Re: [RDA-L] About the coming transfer of RDA-L
Jamie, Two more questions about the forthcoming transfer of RDA-L: 1. Will the URLs for mails in the present archive still be working? For example, will http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca/msg11767.html still retrieve your announcement of 18 December? I've sometimes included such links in discussions with German colleagues or in our wiki, and it would be rather inconvenient if these links wouldn't work any longer. 2. Do I understand correctly that the new archive will only be open to subscribers? I know that some people cannot find the time to follow all of our discussion and therefore do not want to subscribe, but are happy to read up selected threads in the archive. Heidrun This post follows up on the announcement last week that hosting of the RDA-L list will transfer from Library Archives Canada to the American Library Association (ALA). Below you will find the important information needed to navigate the transfer period. ·The transfer will occur on December 27^th . ·On that date the email address for RDA-L will change to rd...@ala.org mailto:rd...@ala.org. This means beginning on Dec. 27^th subscribers should send all RDA-L posts to that address. ·Beginning on Dec. 27^th , replies to discussion threads that started on the RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA address should be redirected to rd...@ala.org mailto:rd...@ala.org. ·Current subscriptions to RDA-L will be automatically transferred to the ALA hosting service. ·Subscribers will be able to manage their subscriptions and access the full archive of RDA-L posts (from 2005 to the present) at http://lists.ala.org/sympa/info/rda-l. Subscribers should use the first login button when attempting to access subscription settings or the RDA-L archive for the first time. By clicking the first login button the subscriber will be able to create a password. Your email and password will serve as your login at lists.ala.org. Next week I will supply more instructions on using ALA lists. Please feel free to contact me at jhenne...@ala.org mailto:jhenne...@ala.org with any questions or concerns about this translation. Jamie James Hennelly Managing Editor ALA Digital Reference 1-800-545-2433, ext 5051, or312-280-5051 jhenne...@ala.org mailto:jhenne...@ala.org To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the address you are subscribed under to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca In the body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the address you are subscribed under to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca In the body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L
Re: [RDA-L] Some more examples of qualified conventional collective titles
Adolfo, I've read up the comments in the PCC-list archive on this topic. I like the practice of UCSD (I quote from Ryan Finnerty's mail): UCSD does not use CCTs when the works in a compilation are issued for the first time in that compilation. Examples include an original book of poems by one author, or a new collection of short stories, essays, etc. In cases of doubt whether something has been previously separately published, do not add a CCT. I think the interesting point to note is that not everything which consists of several works by the same person is in fact a compilation of works. Rather, in the case of a new book of e.g. poems or short stories, the author will think of this as *one* individual creation, i.e. *one* work, even if the bits it contains themselves can also be thought of as works. Compilation seems to imply that the things which are put together had some sort of independent existence before (at least this is my impression as a non-native speaker). This is not true if they were created especially for the collection. So I would daringly argue that these cases do not fall under 6.2.2.10 at all. Therefore, we do not even have to *think* about whether these things are known bei their own title or not. They aren't compilations, so they cannot get a conventional collective title. Instead, they should be treated as ordinary works. The German RAK rules, by the way, have an explicit rule to treat a book of poetry as a single work (§ 5,2). Heidrun Hi Adam, I believe you have mischaracterized the opinions expressed on PCC list. I believe many have expressed a disagreement with LC practice and are not following it. For example, at UCSD not only are we not following LC practice for the master record, we are actively removing the CCTs for our local records. Adolfo -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: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 12:45 PM To:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some more examples of qualified conventional collective titles I've asked just this question on the PCC list, since the policy statement that covers this is labeled LC practice. So far I've only heard back from a few libraries, but they are following LC practice. Which makes sense when you consider that much of the copy for cataloging that we get comes from LC, and we don't have the staffing to redo what they do. Therefore we will be getting and accepting many records that have these conventional collective titles, and any original cataloging records that we might create according to a different local practice would be just a drop in the bucket of all the records in our catalog. Adam On Wed, 18 Dec 2013, Heidrun Wiesenm?ller wrote: Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 10:08:42 +0100 From: Heidrun Wiesenm?llerwiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA To:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some more examples of qualified conventional collective titles Adam, These examples all seem to follow LC's interpretation of the first sentence of RDA 6.2.2.10, i.e. none of these collections was treated as being known under its own title. So, is it correct to assume that LC's rather extreme interpretation (that a collection can only become known by its own title over the course of time) is at present widely followed, although Kevin Randall and others have raised objections? I've noticed that in the NACO training module 6 http://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/courses/naco-RDA/Module%206-Describing% 20Works%20and%20Expressions.pptx there is no detailed