a PS in the future saying to use the spelling honoree. Thanks, Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu
[RDA-L] Main series subseries
I have a book which is issued in both a main series: Champs (Flammarion (Firm)), which is numbered, and in a subseries: Champs (Flammarion (Firm)).|p Essais, which is unnumbered. My book is a paperback. The subseries appears at the bottom of the front cover of my book as Champs essais. The subseries also appears at the bottom of the t.p. as Champs essais. The main series does not appear in name by itself anywhere on the book, but the numbering for the main series does appear at the bottom of the spine. My question is, as Champs does not appear alone anywhere, but only appears with the subseries title Essais following it, it seems that I would need a second 490: 490 1_ [Champs] ;|v 988, with Champs in square brackets, as Champs never appears by itself. I hesitate to do a single 490-490 1_ Champs ;|v 988. |aEssais, as the numbering appears by itself on the spine, it does not appear alongside Champs essais. I know that in RDA one is only supposed to use [ ] when the information doesn't appear anywhere on the book, and is being taken from elsewhere. In my case Champs does appear, but it does not appear by itself with the numbering, it appears only followed by the subseries title. The way I see it, the name of the main series doesn't appear anywhere by itself, or in conjunction with both its (the main series) numbering and the subseries title, so I need to supply it in a separate 490 and in square brackets. I'm wondering if anyone would consider that the square brackets are unnecessary as Champs appears on the publication followed by the subseries title? Thanks very much for your advice. Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Main series subseries
Hi Kevin and others, I started writing this message before John Deborah's comments came in, but I'm going to include some further information because it seems that it might change Kevin's decision. Thanks everyone for your thoughts. I'm sorry I didn't include this information in my first message, as it could be useful. On the cover Champs is in red text and it's larger text, essais is in smaller black text in a different font and it appears somewhat in superscript next to Champs. It appears the same way on the t.p., however it's all in black lettering on the t.p. The subtitle essais follows directly after Champs, there is no space in between the two titles. Perhaps Champs being in red text that is larger is to represent/suggest the main series, even though it is immediately followed by essais. I guess I have to get used to the 500 with the numbering and the 830 combination, it seems so foreign to me, although it shouldn't, it was done with Republications in AACR2, although the 830 in question with republications is for the earlier publication. A 490 with Champs in square brackets also seemed odd to do in RDA, but subseries are always a mess due to layout issues by publishers, and I do fairly often have a similar situation to this where series titles appear separately from their numbering and transcribing becomes a bit tricky, so I thought I'd ask for advice sooner rather than later. I didn't know it was acceptable to have an 830 without a paired 490 in RDA, so it is good to know that that is an option. If my above further info. about the color of the text and the differing fonts and superscript text changes anyone's decision please let me know. Thanks everyone for your patience and help. Sincerely, Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu P.S. Thank you Deborah for the rule numbers. I'm wondering if in the 490 if I would do what John suggested, which is to do Champs essais, as it appears with the lower case e in essais on the book, and without a period, and then do it Champs (Flammarion (Firm)). Essais in the 830. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 4:56 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Main series subseries I fully agree with Dana's initial determination that the main series title should be recorded in brackets. As described below, the word Champs appearing on the resource seems to be clearly referring to the subseries title. I suppose it's possible that the two words could be presented in different ways graphically, giving the sense of the statement referring to the two separate entities: Champs and Essais. But if it reads as as single phrase Champs essais, then the main series is only implicit, and should be given in brackets. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Dana Van Meter Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 2:46 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Main series subseries I have a book which is issued in both a main series: Champs (Flammarion (Firm)), which is numbered, and in a subseries: Champs (Flammarion (Firm)).|p Essais, which is unnumbered. My book is a paperback. The subseries appears at the bottom of the front cover of my book as Champs essais. The subseries also appears at the bottom of the t.p. as Champs essais. The main series does not appear in name by itself anywhere on the book, but the numbering for the main series does appear at the bottom of the spine. My question is, as Champs does not appear alone anywhere, but only appears with the subseries title Essais following it, it seems that I would need a second 490: 490 1_ [Champs] ;|v 988, with Champs in square brackets, as Champs never appears by itself. I hesitate to do a single 490-490 1_ Champs ;|v 988. |aEssais, as the numbering appears by itself on the spine, it does not appear alongside Champs essais. I know that in RDA one is only supposed to use [ ] when the information doesn't appear anywhere on the book, and is being taken from elsewhere. In my case Champs does appear, but it does not appear by itself with the numbering, it appears only followed by the subseries title. The way I see it, the name of the main series doesn't appear anywhere by itself, or in conjunction with both its (the main series) numbering and the subseries title, so I need to supply it in a separate 490 and in square brackets. I'm wondering if anyone would consider that the square brackets are unnecessary as Champs appears on the publication
[RDA-L] honouree vs. honoree
I know there is an LC-PCC PS stating to use the American spelling of color, but don't see any such LC-PCC PS for the spelling of the relationship designator honouree. Doing a keyword search for rda and honouree in a personal name yields 282 hits in LC's catalog, but doing the same search with honoree yields 24 hits. Most of the 24 records have an 040 with only DLC in it, however many of these are In Process. We get a lot of Feschrifts at my institution, so while it appears honouree is the predominately used spelling (and indeed the spelling in RDA), I'm just wondering if anyone knows if LC or PCC has looked at the spelling of honouree and if there might be a PS in the future saying to use the spelling honoree. Thanks, Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu
Re: [RDA-L] One author, with a single contribution by another author (correction)
Thank you Bob, and Mac for your thoughts. Have cataloged my book and sent it on its way. -Dana From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 7:58 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] One author, with a single contribution by another author (correction) This would be clearer if we were creating clear separate descriptions for the separate entities (e.g. work/expression/manifestation/item descriptions, each linked as appropriate to related entities such as the author of the work) instead of the grab-bag of the current MARC bibliographic record. You could make it clearer in a bibliographic record by giving an access point for the work by the other author instead of giving a simple added access point for the person: 700 12 Name. $t Metallurgy of tanged and looped spearheads. Otherwise, yes, “author” is the relationship designator. The person is the author of a resource represented in the bibliographic record. The fact that the access point with “author” as a relationship designator is not clearly linked to what the person is the author of is a problem with the MARC structure. Of course leaving the relationship designator off makes it even less clear what the person did in relationship to the bibliographic record (at least in my opinion). Bob Robert L. Maxwell Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept. 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Dana Van Meter Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 5:31 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] One author, with a single contribution by another author (correction) Ugh, I’m sorry, I also see now that the use of relationship designators isn’t core in RDA, but I’m just curious if you were to use a relationship designator in this case, how you feel about using author for such a slight contribution. -Dana From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Dana Van Meter Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 7:27 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] One author, with a single contribution by another author (correction) I guess in RDA it’s not an error to have an author listed in the s.o.r., but to not have an access point for them, so in LCCN 2012544079 LC did not have to add a 700 for the author of the contribution, but I don’t like not adding an access point for a person when they are named in the s.o.r., especially when we’re dealing with only one additional access point, as we are in this case. -Dana From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Dana Van Meter Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 7:10 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] One author, with a single contribution by another author I’m cataloging a book with a single author, which includes a single contribution by one other author (in my case the contribution is an Appendix 1, Metallurgy of tanged and looped spearheads). There is LC copy for my book (LCCN 2012544079), but LC didn’t even add a 700 field for the other author mentioned on the title page, which seems to be an error. (I should note that this record employs Kevin Randall’s suggestion for enclosing the authors’ institutional affiliations in parentheses in the s.o.r.—the ( ) don’t appear on the title page). I’ve searched LC’s catalog for other rda records which have “with a contribution by” in the title field and retrieve some records, although about half are In Process. Of the fully cataloged records, only 3 titles contain only a single contribution by one other author. LC has added a 700 for the author of the contribution in these records, but has not added a |e to the 700 field (LCCN 2012030921; LCCN 2012018430; LCCN 2012542810 (however the last 2 records also do not have a |e for the 100)). I pretty much know the answer to my question, but I’m a little uneasy with it. My question is, what to put in the |e for the author of the contribution? I know that |e author is really my only option, but it just feels odd to call the main author (100) author, and then to also call the author of the contribution author when the book is primarily the work of the author in the 100 field. I also have this issue when books which contain papers by multiple authors list all the authors on the title page. I know I can say [and six others] in the s.o.r., which could solve my problem, but the LC-PCC PS advises not to do