explanation of how the first sentence of RDA 6.2.2.10 is to be understood (slide 38). So I'm not sure whether all PCC libraries follow LC's practice here. Heidrun Adam L. Schiff wrote: Nicephorus, $c Blemmydes, $d 1197-1272. $t Works. $k Selections (Oeuvres theologiques) Rupert, $c of Deutz, $d approximately 1075-1129. $t Works. $k Selections (Opera apologetica) Talmage, James E. $q (James Edward), $d 1862-1933. $t Works. $k Selections (Beginner's guide to Talmage) William, $c of Auvergne, Bishop of Paris, $d 1180-1249. $t Works. $k Selections (Opera homiletica) Council of Trent $d (1545-1563 : $c Trento, Italy). $t Works. $k Selections (Documentos ineditos tridentinos sobre la justificacion) Smith, Joseph, $c Jr., $d 1805-1844. $t Works. $k Selections (Personal writings of Joseph Smith) Smith, Joseph, $c Jr., $d 1805-1844. $t Works. $k Selections (Essential Joseph Smith) 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 ~~ To unsubscribe from RDA-L send
Re: [RDA-L] Some more examples of qualified conventional collective titles
We are talking about the level of the work here. The title of the manifestation is, of course, always recorded in the respective manifestation element. Heidrun Bernhard Eversberg wrote: Am 20.12.2013 13:37, schrieb Heidrun Wiesenmüller: I think the interesting point to note is that not everything which consists of several works by the same person is in fact a compilation of works. Rather, in the case of... This is the sort of casuistry we've never envied AACR users for. Let's get serious about the A aspect in RDA and treat titles as such, as titles, always, because end-users will always search for those titles because they find them cited as such, and noch concocted and perturbed in ways they'd never imagine. Add conventional collected titles at leisure (if you find any), or rather use machine-actionable codes wherever possible, but leave the titles alone. If we can't get away from the old spirit of cataloging that was based on unit descriptions on 3x5 cards and on filing rules that were not even part of AACR, then RDA is really a waste of time and will create more nuisance than usefulness. B.Eversberg To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the address you are subscribed under to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca In the body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the address you are subscribed under to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca In the body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L
Re: [RDA-L] Some more examples of qualified conventional collective titles
Bernhard Eversberg wrote: But you know that we had non of that casuistry in our rules? And for reasons that had been discussed thoroughly for quite some time. Did we or our users suffer from that or were they pestering us for qualified contentional collective titles? Isn't it just the very prolific authors where those can sometimes be of some use for some people? Or perhaps it is just Shakespeare ... I believe that it is a legitimate need of users to find all compilations/collections of a certain type by a certain author, and I truly don't see authors like Shakespeare as the only cases where this would be relevant. Indeed the German RAK rules didn't cater for this need very well (unlike the older Prussian instructions). And of course I'm aware that the little that was left about conventional collective titles in our rules (or, rather, about *the* collective title, as there only was Sammlung, i.e. collection) has long gone out of practice in Germany. But my feeling is that this was a mistake Having the possibility to collocate compilations/collections is something I'm looking forward to when RDA is implemented. BUT: Doing this with conventional collective titles is probably not the best way to reach the goal. It mixes up the title with other attributes of the work in an odd way and forces catalogers to decide whether they want A) make it possible to find all editions of a certain compilation/collection (by not applying 6.2.2.10) or B) make it possible to find all compilations/collections of a certain type (by applying the CCTs in 6.2.2.10) I want a solution where it's possible to have both. Transforming the conventionsl collective titles into attributes of the work might be a way of making this possible. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the address you are subscribed under to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca In the body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L
Re: [RDA-L] Some more examples of qualified conventional collective titles
James Weinheimer wrote: On 12/20/2013 2:49 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: snip Adger Williams wrote: Aren't conventional collective titles really Form/Genre headings? (Poems. Selections, vs. Essays Selections, vs. Works Selections) Would they not serve their function less confusingly if we treated them that way? Quite. They could be seen as attributes of the work and recorded in RDA elements 7.2 and 7.3 - in addition to the ordinary title of the work for the compilation/collection (RDA element 6.2). If this was consistently applied, it would give us the possibility to find A) all editions of a certain compilation/collection (making use of the title of the work) B) all compilations/collections of a certain type (making use of the attributes of the work) And everybody would be happy :-) /snip But people can do this right now, and they have been to do so for over a hundred and fifty years! Are you really sure they can? My feeling is that up to now, both aims have been fulfilled only partly. Maybe this is what makes it so unsatisfactory. If we assume that somebody knows how to use the conventional collective title in the first place (I agree that this is difficult as they are presented now), then they will still not get a *complete* list of all the compilations/collections of a certain type, because there always have been and still are exceptions (and yes, I know that uniform titles used to be optional under AARC2, anyway). According to the former LCRI, all cases with distinct titles didn't get a CCT. Now, LC seems to have reduced the exceptions, but you're still left with the Leaves of grass type, which doesn't get a CCT. Also, you don't use a CCT if you apply the basic rule in 6.2.2.10.3 instead of the