[RDA-L] One author, with a single contribution by another author
I’m cataloging a book with a single author, which includes a single contribution by one other author (in my case the contribution is an Appendix 1, Metallurgy of tanged and looped spearheads). There is LC copy for my book (LCCN 2012544079), but LC didn’t even add a 700 field for the other author mentioned on the title page, which seems to be an error. (I should note that this record employs Kevin Randall’s suggestion for enclosing the authors’ institutional affiliations in parentheses in the s.o.r.—the ( ) don’t appear on the title page). I’ve searched LC’s catalog for other rda records which have “with a contribution by” in the title field and retrieve some records, although about half are In Process. Of the fully cataloged records, only 3 titles contain only a single contribution by one other author. LC has added a 700 for the author of the contribution in these records, but has not added a |e to the 700 field (LCCN 2012030921; LCCN 2012018430; LCCN 2012542810 (however the last 2 records also do not have a |e for the 100)). I pretty much know the answer to my question, but I’m a little uneasy with it. My question is, what to put in the |e for the author of the contribution? I know that |e author is really my only option, but it just feels odd to call the main author (100) author, and then to also call the author of the contribution author when the book is primarily the work of the author in the 100 field. I also have this issue when books which contain papers by multiple authors list all the authors on the title page. I know I can say [and six others] in the s.o.r., which could solve my problem, but the LC-PCC PS advises not to do this. For these types of works using |e author in my 700 fields isn’t inaccurate, but to me there is a difference in responsibility level between say, a co-author of a book who ends up in a 700 field [i.e., contents which are a collaborative effort], and an author of a single paper in a volume which contains 10 or more papers [i.e., contributions to the contents prepared separately by each author]. It would be nice if there were also relationship designators co-author and contributing author (which LC currently has in a 700 field |e in one In Process record (LCCN 2010411360), even though it is not in either RDA, or the MARC Code List for Relators. (Medförfattare translates to co-author)). I guess using the generic author will save us from having to spend additional time trying to figure out who among a list of authors carries more responsibility for the contents, and how collaboratively the authors worked in cases where the chief source of information isn’t clear, but it just feels odd to me to call everyone author when I know one or more authors have primary responsibility for the contents, and others have made smaller contributions (or just a single contribution in my case). I guess there are other clues in the record for the patron as to the responsibility level of an author (content of the s.o.r., or a note field), and in the end perhaps patrons don’t really care--they just want the resource, and also OPAC displays come in to play here, I’m just curious what others will use in the |e in cases like this (or if you will just skip a |e in the 700 field in these cases). I guess with AACR2 I didn’t seem to be so bothered when a co-author got stuck in a 700, but now that I am able to add a relationship designator, I feel uneasy calling everyone in a 700 field (who isn’t an editor) author regardless of how much they have contributed to the contents. It seems that there has been some thought given to this though, as in the MARC Code List for Relators there are codes for Author of afterword, colophon, etc. [aft], and Author of introduction, etc. [aui], even though these don’t have designators in RDA yet. Given the existing designators in RDA at this time, I guess I have no choice other than author for the |e for my author of the contribution, but I’m just wondering if anyone else feels a bit odd about doing this, as I do. -Dana Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu
Re: [RDA-L] One author, with a single contribution by another author (correction)
I guess in RDA it’s not an error to have an author listed in the s.o.r., but to not have an access point for them, so in LCCN 2012544079 LC did not have to add a 700 for the author of the contribution, but I don’t like not adding an access point for a person when they are named in the s.o.r., especially when we’re dealing with only one additional access point, as we are in this case. -Dana From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Dana Van Meter Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 7:10 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] One author, with a single contribution by another author I’m cataloging a book with a single author, which includes a single contribution by one other author (in my case the contribution is an Appendix 1, Metallurgy of tanged and looped spearheads). There is LC copy for my book (LCCN 2012544079), but LC didn’t even add a 700 field for the other author mentioned on the title page, which seems to be an error. (I should note that this record employs Kevin Randall’s suggestion for enclosing the authors’ institutional affiliations in parentheses in the s.o.r.—the ( ) don’t appear on the title page). I’ve searched LC’s catalog for other rda records which have “with a contribution by” in the title field and retrieve some records, although about half are In Process. Of the fully cataloged records, only 3 titles contain only a single contribution by one other author. LC has added a 700 for the author of the contribution in these records, but has not added a |e to the 700 field (LCCN 2012030921; LCCN 2012018430; LCCN 2012542810 (however the last 2 records also do not have a |e for the 100)). I pretty much know the answer to my question, but I’m a little uneasy with it. My question is, what to put in the |e for the author of the contribution? I know that |e author is really my only option, but it just feels odd to call the main author (100) author, and then to also call the author of the contribution author when the book is primarily the work of the author in the 100 field. I also have this issue when books which contain papers by multiple authors list all the authors on the title page. I know I can say [and six others] in the s.o.r., which could solve my problem, but the LC-PCC PS advises not to do this. For these types of works using |e author in my 700 fields isn’t inaccurate, but to me there is a difference in responsibility level between say, a co-author of a book who ends up in a 700 field [i.e., contents which are a collaborative effort], and an author of a single paper in a volume which contains 10 or more papers [i.e., contributions to the contents prepared separately by each author]. It would be nice if there were also relationship designators co-author and contributing author (which LC currently has in a 700 field |e in one In Process record (LCCN 2010411360), even though it is not in either RDA, or the MARC Code List for Relators. (Medförfattare translates to co-author)). I guess using the generic author will save us from having to spend additional time trying to figure out who among a list of authors carries more responsibility for the contents, and how collaboratively the authors worked in cases where the chief source of information isn’t clear, but it just feels odd to me to call everyone author when I know one or more authors have primary responsibility for the contents, and others have made smaller contributions (or just a single contribution in my case). I guess there are other clues in the record for the patron as to the responsibility level of an author (content of the s.o.r., or a note field), and in the end perhaps patrons don’t really care--they just want the resource, and also OPAC displays come in to play here, I’m just curious what others will use in the |e in cases like this (or if you will just skip a |e in the 700 field in these cases). I guess with AACR2 I didn’t seem to be so bothered when a co-author got stuck in a 700, but now that I am able to add a relationship designator, I feel uneasy calling everyone in a 700 field (who isn’t an editor) author regardless of how much they have contributed to the contents. It seems that there has been some thought given to this though, as in the MARC Code List for Relators there are codes for Author of afterword, colophon, etc. [aft], and Author of introduction, etc. [aui], even though these don’t have designators in RDA yet. Given the existing designators in RDA at this time, I guess I have no choice other than author for the |e for my author of the contribution, but I’m just wondering if anyone else feels a bit odd about doing this, as I do. -Dana Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu
Re: [RDA-L] One author, with a single contribution by another author (correction)
Ugh, I’m sorry, I also see now that the use of relationship designators isn’t core in RDA, but I’m just curious if you were to use a relationship designator in this case, how you feel about using author for such a slight contribution. -Dana From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Dana Van Meter Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 7:27 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] One author, with a single contribution by another author (correction) I guess in RDA it’s not an error to have an author listed in the s.o.r., but to not have an access point for them, so in LCCN 2012544079 LC did not have to add a 700 for the author of the contribution, but I don’t like not adding an access point for a person when they are named in the s.o.r., especially when we’re dealing with only one additional access point, as we are in this case. -Dana From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Dana Van Meter Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 7:10 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] One author, with a single contribution by another author I’m cataloging a book with a single author, which includes a single contribution by one other author (in my case the contribution is an Appendix 1, Metallurgy of tanged and looped spearheads). There is LC copy for my book (LCCN 2012544079), but LC didn’t even add a 700 field for the other author mentioned on the title page, which seems to be an error. (I should note that this record employs Kevin Randall’s suggestion for enclosing the authors’ institutional affiliations in parentheses in the s.o.r.—the ( ) don’t appear on the title page). I’ve searched LC’s catalog for other rda records which have “with a contribution by” in the title field and retrieve some records, although about half are In Process. Of the fully cataloged records, only 3 titles contain only a single contribution by one other author. LC has added a 700 for the author of the contribution in these records, but has not added a |e to the 700 field (LCCN 2012030921; LCCN 2012018430; LCCN 2012542810 (however the last 2 records also do not have a |e for the 100)). I pretty much know the answer to my question, but I’m a little uneasy with it. My question is, what to put in the |e for the author of the contribution? I know that |e author is really my only option, but it just feels odd to call the main author (100) author, and then to also call the author of the contribution author when the book is primarily the work of the author in the 100 field. I also have this issue when books which contain papers by multiple authors list all the authors on the title page. I know I can say [and six others] in the s.o.r., which could solve my problem, but the LC-PCC PS advises not to do this. For these types of works using |e author in my 700 fields isn’t inaccurate, but to me there is a difference in responsibility level between say, a co-author of a book who ends up in a 700 field [i.e., contents which are a collaborative effort], and an author of a single paper in a volume which contains 10 or more papers [i.e., contributions to the contents prepared separately by each author]. It would be nice if there were also relationship designators co-author and contributing author (which LC currently has in a 700 field |e in one In Process record (LCCN 2010411360), even though it is not in either RDA, or the MARC Code List for Relators. (Medförfattare translates to co-author)). I guess using the generic author will save us from having to spend additional time trying to figure out who among a list of authors carries more responsibility for the contents, and how collaboratively the authors worked in cases where the chief source of information isn’t clear, but it just feels odd to me to call everyone author when I know one or more authors have primary responsibility for the contents, and others have made smaller contributions (or just a single contribution in my case). I guess there are other clues in the record for the patron as to the responsibility level of an author (content of the s.o.r., or a note field), and in the end perhaps patrons don’t really care--they just want the resource, and also OPAC displays come in to play here, I’m just curious what others will use in the |e in cases like this (or if you will just skip a |e in the 700 field in these cases). I guess with AACR2 I didn’t seem to be so bothered when a co-author got stuck in a 700, but now that I am able to add a relationship designator, I feel uneasy calling everyone in a 700 field (who isn’t an editor) author regardless of how much they have contributed to the contents. It seems that there has been some thought given to this though, as in the MARC Code List for Relators there are codes for Author of afterword
Re: [RDA-L] 264 question
I feel that in this case it would be very helpful if there was another example under Rule 2.8.2.6.2 with a state name spelled out, and if there was at least one example with a state name spelled out under Rule 2.8.2.6.4, to reinforce that when supplying the name of a jurisdiction the name should be spelled out and not abbreviated. Better yet, it would be more helpful if Rule 2.8.2.6 specifically stated that when supplying the name of a jurisdiction the name of the jurisdiction should be spelled out in full, and not abbreviated. I feel that many rules in RDA would be better served by an extra sentence or two, or by better examples, it would make learning RDA much easier. Sure if one also consulted Rule 1.7.1, Rule 1.7.8, and Appendix B.4 you can see that a supplied jurisdiction name should be spelled out, but that’s an awful lot of work for what could have been easily explained in one short sentence at Rule 2.8.2.6. It would have taken me a long time to realize this, and even then I would have most likely needed the expertise of those on this list to come to that conclusion. I realize that RDA is large, and that an extra sentence here and there can add up, but I feel that it would be worth the extra girth for a better understanding of exactly what we’re supposed to do under RDA. Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam Schiff Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 1:18 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 264 question Yes, but the information you have is for the place of manufacture, not the place of publication. You are guessing a place of publication based on the place of manufacture, so when supplying the place of publication it would not be a transcription. So it would either be [Charleston] or [Charleston, South Carolina] because you don’t abbreviate the names of states anymore in the place of publication element. Adam Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries From: Saunders, Mary mailto:mary.saund...@maine.gov Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 9:38 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 264 question The information in the publication appears as “Charleston, SC”. Aren’t we supposed to transcribe it as it appears? Mary Saunders, Cataloger Maine State Library 64 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333-0064 mary.saund...@maine.gov 207-287-5620 207-287-5638 FAX
[RDA-L] 2.20.13.3.3
I have a question about Rule 2.20.13.3.3 for multipart monographs, which states: Make a note identifying the part of a multipart monograph on which the identification of the resource is based and/or its number or publication date, as appropriate. If more than one part has been consulted, make a separate note identifying the latest part consulted in making the description. I've only come across RDA cataloging copy for one multipart monograph thus far, and there is no such note present in the record. The multipart monograph I found the RDA multipart record for had only one volume, the first, published thus far. As this is the case, I'm wondering if this note isn't necessary when you are cataloging a multipart monograph with the first volume in hand, and only one volume has been published thus far. I wish this rule was more specific than as appropriate. I'm just wondering how people are, or will be, interpreting this rule. Will you add a Description based on note when cataloging a multipart with the first volume in hand, and when only one volume has been published? (And I'm assuming we'll be using the 588 note for this?). Likewise, will you add a Latest volume consulted note each time you add a new volume to the contents of the multipart? Thanks for your feedback. Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu
Re: [RDA-L] 2.20.13.3.3
Ugh, should have scrolled up. Rookie mistake! Thanks Judy. Would you add a Latest issue consulted note each time you add a new volume, and if so, would this include when you add the last volume and close out the record? Thanks for your patience! -Dana From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of JSC Secretary Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 3:40 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 2.20.13.3.3 Dana, RDA 2.20.13.3.3 applies only if the condition at 2.20.13 applies: In some cases, the identification of a multipart monograph or a serial is not based on the first released issue or part (see 2.1.2.3). When this occurs, make a note identifying the issue or part used as the basis for the identification. Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Dana Van Meter vanme...@ias.edu wrote: I have a question about Rule 2.20.13.3.3 for multipart monographs, which states: Make a note identifying the part of a multipart monograph on which the identification of the resource is based and/or its number or publication date, as appropriate. If more than one part has been consulted, make a separate note identifying the latest part consulted in making the description. I've only come across RDA cataloging copy for one multipart monograph thus far, and there is no such note present in the record. The multipart monograph I found the RDA multipart record for had only one volume, the first, published thus far. As this is the case, I'm wondering if this note isn't necessary when you are cataloging a multipart monograph with the first volume in hand, and only one volume has been published thus far. I wish this rule was more specific than as appropriate. I'm just wondering how people are, or will be, interpreting this rule. Will you add a Description based on note when cataloging a multipart with the first volume in hand, and when only one volume has been published? (And I'm assuming we'll be using the 588 note for this?). Likewise, will you add a Latest volume consulted note each time you add a new volume to the contents of the multipart? Thanks for your feedback. Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu
Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing
Thank you for this Trina, these are very helpful and detailed. It would have taken me an eternity to get to the level of understanding that you have in your documents, the Visual version in particular, is extremely helpful. I don't mind being singled out, I singled myself out by asking the question. Thanks for offering up the fruits of your hard work to the rest of us. -Dana From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Trina Pundurs Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2013 5:23 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing I've noticed a fair amount of confusion about the correct way to record imprint elements under RDA (not to single out Dana; hers is just the latest example). At the risk of global humiliation, I'd like to share draft versions of a couple of documents I prepared for our local RDA training on how to assemble a 264 field for published resources. Note that these documents provide guidance only on fulfilling PCC Core requirements (as articulated in the RDA BIBCO Standard Record MAP). Narrative version: http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/catalog_dept/sites/drupal6.lib.berkeley.edu.ca talog_dept/files/264_heuristic_20130510.docx Visual version (may require MS Word for proper formatting): http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/catalog_dept/sites/drupal6.lib.berkeley.edu.ca talog_dept/files/264_decision_tree_20130611.docx With all the Core statements in the Toolkit across 2.8 through 2.11, it's easy to lose sight of the order of preference: First: Publication data Then: Distribution data Then: Copyright (or phonogram) date Finally: Manufacture data It's confusing further since the MARC second indicators go in the order 1, 2, 4, 3. Very annoying! Anyway, I hope this is helpful to someone. Trina Trina Pundurs Serials Cataloger Library Collection Services University of California, Berkeley tpund...@library.berkeley.edu http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/ Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1990 On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Dana Van Meter vanme...