alternative. So you'll get some, but certainly not all of the things you want (provided somebody wants this; I think they would, but perhaps this is a minority view). The second aim is also difficult to reach, because a CCT is recorded not in addition to but *instead of* the real work title. Compare: If you have a monograph like The live and times of X and you have the English edition and a German translation, then you can collocate them using the title of the work (The live and times of X), formerly called the uniform title. But if you have a compilation like Best of X's short stories in an English and a German edition, you cannot collocate these two in the same way, as the work title hasn't been recorded as Best of X's short stories but instead as Short stories. Selections. The real work title (Best of X's short stories) is identical with the English manifestation title, but not with the German, so you'll get only half of what you're looking for. That's why I think that the two things - the title of the aggregate work on the one hand, and the information about its collective character on the other - should better be kept apart instead of mixed together. Then we also wouldn't need all the casuistry which Bernhard mentioned. You wouldn't have to try and work out in which case the CCT should be used. We would simply do two different things: 1. Record the title of the work - no special rule would be needed for compilations/collections 2. Check if the work in question is a compilation/collection. If so, give the information in the respective attribute(s). Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the address you are subscribed under to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca In the body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L
Re: [RDA-L] Some more examples of qualified conventional collective titles
James, Before making our records even more complicated (and committing more and more ever-disappearing resources) it would make sense to find out if collective uniform titles are/could be useful to the public and if not, why not, and then continue from there. Otherwise, we are all working on personal feelings or beliefs. I don't believe that my suggestion would make our records so very complicated, but I see your point about reliable data. It is indeed a problem that we often don't really know what our users want. I would love to have a demo which would show links like collected works of this author or selected novels of this author whenever a title of the author in question is displayed (as I suggested the other day) and then count how often people click on these links. Perhaps I can work something out and give it a try. On a concrete point: snip The second aim is also difficult to reach, because a CCT is recorded not in addition to but *instead of* the real work title. Compare: If you have a monograph like The live and times of X and you have the English edition and a German translation, then you can collocate them using the title of the work (The live and times of X), formerly called the uniform title. But if you have a compilation like Best of X's short stories in an English and a German edition, you cannot collocate these two in the same way, as the work title hasn't been recorded as Best of X's short stories but instead as Short stories. Selections. The real work title (Best of X's short stories) is identical with the English manifestation title, but not with the German, so you'll get only half of what you're looking for. /snip Not quite correct. According to LCRI 25.11 https://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/25-11-translations-etc, there is the rule: For partial collections containing works in translation, attempt to distinguish between those cases in which the translation is of an existing collection in the original language and cases in which there is no such collection in the original language. 1) If the collection does exist in the original language, use the uniform title of the original or, if no uniform title is appropriate, its title proper, followed by the language of the translation. 2) If the collection does not exist in the original language, use a collective uniform title according to 25.9A or 25.10A regardless of the quality of the title of the translated collection. Follow the collective uniform title with the language of the translation. (By the way, the words quality of the title refers to the concept of adequate title which is both very important and extremely vague) Determining whether a translation of a collection actually exists in the original can be a *lot* of work and demands just too much time from the cataloger. If the information is readily available from the item, it is no problem of course, but otherwise, even if you have a huge collection at your disposal, it is very arguably not worth the effort. My rule was almost always Stay in your chair, try from a cursory glance at the catalog whether anything looks as if it may be suitable and hope you don't find anything(!). Otherwise just assign the collective uniform title and go on to the next item. Thanks, I wasn't aware of this LCRI (I'm afraid there's still a lot I don't know about Anglo-American cataloging). Indeed this sounds rather complicated and a lot of effort. Also, I'm not sure I've really understood its consequences: So, the original collection might have got Poems. Selections but the translation would have got X's best poetry. German in 240? If so, then that would still seem something of a muddle to me. And would that rule still be valid under RDA? I can't remember seeing something similar in the LC-PCC PS. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the address you are subscribed under to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca In the body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L
Re: [RDA-L] Some more examples of qualified conventional collective titles