@ias.edu wrote: [...] I admit to not having spent as much time with RDA as I should have by now, but I often catalog books which only have a copyright date and absolutely no other date-no printing date, no dated Preface or Introduction-no other dates anywhere. In most cases, the C year is the same as the year the item was received at my library. Rule 2.11 says to provide the copyright date if neither the date of publication, nor the date of distribution have been identified. Does this rule assume that you have a date of manufacture then, and that in MARC speak, the 264 you add with the copyright date would be a second 264? I'm just wondering why the lack of a date of manufacture isn't also mentioned as a condition for the C to be core in rule 2.11? In LC-PCC PS 2.8.6.6 there is an example of a book only having a C date and the C year is the year after the year in which the item was received. In the attendant example, the C date is in square brackets in a 264 _1 (without the C symbol), and a 264 _4 with |c Cdate is added. A DtSt of t is used with the same year in Date 1 and Date 2. I'm just wondering if a book with only a C date is received in the same year as the C year, if this gives any more weight to the C date also being the year of publication, and if so, can only one 264 (with second indicator of 1, and the C year in [ ] without the C symbol) be used, and a DtSt of s with only one date in the fixed fields be used? I haven't been able to find an example of having only a C date and the C date being the same as the year the item was received in either RDA or the LC-PCC policy statements, but I may just be missing it. I know that Adam Schiff recently said that if there is a C date present in the book he always records it, which I agree with, especially in cases where a C date is the only date present in the resource. I'm wondering though, just for my own understanding of RDA and the policy statements, if there is only a C year, and that year is the year in which the book was received, if that satisfies the condition laid out in LC-PCC PS 2.8.6.6, section 1: if it seems reasonable to assume that date is a likely publication date, more so than if the C date is the year after the year in which the resource was received, as seen in section 2 of LC-PCC PS 2.8.6.6. Also Deborah, in your my take on the examples, for your take on the second example, would the 500 note be a 588 note? A 588 note is used in the example in LC-PCC PS 2.10.6. If one doesn't use the actual words Description based on do you not use the 588 (Source of description note), and is a 500 (General note) more appropriate? I have not done that much cataloging in RDA yet, so I hadn't thought of adding a 5XX note to help explain my reasoning for the date (or dates) chosen for the 264 (or 264s), it does seem that a 5XX note would be very
Re: [RDA-L] Can Lecturer be used as a valid relator term and do you have a good example of a DVD + Book RDA record?
Thank you Mark. I did re-read Appendix I.1 after I had already sent my question and realized that yes, it does say that you can use the more specific terms. Wish I had realized that before I sent my question! In the case of the $4 code, you're saying you would use just the $4 code, right? (And not a combination of $4 plus $e using the terminology accompanying the code in the MARC Code List for Relators?). I don't have a problem with using just the $4 code, I just wanted to be clear that you are saying you would just use the $4 code alone in cases where a term doesn't yet exist in the text of RDA. I did end up using author for the print lecture series I was asking about below. Thanks again for your help! -Dana From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of M. E. Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 4:29 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Can Lecturer be used as a valid relator term and do you have a good example of a DVD + Book RDA record? Dana Van Meter vanme...@ias.edu wrote: 1. Are we allowed to use, then, the more specific terms indented underneath the relationship designator performer (which is in bold), or are we to use performer only, to cover all those types of situations represented by the more specific indented not in bold terms? The indented terms are also available for use: so for an actor, you can use actor or the broader term, performer. If we can use the more specific indented terms, how were we supposed to know that? I wasn't sure if we are allowed to use these indented terms, or if they're just further (and more specific) examples of what is meant by the bold faced code. If we can use these more specific indented terms, I think it might be helpful if RDA specifically said that following the definition of a bold faced term (or you can use these more specific terms, or something to that effect). I agree these could be formatted better for scanning: bold's easier to see than italic. But as to the last point, there's this paragraph under I.1: Use relationship designators at the level of specificity that is considered appropriate for the purposes of the agency creating the data. For example, the relationship between a screenplay and the screenwriter responsible for the work can be recorded using either the specific relationship designator screenwriter or the more general relationship designator author. Are we able to use relationship designators or terms such as music copyist in a |e if they have a MARC 3-letter code, even if the term does not appear in RDA? Terms can come from outside of RDA (quoting I.1 again: If none of the terms listed in this appendix is appropriate or sufficiently specific, use another concise term to indicate the nature of the relationship). My opinion on code versus spelled out form: if using something from the MARC relator term list, add to the record as a $4 code. RDA 0.12 says that is using a list of terms from outside of RDA (like for relationship designators), these may be given provided the encoding scheme is identified. Codes in $4s are as close as you can get to a flashing neon sign telling folks where the term (i.e., code) came from. 2. I have a print series which contains lectures, can |e performer be used for lecturers/speakers when the lecture is in print form? I tend to think of performer as limited to someone we can see and hear doing their craft. Words on a page don't cut it in that respect; the lecturer performed an authorial role to create the text. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing
Thank you for doing this Deborah. I find providing the 264 subfield c to be tricky these days, and it seems that perhaps the rules and/or LC-PCC PSs might need to be tweaked a little to make this clearer for all of us, so we don't see this wide variation in our records. I cringe every time I have a book which doesn't have a clear date of publication. I'm at a former RLIN institution, so we make Institution Records (IRs), so I can make a change in my own record if I disagree with what is in the master, but I'm wondering what impact this difference of interpretation will mean in OCLC? I don't know a lot about how OCLC does matching to determine if there are duplicate masters, but I know they are to be avoided. I suppose that institutions that don't make IRs can just edit the record locally, but is adding on an IR that differs in terms of what date in the first listed 264, and in the fixed fields a problem? Or is making a new master the better option? Are we going to end up with multiple master records because of 264 |c differences of interpretation? I admit to not having spent as much time with RDA as I should have by now, but I often catalog books which only have a copyright date and absolutely no other date-no printing date, no dated Preface or Introduction-no other dates anywhere. In most cases, the C year is the same as the year the item was received at my library. Rule 2.11 says to provide the copyright date if neither the date of publication, nor the date of distribution have been identified. Does this rule assume that you have a date of manufacture then, and that in MARC speak, the 264 you add with the copyright date would be a second 264? I'm just wondering why the lack of a date of manufacture isn't also mentioned as a condition for the C to be core in rule 2.11? In LC-PCC PS 2.8.6.6 there is an example of a book only having a C date and the C year is the year after the year in which the item was received. In the attendant example, the C date is in square brackets in a 264 _1 (without the C symbol), and a 264 _4 with |c Cdate is added. A DtSt of t is used with the same year in Date 1 and Date 2. I'm just wondering if a book with only a C date is received in the same year as the C year, if this gives any more weight to the C date also being the year of publication, and if so, can only one 264 (with second indicator of 1, and the C year in [ ] without the C symbol) be used, and a DtSt of s with only one date in the fixed fields be used? I haven't been able to find an example of having only a C date and the C date being the same as the year the item was received in either RDA or the LC-PCC policy statements, but I may just be missing it. I know that Adam Schiff recently said that if there is a C date present in the book he always records it, which I agree with, especially in cases where a C date is the only date present in the resource. I'm wondering though, just for my own understanding of RDA and the policy statements, if there is only a C year, and that year is the year in which the book was received, if that satisfies the condition laid out in LC-PCC PS 2.8.6.6, section 1: if it seems reasonable to assume that date is a likely publication date, more so than if the C date is the year after the year in which the resource was received, as seen in section 2 of LC-PCC PS 2.8.6.6. Also Deborah, in your my take on the examples, for your take on the second example, would the 500 note be a 588 note? A 588 note is used in the example in LC-PCC PS 2.10.6. If one doesn't use the actual words Description based on do you not use the 588 (Source of description note), and is a 500 (General note) more appropriate? I have not done that much cataloging in RDA yet, so I hadn't thought of adding a 5XX note to help explain my reasoning for the date (or dates) chosen for the 264 (or 264s), it does seem that a 5XX note would be very helpful, but not having any experience with the 588 field I'm just wondering if it would be used in this case rather than a 500 field. Thank you again Deborah for bringing this up. I would appreciate your advice for my questions, and that of any one else who would like to respond. Thanks very much, Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Deborah Fritz Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 1:41 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing My thanks to the folks who sent in feedback on how they would handle my two date examples. As I suspected, there was considerable variation on how the dates would be entered for these resources-here is a summary, with some paraphrasing, and extrapolating, so hopefully I have interpreted all the replies correctly: Example 1 Verso
Re: [RDA-L] Bible. New Testament. Syriac. Peshitta--relationship designator for text prepared by?