Adolfo, My understanding of FRBR is that regardless of independent existence prior to its appearance, each poem, short story, song, etc., is considered a work in and of itself regardless of whether their creator considered them such. Since a compilation is simply defined as a gathering of multiple works, every aggregation of such items is a compilation, again, regardless of whether the creator considered them collectively a single work. I would be happy to be corrected if this isn't an accurate understanding of FRBR. FRBR says amazingly little about aggregates. There is no real definition of a compilation either (by the way: there is also no definition of this term in RDA). Here's a quote from FRBR chapter 3.3, where we can find the basic statement on aggregates: The structure of the model, however, permits us to represent aggregate and component entities in the same way as we would represent entities that are viewed as integral units. That is to say that from a logical perspective the entity work, for example, may represent an aggregate of individual works brought together by an editor or compiler in the form of an anthology, a set of individual monographs brought together by a publisher to form a series, or a collection of private papers organized by an archive as a single fond. By the same token, the entity work may represent an intellectually or artistically discrete component of a larger work, such as a chapter of a report, a segment of a map, an article in a journal, etc. For the purposes of the model, entities at the aggregate or component level operate in the same way as entities at the integral unit level; they are defined in the same terms, they share the same characteristics, and they are related to one another in the same way as entities at the integral unit level. The basic message here is that works can be seen on different levels, and we find the same idea in RDA. True, there is no distinction between different kinds of aggregate works in FRBR, but I don't think this means that we're forced to treat all kinds of aggregate works in an identical way in cataloging. Note that collective titles aren't mentioned anywhere in FRBR. There is title of the work as an attribute of the work, and therefore, there is a corresponding element in RDA. But FRBR doesn't prescribe how this element should be filled. It's up to the cataloging code to set up the relevant instructions. So I can't see why it shouldn't be possible to have one rule for something which was meant to be published as a unit by the creator and a compilation which was only assembled only at a later stage. By the way: The FRBR Working Group on Aggregates doesn't accept the notion of an *aggregate* work at all, see the final report: http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/cataloguing/frbrrg/AggregatesFinalReport.pdf Instead, they talk about an *aggregating* work which stands for the creative effort of having put the things together. So, a book containing three novels is not a manifestation of an aggregate work which in itself is made up of three individual works. Instead what we have here (in the view of the Working Group) is an aggregate manifestation, in which *four* works are manifested: the three novels and the aggregating work (i.e. the effort of the compiler). They still haven't managed to convince me of that. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the address you are subscribed under to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca In the body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L
Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9
James, All of these careful arrangements *completely disintegrated* when they were placed into the computer catalog. Since computers are rather mindless, the uniform title Works is now placed alphabetically under the author's name (W) and as a consequence, people are supposed to *actively search* for Works (or browse to W) although everybody, including our predecessors, have always known that no one will ever do that. So, I agree that collective uniform titles do not work, but it is also true that they haven't worked for a long, long, long time. Does it then follow that these collective uniform titles are useless? That people *do not want* the group of records collocated under Cicero, Marcus Tullius. Selections. English? I think they do want that, but those groups of records are impossible for people to find in our current catalogs. Changing it to Cicero, Marcus Tullius. *Works.* Selections. English is certainly no improvement at all for the user and seems senseless. I agree that in current catalogs, collective titles aren't much help. Maybe this was the reason that the principle of collective titles was almost completely abandoned in Germany, when we changed from our older cataloguing code (the so-called Prussian instructions) to the modern German RAK rules. But, is it possible to make collective uniform titles useful and functional for today's information tools? I believe they could and that people would appreciate it, but that would take complete reconsideration from the user's point of view--something I don't see happening very soon. I don't think that a complete reconsideration is necessary. It's just a question of changing how the data is presented. No witchcraft would be required to make use of the information in a sensible manner. For a long time, I've suggested presenting our users with reasonable next steps (in the form of links) whenever they view a title record. For example, when a manifestation of a work by author X is displayed in the catalog, reasonable next steps could be (among others): - other editions of this work - secondary literature about this work - other works by the same author - collections of works by the same author - biographies of the author Of course, these links should only be shown if there are appropriate records in the catalog. The collections of works by the same author link would make use of the collection information. It wouldn't matter if this information was stored conventionally as collective titles or - as I suggested in my last mail - as additional work elements in the composite description. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the address you are subscribed under to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca In the body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L
Re: [RDA-L] Collective cities
Mac,
Yes, I was only talking about collective titles as a subtype of the
former uniform titles.
It seems RDA calls this a conventional collective title. The glossary
gives as the definition: A title used as the preferred title for a
compilation containing two or more works by one person, family, or
corporate body, or two or more parts of a work (e.g., Works, Poems,
Selections).