Thank you Michael. I will stick with editor, I guess it really is the most fitting. I am cataloging this as a set. Unfortunately the publishers did not number the volumes, but some institutions have taken to assigning volume numbers to the volumes. I'm following the University of Chicago's numbering of the volumes, and will just hope that we all get future volumes at the same time and don't start to disagree with our assigned volume numbering. Thanks again for your help. Best, Dana From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Michael Borries Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 10:39 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Bible. New Testament. Syriac. Peshitta--relationship designator for text prepared by? I think editor would be just fine. I would be inclined to catalog this as a set, and I think Kiraz's name is the only one you need to trace - most people will not remember the other editors and translators. If there is another name that is found on every volume, you could trace that as well. Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Dana Van Meter Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 7:38 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Bible. New Testament. Syriac. Peshitta--relationship designator for text prepared by? Hello, I'm cataloging The Syriac Peshitta Bible with English translation, published by Gorgias Press, 2012-. Each volume lists translators (translated by), and a person (or persons) said to have prepared the text (text prepared by). George A. Kiraz is listed as the General editor in the write up at the publisher's website: http://www.gorgiaspress.com/bookshop/p-59841-kiraz-george-a-the-antioch-bi ble--the-syriac-peshitta-bible-with-english-translation-individual-subscri ption-75vol.aspx, however the title pages of the individual volumes just list him after text prepared by, and sometimes there is another individual who has prepared the text for a particular volume in addition to George A. Kiraz. Does anyone have any ideas on what would be a good relationship designator for the individuals who have prepared the text? I used editor, but I'm not really happy with that, although I'm stumped for what else might work. Would appreciate any thoughts others might have. Thanks very much, Dana Van Meter Catalog Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu
[RDA-L] Bible. New Testament. Syriac. Peshitta--relationship designator for text prepared by?
Hello, I'm cataloging The Syriac Peshitta Bible with English translation, published by Gorgias Press, 2012-. Each volume lists translators (translated by), and a person (or persons) said to have prepared the text (text prepared by). George A. Kiraz is listed as the General editor in the write up at the publisher's website: http://www.gorgiaspress.com/bookshop/p-59841-kiraz-george-a-the-antioch-bi ble--the-syriac-peshitta-bible-with-english-translation-individual-subscri ption-75vol.aspx, however the title pages of the individual volumes just list him after text prepared by, and sometimes there is another individual who has prepared the text for a particular volume in addition to George A. Kiraz. Does anyone have any ideas on what would be a good relationship designator for the individuals who have prepared the text? I used editor, but I'm not really happy with that, although I'm stumped for what else might work. Would appreciate any thoughts others might have. Thanks very much, Dana Van Meter Catalog Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points
I agree. I feel like I have noticed a lack of 504 notes in RDA records even though there clearly are bibliographical references present in a book. It's not core in RDA (7.16), but LC considers it to be core in the LC-PCC PS for the rule. For general bibliographical references this information may not be considered to be that important, but it doesn't really take that much time to note it. I really feel that bibliographical references should be noted for Festschrifts which include complete bibliographies of an individual's writings. I also feel that in the case where you have a conference proceedings, or a new or revised edition of a book, and for some reason the publisher has buried this information somewhere in a preface or introduction, that it is very helpful to have a note stating that the book is a new edition, or a conference proceedings and citing the page in the book this information came from. Especially when a book is in a foreign language and finding this information might not be such a quick task. I've even had cases where the publisher's write up for a book on their website has more information about a book than the book itself does, and in these cases citing the source of the information is critical, in my mind. Hunting down such information is the most work, typing in a note doesn't take that long, and we can all help save each other some time by including this information. Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 12:12 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points And not only justify entries, but also justify fixed fields. For instance, in hand right now, the fixed field for Index has value of one, but there is no note to that effect. Justifying it gives information to the patron, in plain English. What is our goal here? Down and dirty? Or cataloging and classification that is informative the patron? It is not enough to say, Look at all that I have catalogued and now the books are on the shelves. Will the cataloging be fully informative to the patron as to what the book/item is??? That is the question. It is all about communication. On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:40 AM, Don Charuk dcha...@torontopubliclibrary.ca wrote: Thank you for your responses. We are of split opinion of the non-requirement of justification. some feel the relationship designators are sufficient while others still see the need for notes. Our opinion is also split on how to deal with compilations. Do we go with structured notes and make use of the subfields in 505 tag to allow searching or use authorized access points? We are leaning towards structured notes since it involves no authority work. -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Help with relationship designator
Hi Mac. I also feel a little uncomfortable using contributor type
relationship designators in a 100 field with the creator type relationship
designators, but I thought that doing so is supposed to be acceptable
according to the PCC Guidelines for the Application of Relationship
Designators in Bibliographic Records which Adolfo Tarango referenced on
5/17 in response to the thread Designator Relator Code
(http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca/msg09665.html).
The examples in the PCC Guidelines seem to indicate that one can use
creator and contributor type relationship designators in the same field,
as long as they are entered in WEMI order. One could also use a
combination of 100 700 fields for the same person, with only creator
relationship designators in the 100 field, and contributor type
designators in the 700 field. My institution has opted to accept AACR2
records and not upgrade them as we don't have the manpower required to do
so, but create original records in RDA. I'm starting to feel like just
whimping out on this one and accepting the AACR2 copy, but adding a 700
for Garfinkle.
I also see an answer in PCC Guideline 3 to another question of mine about
whether we can use the more specific relator terms which are indented
under the bold terms: Within a hierarchy of relationship designators,
prefer a specific term to a general one if it is easily determined. For
example, use librettist rather than author for the creator of a libretto.
Thanks again for your help.
-Dana
-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 7:49 PM
To: vanme...@ias.edu
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Help with relationship designator
Dana Van Meter said:
I would prefer something more along the lines of |e author of added
commentary, rather than |e author, but that doesn't exist.
These two do exist:
writer of added commentary
writer of added text
but if added, the relator terms would be longer than the entry itself.
What is that going to look like in the OPAC?
Is contributor a valid relationship designator?
It's not in the list, but I was told (to my incomprehension) that it is
valid since it is a named category in RDA. If such named categories are
valid as relators, they should be added to the term list.
Terms in the list but not in the codes should be added. Codes not in the
list should be added as terms. We were told that codes would be updated
for lcking terms, but I've not heard of the terms being updated by RDA
categories or MARC relator codes. The terms and codes should agree.