Heidrun
Mac said:
Heidrun said:
With respect to collective titles ...
I think we need to keep clear the distinction among:
1) A collective title on the manifestation transcribed in 245.
2) A collective title supplied by the cataloguer in 245 when the
collection lacks such a title, as opposed to transcribing part titles.
and
3) A collective uniform title supplied in 240.
I support the first two, and oppose the third, as a useless holdover
from cards.
Heidrun, I assume from the context you are speaking of collective
uniform titles. RDA's abandoning traditional terminology adds to
the confusion.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the
address you are subscribed under to:
lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
In the body of the message:
SIGNOFF RDA-L
[RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9
I am uncertain about the relationship of 6.2.2.10 (Recording the Preferred Title for a Compilation of Works of One Person, Family, or Corporate Body) and 6.27.1.9 (Additions to Access Points Representing Works) - both in theory and in practice. If I've got two different collections of works of the same creator, e.g.: Selected poems / X Best of X's poetry Both get the collective title Poems. Selections according to 6.2.2.10.2. But for the AAP, am I now supposed to add some additional attribute according to 6.27.1.9, e.g.: X. Poems. Selections (1995) X. Poems. Selections (2010) In short, my question is whether RDA considers the two different poetry collections as two different works (which must then be distinguished in the AAP) or as the same work (then, of course, no additional attribute would be necessary in the AAP). I'm also interested in the general practice. I know that LC used to add dates (at least in the case of complete works and selected works), but that this practice has now been abandoned. So I assume that LC now never distinguishes between different collections of the same type. What do others do? Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the address you are subscribed under to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca In the body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L
Re: [RDA-L] Bodleian/OLIS RDA materials
I'd like to add my thanks for sharing this huge amount of work with the community. After having started on the Bodleian's documents, I'm most favourably impressed. These materials are very thorough with lots of helpful detail, easy to understand, and contain very good explanations even for difficult and complex matters. And I simply *love* those made-up examples! As somebody who teaches cataloguing, I know that a hint of humor is indispensable. Reading through module 1, I noticed the following three points: p. 14: source of information: Historic railway timetables of northern Essex Colchester, Braintree, Walton, Frinton, Clacton, Tiptree, Maldon Chelmsford The solution gives Colchester, Braintree ... as a quoted note in 500. The text explains: Any contents-type information should be moved to a note. Is this a common Anglo-American practice? I must say that I would have been perfectly happy to record Colchester, Braintree ... as other title information. RDA 2.3.4.1 says: Other title information can include any phrase appearing with a title proper that is indicative of: the character, contents, etc., of the resource or the motives for, or occasion of, its production, publication, etc. So contents doesn't seem to be out of scope for other title information. Or would you see Colchester, Braintree ... as a case which would belong under RDA 2.3.2.6? p. 21: source of information: Fortieth Anniversary Edition 2010 solution given: 250 __ Fortieth anniversary edition 2010. I wouldn't have treated 2010 as part of the edition statement in this case, and this also seems to contradict what is said on p. 20 (Date is an identifying term only if used adjectivally, e.g. 2003 version). So perhaps this is a mistake? p. 26: I very much approve of the Bodleian's decision to keep all illustrations and chiefly illustrations for the time being, although strictly speaking this is not allowed under RDA 7.15. As far as I know, LC also still uses these terms, and some examples in the BL's workflows make me assume that they've kept the practice as well. Until a better solution is found, this seems like a good idea to me. Expressing the information only by means of the content type wouldn't be helpful for our users. Heidrun On 12.12.2013 15:28, Bernadette O'Reilly wrote: Dear colleagues, The Bodleian Libraries and Oxford Library Information System are pleased to be able to make their inhouse RDA documentation publicly available at http://www.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/our-work/cataloguing. It includes brief transfer training materials for experienced cataloguers and comprehensive materials for training from scratch and for reference, all available under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license. Because we have a very large number of cataloguers scattered over many libraries, some of whom do only small amounts of cataloguing, our documentation is designed to be fairly free-standing. We have to keep contact sessions to the minimum, and we do not expect all cataloguers to gain a detailed knowledge of FRBR or of the RDA Toolkit. We benefited greatly from seeing other agencies' materials when we were planning our RDA implementation, and we hope that our materials may be of some use or interest to agencies who are currently planning their own implementation. Comments and corrections are very welcome (c...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk mailto:c...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk). Best wishes, Bernadette *** Bernadette O'Reilly Catalogue Support Librarian Bodleian Libraries, Osney One Building Osney Mead Oxford OX2 0EW. c...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk mailto:c...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk 01865 2-77134 *** To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the address you are subscribed under to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca In the body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the address you are subscribed under to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca In the body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L
Re: [RDA-L] Who grants the degree?
Mac,
Many thanks to yourself and your grandson!
My interpretation is that the power of actually granting the degree
resides with the university only. But obviously the faculty must tell
the representative of the university (the chancellor) who is to be
decorated in this way. I think this is quite similar to what I found on
my own degree certificate (with the set form: The Friedrich Alexander
University Erlangen-Nuremberg, represented by the Dean of the [faculty
X], ... , hereby grants the degree of [type of degree] ...).
So we still do not have an example where a faculty truly grants a degree
in its own right, and I now doubt whether such an example exists at all.
The more I think about it, the more I believe that the phrase granting
institution or faculty in 7.9.3 is simply a left-over from the former
wording (still present in 7.9.1.3.) the institution or faculty to which
the thesis was presented. In 7.9.1.3 the institution or faculty makes
sense, whereas in 7.9.3 it doesn't.
Heidrun
Grandson Joe, who is a law student at the University of British
Columbia, writes in part:
Law and medical degrees say 'The Chancellor of the University of
British Columbia with the approval of the Senate upon the
recommendation of [specific faculty] has conferred the degree of
[specific degree] on [name]'.
So perhaps that RDA instruction should be degree granting institution
and/or faculty, as opposed to just or.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
[RDA-L] 7.9 Dissertation/Thesis and FRBR
According to the German RAK rules, a thesis note is also recorded if there is no formal thesis statement, i.e. if it's not the real thesis which was handed in for the degree, but a later publication of the text. There is only a slight difference in the style of the notes: Note for the real thesis (I translate): Cologne, University, doctoral thesis, 2010 Note for the later publication without formal statement: Also: Cologne, University, doctoral thesis, 2010 I know that the second case was treated differently under AACR2. You wouldn't give a dissertation note (MARC 502), but a general note (MARC 500) saying something like Originally presented as the author's thesis (doctoral) As far as I know, this difference is still valid under RDA. Indeed 7.9.1.3 seems to make it clear that a formal statement is needed: Treat the work being described as a dissertation or thesis presented as part of the requirements for an academic degree if it contains a statement declaring that it is a dissertation or thesis. I assume that it wouldn't count as a statement if e.g. the author only mentions this in the preface. On the other hand, 7.9 supposedly is an *attribute of the work*, which makes perfect sense: It certainly doesn't stop being a thesis when it's published by a commercial publisher. BUT: If it's an attribute of the work, shouldn't this information be valid for *all expressions* and *all manifestations* of the work? So, in a composite description, shouldn't 7.9 be *always* recorded - even if we aren't cataloging the real thesis but a later publication? This would be close to the German practice, and I think it would also be helpful for our users. Do they care whether they read the thesis in its original form or as a later publication? But they might still be interested to get the full thesis information in a well-structured form in both cases. OR: If we're supposed to record 7.9 only for the real thesis: Shouldn't 7.9 be an attribute of the *manifestation* rather than an attribute of the work? This would fit in much better with the requirement of a formal statement, because the presence or absence of this is certainly on manifestation level. If you think about it, the wording in 7.9.1.3 is decidedly odd: Does the work (the thesis) ever contain a formal dissertation statement? I'd say that such a statement isn't part of the work. It's simply something which is put on the title page, i.e. it's presented together with the work. I don't want to challenge the usefulness of FRBR in general, but I think RDA hasn't always been successful in FRBRizing AACR2. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Faculty in 7.9.3.3
I agree that degree-granting institution doesn't really fit for the department in which a thesis was prepared, although it's certainly very useful to record this relationship. There doesn't seem to be anything else which can be used: Host institution or sponsoring body would certainly be a far stretch. Might this be a case for an additional relationship designator under I.2.2, something like institution where a work has been prepared? Admittedly, this sounds awful, but it still might come in handy for preparing department bibliographies and the like. In addition, there's the possibility to record the department as an affiliation of the person according to 9.13. By the way: Why is affiliation an attribute of the person? It seems to me that this is a relationship between a person and a corporate body, so it should be in chapter 32. In the German authority file, we have a link between the record for the person and the record for the corporate body in such a case. Heidrun On 03.12.2013 00:27, Rose-Ann Movsovic wrote: I'm reckoning that the University is the degree-granting institution, the department is just where the researcher was based. If we contributed records to OCLC we would strip out the department name and just leave the University. However, I should probably stop procrastinating and just amend the template without worrying about the $e! -- Rose-Ann Movsovic Collections Manager University of Reading Library From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of John Hostage [host...