Perhaps one reason I thought the 100 and 700 should be exchanged, is that
the long list of reltors seems more logical on an added entry.
Not all the terms you are adding to the 100 seem approprite for a main
entry.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Can Lecturer be used as a valid fas track relahave a good example of a DVD + Book RDA
Were there supposed to be an answer to my questions here from the JSC Secretary? I don't see that anything came through other than my message. Does anyone else have any text? Thanks, Dana From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of JSC Secretary Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 10:04 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Can Lecturer be used as a valid fas track relahave a good example of a DVD + Book RDA On May 24, 2013 6:45 PM, Dana Van Meter vanme...@ias.edu wrote: This answer prompts some questions for me. 1. Are we allowed to use, then, the more specific terms indented underneath the relationship designator performer (which is in bold), or are we to use performer only, to cover all those types of situations represented by the more specific indented not in bold terms? If we can use the more specific indented terms, how were we supposed to know that? I wasn't sure if we are allowed to use these indented terms, or if they're just further (and more specific) examples of what is meant by the bold faced code. If we can use these more specific indented terms, I think it might be helpful if RDA specifically said that following the definition of a bold faced term (or you can use these more specific terms, or something to that effect). Using the example of the term author, I see that there are MARC relator codes for the more specific terms librettist[lbt] and lyricist [lyr], but there isn't a MARC code for screenwriter, so I would not automatically assume that I could use those more specific indented terms as relator terms in a |e. There also seem to be MARC relator codes for terms which are not named in RDA, such as Music copyist [mcp]. Are we able to use relationship designators or terms such as music copyist in a |e if they have a MARC 3-letter code, even if the term does not appear in RDA? 2. I have a print series which contains lectures, can |e performer be used for lecturers/speakers when the lecture is in print form? Thank you for your help. Dana Van Meter Catalog Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Brenndorfer, Thomas Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2013 12:10 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Can Lecturer be used as a valid relator term and do you have a good example of a DVD + Book RDA record? From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Browning, Sommer [sommer.brown...@ucdenver.edu] Sent: April-05-13 5:21 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Can Lecturer be used as a valid relator term and do you have a good example of a DVD + Book RDA record? I've searched the list and couldn't find if these questions had been asked before so here goes. 1. We are cataloging a Great Courses DVD and course guide. We have the lecturer and course guide author in the 100 field. What should his relator term be? Is $e creator sufficient? Though he isn't the creator of the DVD.? He is a kind of performer and author.? Using $e lecturer seems silly. The presence in the 100 field also would mean that the name would form part of the authorized access point for the work, but this is not appropriate for moving image works (Great Courses DVDs are cataloged primarily as moving image DVD videos, with the course guide being accompanying material). For moving images works, only the preferred title for the DVD is used alone for the authorized access point for the work (RDA 6.27.1.3), so the lecturer would not be found in the 100 field. As a lecturer, the person would be contributing to the expression, essentially as a 'performer'. In the list of designators under 'performer' are 'speaker' or 'teacher'. The designator ' speaker' is the best fit, as RDA refers specifically to the delivery of a lecture (as opposed to a 'teacher' who is providing instructions or a demonstration). The lecturer is also the writer of the course guide, so that is a clear work relationship. Instead of a contributor to the expression, the lecturer is the Creator of a work, specifically an 'author.' Adding these two designators to the lecturer in 700 field would be the best fit for the two roles: $e speaker $e author 2. Related note: Can the relationship designator just be left off entirely? Yes, but the person would not be found in the 100 field because the description is primarily for a moving image work. A name in a 700 field can have designators supporting relationships to works or expressions in the resource, but the 100 field is reserved for allowable names that can form part of the authorized access point for the work
Re: [RDA-L] Help with relationship designator
Thank you Mac. I also thought not having a 700 for Garfinkle was an
error, and I will be adding one for her in my record.
After thinking on this a bit more I'm starting to feel that LC considered
this book to be a commentary and cataloged it following the rule for a
Commentary (21.13B1): If the chief source of information of the item
being catalogued presents the item as a commentary, enter it as such (see
21.1-21.7). Make an added entry under the heading appropriate to the text
and this is why Melammed has the main entry. And also rule 21.6B1: If,
in a work of shared responsibility, principal responsibility is attributed
(by the wording or the layout of the chief source of information of the
item being catalogued) to one person or corporate body, enter under the
heading for that person or body ... Make added entries under the headings
for other persons or bodies involved if there are not more than two. I
don't have a problem with following LC's assessment and having Melammed in
the 100 and Garfinkle in a 700. On the title page only Melammed is
represented as being responsible in terms of the layout, Garfinkle is only
mentioned under her maiden name in the other title information. If
following LC's AACR2 interpretation in upgrading to RDA I'd follow rule
6.27.1.6 Commentary, Annotations, Illustrative Content, Etc., Added to a
Previously Existing Work.
I think that for Melammed I will add 3 relationship designators:
|eauthor,|etranslator,|eeditor of compilation. I would prefer something
more along the lines of |e author of added commentary, rather than |e
author, but that doesn't exist. Is contributor a valid relationship
designator? I don't see it in RDA itself, even though there is a MARC
Relator Code for it (ctb). I see that I.1 states If none of the terms
listed in this appendix is appropriate or sufficiently specific, use
another concise term to indicate the nature of the relationship, and I'm
wondering how much freedom we have to coin terms, or if this is frowned
upon and we should wait for JSC to come up with new relationship
designators?
Thanks again for your help Mac!
-Dana
-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 7:33 PM
To: vanme...@ias.edu
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Help with relationship designator
Dana Van Meter posted:
In other words, would I also need a |e of editor, or if not editor,
then a
|e editor of compilation. I think my major problem is in understanding
exactly what a compilation is. LC , under AACR2 did not even have a
700 for Garfinkle ...
Omitting the 700 for the poet is an error it seems to me, not an AACR2
difference. If you are not replacing the AACR2 record, I think you should
add the 700.
U assume the Cutter is for the poet. If not, it should be, regardless of
who is 100.
In your local RDA record, or if replacing the AACR2 record, and if the
poems are half the content, I would consider coding the poet as 100
$eauthor (too bad poet is not in the list), and the editor as:
700 $econttributor.$eeditor of compilation,$etranslator.
You could do a longer line up:
700 $eannotator,$ecompiler,$econtributor,$eeditor,$etranslator.
The two RDA relaltionship phrases below also fit her roles, but IMNSHO are
too long to use in conjunction with $eeditor of complilation; if wanting
to use just one, that is the one I would use; it combines compiling and
editing.
writer of added commentary
writer of added text
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Can Lecturer be used as a valid relator term and do you have a good example of a DVD + Book RDA record?