@law.harvard.edu] Sent: 02 December 2013 22:04 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Faculty in 7.9.3.3 RDA appendix I.2.2 has the relationship designator degree granting institution. -- 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 Rose-Ann Movsovic Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 05:18 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Faculty in 7.9.3.3 I don't know the answer to this question but locally we add an entry for the name of the department the author belonged to because our users want to be able to retrieve lists of theses by department. I haven't come up with a relationship designator for that which is holding up our converting the thesis template to RDA. -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: 02 December 2013 09:57 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Faculty in 7.9.3.3 I'm not quite certain about the meaning of faculty in the element Dissertation or Thesis Information. 7.9.3.3 reads: Record the name of the granting institution or faculty. I assume that the example University College, London is supposed to illustrate a case where the degree is granted by a faculty rather than the university (which would be the University of London). Is this correct? The reason for my question is that I'm wondering about German doctoral theses. There, usually both the name of the university and the name of the faculty within this university are given, e.g.: Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Fakultaet fuer Agrarwissenschaften der Georg-August- Universitaet Goettingen (i.e. Thesis for obtaining the doctoral degree of the Faculty for Agricultural Sciences of the Georg August University Goettingen). Up to now, in such a case we've only recorded the name of the university, but not the name of the faculty. I also can't remember ever having seen an AACR2 record including a faculty of a German university. This impression fits in with the example Freie Universitaet Berlin in 7.9.3.3 (without information about the respective faculty, which probably was given on the source of information as well). My feeling is that in Germany, a faculty is basically an administrative division. It's not at all comparable to the independent character of the University College London (Wikipedia says: For most practical purposes, ranging from admissions to funding, the constituent colleges operate as individual universities, and some have recently obtained the power to award their own degrees whilst remaining in the federation.). So I would prefer to give the name of the university only, without the faculty. How would you handle the case of the German universities and when would you use the faculty? Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Faculty in 7.9.3.3
John, I think the RDA instruction was probably worded that way to allow freedom to record whatever feels most useful and to take into account varying amounts of information available. In most cases it's enough to record the university name, but some libraries feel very particular about recording the name of the department or faculty for dissertations from their own university. Yes, I can quite understand that, although I now think this mixes up two different things: The corporate body which grants the degree and the faculty or department where the thesis was prepared. I don't think the University College London was meant to represent a faculty, I suppose you're right. I just had the expectation that if there are two cases in an instruction, and four examples are given, then at least one of them would illustrate the second case - and the University College was the only one which stuck somewhat out. Perhaps the examples group could look out for a suitable example here? but the Fakultaet fuer Agrarwissenschaften would be an example of a faculty. It's definitely a faculty, but does it fit the text of the instruction: the granting institution or faculty? I had never thought about this before, but now that I do I think that it's always the university which grants the degree, and not the faculty. I just checked my own degree certificate and it says (I translate, as not everybody's command of German is as good as John's): The Friedrich Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, represented by the Dean of the Philosophical Faculty 1, ... , hereby grants the degree of Master of Arts I also looked up some federal university laws, which gave me the same impression. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Faculty in 7.9.3.3
Mac, Another of those ambiguous English words. It can mean the teaching staff of an educational institution. But in this context, it means a subunit of a university which grants degrees. In other words, the body which granted the degree should be in 502. $b. (...) The institution in 502 $b may be traced with $edegree granting institution, whether the university or the school (aka faculty) within the university. Professional schools such as law, medicine, and theology often grant degrees rather than the larger university. Have you got a good example for such a school/faculty which actually grants its own degrees (instead of the larger university)? As I said in my last mail, in Germany I believe the subunits do not grant degrees in their own right. But it may be different in the Anglo-American world. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
[RDA-L] Habilitation theses
On a related note: The other day, we were wondering how habilitation theses should be treated under RDA. These are quite common in Germany. In case you're not familiar with this European concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habilitation Some universities grant the academic degree of Dr. habil. to somebody who has successfully completed his or her habilitation. But in many cases, there is no special academic degree connected with the habilitation. From then on, the successful candidate can call him- or herself a Privatdozent (private lecturer, PD), while they are waiting for a professorship, but this is no academic degree. According to the German cataloging rules, we only record Habilitationsschrift (habilitation thesis), but no specific degree - just as for doctoral theses, we only record Dissertation (without distinguishing between e.g. Dr. phil. and Dr. med.). Under RDA, do we now need to find out whether it's a case of Dr. habil. or not? And what about the cases where no special academic degree is granted? Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Habilitation theses
Ben, You're right. We'll try and work something out. One idea which has already come up is defining an additional element which would express the character of a thesis instead of a specific degree. But isn't it amazing how these cultural differences pop up at the most unexpected places. I wasn't even aware that there was a difficulty with habilitation theses until a colleague pointed me to it. Heidrun Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote: Since habilitation is not an Anglo-American institution, I would be surprised indeed if RDA discusses it. (Just to confirm--searching the Toolkit for habilitation or any of its variants returns no hits.) So I think this is an area where the (Continental) European cataloging community will have to figure out what it wants to do and make a proposal to the JSC (if it is necessary). It looks like typically it's just recorded in a 500 note that is formatted somewhat similar to your standard 502... zB: #778631115 Ethnizität, Islam, Reformasi : die Evolution der Konfliktlinien im Parteiensystem Malaysias / Andreas Ufen. 500 $a The author's Habilitationsschrift--Universität Hamburg, 2010. Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 12:15 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: [RDA-L] Habilitation theses On a related note: The other day, we were wondering how habilitation theses should be treated under RDA. These are quite common in Germany. In case you're not familiar with this European concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habilitation Some universities grant the academic degree of Dr. habil. to somebody who has successfully completed his or her habilitation. But in many cases, there is no special academic degree connected with the habilitation. From then on, the successful candidate can call him- or herself a Privatdozent (private lecturer, PD), while they are waiting for a professorship, but this is no academic degree. According to the German cataloging rules, we only record Habilitationsschrift (habilitation thesis), but no specific degree - just as for doctoral theses, we only record Dissertation (without distinguishing between e.g. Dr. phil. and Dr. med.). Under RDA, do we now need to find out whether it's a case of Dr. habil. or not? And what about the cases where no special academic degree is granted? Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
[RDA-L] Optional additions in 2.3.2.6
We've been discussing 2.3.2.6 Collective Title and Titles of Individual Contents the other day, and there was some disagreement about its meaning, especially with regard to the optional additions. It seems to me that 2.3.2.6 covers two different cases: #1: A resource containing several works, with the source of information listing both a title for the whole and also the titles of the individual works, e.g. three novels by David Lodge: David Lodge THE CAMPUS TRILOGY Changing places Small world Nice work #2: An individual part of either a monographic series or a multipart item, with the source of information giving both the title of the individual part and also the title of the series, e.g.: Introduction to technical services Library and information science text series The rule tells us to use The campus trilogy as the title proper of the manifestation in #1, and Introduction to technical services as the title proper of the manifestation in #2. This is straightforward enough. The problems start with a closer look at the optional additions, as there seems to be a weird mix-up of work and manifestation. OA for #1: Record the titles of the individual contents as titles of related works (see 25.1). I believe this means that you can establish relationships to the works contained and then record the other titles on the source of information in this context. Related works can be recorded by using an AAP (in MARC: a title or name/title added entry), using a structured description (in MARC: a contents note) or an identifier (25.1.1.3). The identifier option is quite common in German cataloguing, where we often have hierarchical records. So we could have a composite description for the whole and also composite descriptions for the individual contents, linked together by control numbers. If I got it right so far, then I have a huge problem with the phrase as titles of related works in the OA. Let's say we have a German version of Lodge's Campus Trilogy: David Lodge DIE CAMPUS-TRILOGIE Ortswechsel Kleine Welt Saubere Arbeit In an AAP you would indeed use the *titles of the works*, i.e. the English titles (in combination with the language information), but these are certainly not the *titles of the individual contents* as you've found them on the source of information (which are in German). In a 505 note, on the other hand, I believe the titles are transcribed as they are given on the source of information. So you would use the German titles, but these are certainly not the *titles of the related works* (these would be their English counterparts). If you use the identifier method, i.e. create a composite description for each novel contained, again you would record the titles found on the source (the German titles) as titles of the manifestations, and not as titles of the works. OA for #2: Record the collective title for the larger resource as the title of a related work (see 25.1). I believe this means that you can establish a relationship to the larger work, i.e. make an added entry under the series, and record the series title there. In MARC, this is done by an AAP for the series in 830 (in German cataloguing, it would be done by identifier linking). I think there is a similar problem as in #1: For the AAP of the series, you would use the title of the work, but this might not necessarily be identical with the collective title for the larger resource, as you've found it on the source of information. Summing up this rambling mail, I think it odd that, in a part/whole relationship, some of the titles on the same source of information are treated as titles of manifestion and some are treated as titles of works. Maybe somebody can help? Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] RDA Toolkit