This answer prompts some questions for me. 1. Are we allowed to use, then, the more specific terms indented underneath the relationship designator performer (which is in bold), or are we to use performer only, to cover all those types of situations represented by the more specific indented not in bold terms? If we can use the more specific indented terms, how were we supposed to know that? I wasn't sure if we are allowed to use these indented terms, or if they're just further (and more specific) examples of what is meant by the bold faced code. If we can use these more specific indented terms, I think it might be helpful if RDA specifically said that following the definition of a bold faced term (or you can use these more specific terms, or something to that effect). Using the example of the term author, I see that there are MARC relator codes for the more specific terms librettist[lbt] and lyricist [lyr], but there isn't a MARC code for screenwriter, so I would not automatically assume that I could use those more specific indented terms as relator terms in a |e. There also seem to be MARC relator codes for terms which are not named in RDA, such as Music copyist [mcp]. Are we able to use relationship designators or terms such as music copyist in a |e if they have a MARC 3-letter code, even if the term does not appear in RDA? 2. I have a print series which contains lectures, can |e performer be used for lecturers/speakers when the lecture is in print form? Thank you for your help. Dana Van Meter Catalog Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Brenndorfer, Thomas Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2013 12:10 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Can Lecturer be used as a valid relator term and do you have a good example of a DVD + Book RDA record? From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Browning, Sommer [sommer.brown...@ucdenver.edu] Sent: April-05-13 5:21 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Can Lecturer be used as a valid relator term and do you have a good example of a DVD + Book RDA record? I've searched the list and couldn't find if these questions had been asked before so here goes. 1. We are cataloging a Great Courses DVD and course guide. We have the lecturer and course guide author in the 100 field. What should his relator term be? Is $e creator sufficient? Though he isn't the creator of the DVD.? He is a kind of performer and author.? Using $e lecturer seems silly. The presence in the 100 field also would mean that the name would form part of the authorized access point for the work, but this is not appropriate for moving image works (Great Courses DVDs are cataloged primarily as moving image DVD videos, with the course guide being accompanying material). For moving images works, only the preferred title for the DVD is used alone for the authorized access point for the work (RDA 6.27.1.3), so the lecturer would not be found in the 100 field. As a lecturer, the person would be contributing to the expression, essentially as a 'performer'. In the list of designators under 'performer' are 'speaker' or 'teacher'. The designator ' speaker' is the best fit, as RDA refers specifically to the delivery of a lecture (as opposed to a 'teacher' who is providing instructions or a demonstration). The lecturer is also the writer of the course guide, so that is a clear work relationship. Instead of a contributor to the expression, the lecturer is the Creator of a work, specifically an 'author.' Adding these two designators to the lecturer in 700 field would be the best fit for the two roles: $e speaker $e author 2. Related note: Can the relationship designator just be left off entirely? Yes, but the person would not be found in the 100 field because the description is primarily for a moving image work. A name in a 700 field can have designators supporting relationships to works or expressions in the resource, but the 100 field is reserved for allowable names that can form part of the authorized access point for the work. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
[RDA-L] Help with relationship designator
Hello, I am attempting to upgrade an AACR2 LC record to RDA. The LCCN is 2012032101. This book contains two small collections of Ladino poems by a Shephardic Jewish woman who grew up and lived a part of her life in Salonika Greece. These poems were never published. One of the collections documents daily life and customs of Shepardic Jews in Salonika prior to the Nazi invasion of the city. The second collection documents the miseries that the Germans inflicted on Salonika, 1941-1943. The poems or Coplas were written by Bouena Sarfatty Garfinkle 30 years after the War, and she later gave them to Renee Levine Melammed. Levine Melammed was not able to begin working with the poems until several years later, by which time Garfinkle had died. The poems were organized by Garfinkle in to the two collections mentioned above, however the collections were not organized chronically or by subject, they were merely numbered as she composed them. Levine Melammed, in addition to providing a short background of Garfinkle's life before, during, and shortly after the War, reorganized each collection of poems in to smaller sub-themes, but she included the original number that Garfinkle had assigned to each copla beside it. In this book Levine Melammed has presented the Ladino verses and provided an English translation on facing pages. In addition she has provided a glossary for non- Ladino words used by Garfinkle in the coplas which were borrowed from other languages (Arabic, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Italian, Portuguese and Turkish). Under AACR2, LC has Levine Melammed as the author. About half of the book is the poems by Garfinkle, the other half is by Levine Melammed (and again this includes: a brief history of Garfinkle's life before, during, and shortly after the War, and brief description of what life was like for Jews in Salonika during this same time period; the glossary of words borrowed from other languages which appear in the Ladino poems; bibliographic notes; a bibliography, and indexes). In LC's AACR2 record Garfinkle appears only as a subject. I feel that Garfinkle should receive a 700 as well in this record, but my major problem is what relationship designators to assign to Levine Melammed. She is the author of material that is essentially editorial matter to accompany the true focus of the book, the Ladino poems, however there is more to this editorial matter than just a glossary, bibliographic notes and indexes. She has also provided relevant historical background material to explain the topical matter of the poems, so I don't mind Levine Melammed being in a 100 field and I will add a |e of author under RDA. I will also add a |e translator. My problem is in how to describe her other roles in producing the book. She is a compiler of sorts, and an editor of sorts, as she re-organized the collections of the poems in to sub-themes, and she has also created the glossary, the notes, and the indexes. But I'm having trouble deciding how best to describe her non-author roles-is she also to be considered an editor, a compiler, or an editor of a compilation? This is a compilation of sorts, in that these poems have never been published before and Levine Melammed did have a role in how they are presented, but there is more to the book than the poems, she did write accompanying material. Can one have a |e for author and |e for compiler at the same time? And if I have a |e for compiler, does that imply editing as well? In other words, would I also need a |e of editor, or if not editor, then a |e editor of compilation. I think my major problem is in understanding exactly what a compilation is. LC , under AACR2 did not even have a 700 for Garfinkle, but with RDA's greater focus on relationships, I think this book would perhaps be considered a compilation of sorts, in which case I should have a 700 for Garfinkle, and at least one 100 |e that would indicate that the book is a compilation. If anyone can help me with my understanding of what a compilation really is, and how you would handle this book I would greatly appreciate your advice. Apologies for the repetition in this message--it certainly is reflective of my floundering about with RDA though! :-( Thanks very much. Sincerely, Dana Van Meter Catalog Librarian Historical Studies-Social Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540
Re: [RDA-L] RDA Update History
I also happened to notice that yesterday Kevin, and I'm glad you bring it up. The latest update was to be May 14th, and I even received an e-mail from the Toolkit on May 13th announcing the May 14th update, but my Toolkit also shows the latest update as April 2012. However I do notice that when you're in RDA itself, if you scroll all the way down to the bottom of a page it says: Document Date: 5/14/2013, so it would appear as if the text of RDA has been updated, I'm not sure why the Toolkit hasn't updated the Update History. But then again the Toolkit does a lot of things I don't understand, like not providing the Index to AACR2, and not having the LC-PCC PS icon print out if you print out an RDA rule. Dana Van Meter HS-SS Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:45 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] RDA Update History The RDA Update History seems not to be complete. Haven't there been several updates to the content since it was published in June 2010? There is only one update in the Update History, and that is dated April 2012. It is *very* helpful to have a complete history of the updates, to help catalogers determine if there was an actual change in a particular instruction, or when instruction numbers have changed, etc. Will this section of the RDA Toolkit be augmented with all of the histories for updates that have occurred to date? Thanks. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
Re: [RDA-L] RDA Update History
Forgot to say that I've reported both the AACR2 Index issue and the LC-PCC PS icon issue to the Toolkit, and supposedly they are working on it. Neither has been remedied as of today. Dana Van Meter Catalog Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Dana Van Meter Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:00 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA Update History I also happened to notice that yesterday Kevin, and I'm glad you bring it up. The latest update was to be May 14th, and I even received an e-mail from the Toolkit on May 13th announcing the May 14th update, but my Toolkit also shows the latest update as April 2012. However I do notice that when you're in RDA itself, if you scroll all the way down to the bottom of a page it says: Document Date: 5/14/2013, so it would appear as if the text of RDA has been updated, I'm not sure why the Toolkit hasn't updated the Update History. But then again the Toolkit does a lot of things I don't understand, like not providing the Index to AACR2, and not having the LC-PCC PS icon print out if you print out an RDA rule. Dana Van Meter HS-SS Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:45 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] RDA Update History The RDA Update History seems not to be complete. Haven't there been several updates to the content since it was published in June 2010? There is only one update in the Update History, and that is dated April 2012. It is *very* helpful to have a complete history of the updates, to help catalogers determine if there was an actual change in a particular instruction, or when instruction numbers have changed, etc. Will this section of the RDA Toolkit be augmented with all of the histories for updates that have occurred to date? Thanks. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
[RDA-L] RDA equivalent to Cf.?
Hello, Is there an RDA equivalent to AACR2's Cf. in note fields? Everything I see in RDA that talks about indicating the source where you've taken information from, is for situations where one has quoted directly from the source, and as such, a page number (--Page ii.) for example, or Preface (--Preface.) is noted. My situation is that I am indicating both the history of the title in hand (and its relationship to another work), and giving an indication of the contents. I have based my note on information from a flap on the cover, but I have not quoted directly. I can't find anything in RDA about what to do when I'm not quoting directly. Would I just skip the Cf., and just cite the source the same way I do when I quote directly, like this: --Cover flap. (or just -Cover.)? Thanks very much for your help. Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu
Re: [RDA-L] 260 and 264
Joseph, the 264 field is the RDA equivalent to the 260 field of AACR2 cataloging. My understanding is that if you are cataloging a record using RDA, and have coded your record as an RDA record, that you should use the 264 field. It seems the 264 did not yet exist when the Library of Congress and its testing partners were creating RDA records during the testing period, so you will not see the 264 field in the RDA records from the testing period, but in the Library of Congress's newer materials relating to RDA they show the 264 field rather than the 260 field, and the 264 field appears in the LC-PCC Policy Statements to RDA. If you are cataloging a record utilizing AACR2, you would continue to use the 260 field. I don't know for certain, but it seems you could also use the 264 field in an AACR2 record if your institution makes a distinction between functions (publication, printing, distribution, issue, release or production), but I don't believe it works the other way around, if you are coding your bibliographic record as RDA, I don't believe you should use the 260 field. (If anyone else on the list feels I've made errors in my commentary, please correct me!) Sincerely, Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joe Scott Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 4:03 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] 260 and 264 I've sent this message to both MOUG-L and RDA-L. Apologies for the duplication to those who subscribe to both. Can anyone provide further guidance on whether/when to use 260 or 264 (or both?). (Apologies if this is obvious to everyone but me.) Both are listed in LC/MARC/Bibliographic as (R[epeatable]), but the field definitions and scope statements read: 260 Information relating to the publication, printing, distribution, issue, release, or production of a work. For unpublished items or materials that are collectively controlled, this field may not be included in a record or may contain only subfield $c (Date of publication, distribution, etc.). Information in field 260 is similar to information in field 264 (Production, Publication, Distribution, Manufacture, and Copyright Notice). Field 260 is useful for cases where the content standard or institutional policies used do not make a distinction between functions. 264 Statement relating to the publication, printing, distribution, issue, release, or production of a work. Information in field 264 is similar to information in field 260 (Publication, Distribution, etc. (Imprint)). Field 264 is useful for cases where the content standard or institutional policies make a distinction between functions. This leads me to believe: 260 should make a single, complete statement of the available data. Expected to be required in most cases. 264 should be used [in addition to 260] when a distinction between functions needs to be expressed [or coded], and that 264 would be used as many times as needed to express the number of distinction between functions needed, one each (as may be applicable) for each of the five Second Indicators. Does this make sense to any/everyone? Thanks, Joe Joseph W. Scott Music Catalog/Metadata Librarian University of Connecticut Storrs, CT 06029-1005 inline: image002.gif
Re: [RDA-L] Spelling of Qur'an
This may not be at all relevant here, but I have been noticing for at least a year now that I have difficulty searching anything with an apostrophe in LC's authority file. If I copy a heading which contains an apostrophe from the body of a record in LC's online catalog, and then search the heading in the authority file I get no results. But if I delete the apostrophe, and type in a new apostrophe, I pull up the heading in the name authority file. For some reason an apostrophe in a heading in LC's catalog isn't matching the apostrophe in the authority record. However, I just checked Qur'an in the name authority file and I agree it does appear to be an alif. Thank you for pointing this out, I hope that it's not too late for it to be addressed before the next Toolkit release on May 14th. Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 2:36 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Spelling of Qur'an No they are different characters and in some fonts they do not display the same (even in OCLC you can see that they are different characters). If you search RDA in the RDA toolkit using the form found in the authority file (copy and paste), you get no results. If you use an apostrophe instead, you get all of the places in RDA where the word occurs. Adam ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Mon, 15 Apr 2013, Gene Fieg wrote: Does it display the same? And are the unicodes the same? On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.eduwrote: I see that the LC/NACO authority records for Koran have been changed to the form Qurʼan, with an alif. This is the correct Arabic transliteration of the word, but when we were doing the examples for RDA we were told by the JSC to use an apostrophe rather than an alif for all of our examples. We were instructed to use an apostrophe presumably because the apostrophe is commonly used in English language resources. So I'm not sure if the change to an alif was an intentional change or not. If the alif is intentional, then the RDA examples need to be changed too. Adam Schiff ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
[RDA-L] Unnumbered page in a 504 note
Hello. I've rooted around RDA several times trying to find an answer to this question and I can't find one anywhere. Is there any direction anywhere in RDA or in the policy statements that tell you what to do when you are noting that bibliographical references are present and are noting the page numbers the references fall on, and where either the starting or ending (though usually the starting) page is not numbered in the book itself. In AACR2 we would put the correct page number inside square brackets. In most of the cases of this situation I've seen in the RDA copy that's out there, I see people just citing the page number without the square brackets. I've only seen someone use square brackets once or twice. The AACR2 in me hates to put the page number without the square bracket when the page is not numbered in the book itself, which is generally the case with most of the books I catalog, as the heading Bibliography (or Bibliographical References, or whatever the case may be) usually appears a bit lower down on the page, and thus the page number is usually skipped on the starting page for the bibliographical references. I've looked at rule 7.16.1.3 and the LC-PCC PS for 7.16.1.3 and neither mentions what to do in a bibliographical references note when the starting (or ending) page is not numbered in the book itself. Is this mentioned anywhere in RDA, or in an LC-PCC PS? If it's not, can someone from LC monitoring this list please add this to the LC-PCC PS for 7.16.1.3 so I don't have to hem and haw every time I encounter this situation? Thanks very much for your help, Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Unnumbered page in a 504 note
Thanks everyone. I did see rule 1.7.1 at some point in my RDA travels, and then forgot about it. I agree that it probably should apply in the case of the 504. I hate that cataloging in RDA feels like assembling a puzzle every single time. I wish that one didn't have to jump to all over the place to find out how one thing should be done. Thanks again. -Dana From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Cronquist, Michelle J Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 3:21 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Unnumbered page in a 504 note You'd omit the brackets, according to LC-PSS 1.7.1, which says Do not use square brackets in notes except when they are used in quoted data, and gives this example: 500 http://desktop.loc.gov/saved/Mabibl_500 ## $aTypes of prayer wheels found in south central Tibet, by Mei Lin: pages 310-375. Not ... pages [310]-[375]. --- Michelle Cronquist North Caroliniana Cataloger Special Collections Technical Services CB#3926, Wilson Library University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 919-962-6901 919-962-3594 (fax) From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Dana Van Meter Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 2:57 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Unnumbered page in a 504 note Hello. I've rooted around RDA several times trying to find an answer to this question and I can't find one anywhere. Is there any direction anywhere in RDA or in the policy statements that tell you what to do when you are noting that bibliographical references are present and are noting the page numbers the references fall on, and where either the starting or ending (though usually the starting) page is not numbered in the book itself. In AACR2 we would put the correct page number inside square brackets. In most of the cases of this situation I've seen in the RDA copy that's out there, I see people just citing the page number without the square brackets. I've only seen someone use square brackets once or twice. The AACR2 in me hates to put the page number without the square bracket when the page is not numbered in the book itself, which is generally the case with most of the books I catalog, as the heading Bibliography (or Bibliographical References, or whatever the case may be) usually appears a bit lower down on the page, and thus the page number is usually skipped on the starting page for the bibliographical references. I've looked at rule 7.16.1.3 and the LC-PCC PS for 7.16.1.3 and neither mentions what to do in a bibliographical references note when the starting (or ending) page is not numbered in the book itself. Is this mentioned anywhere in RDA, or in an LC-PCC PS? If it's not, can someone from LC monitoring this list please add this to the LC-PCC PS for 7.16.1.3 so I don't have to hem and haw every time I encounter this situation? Thanks very much for your help, Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu
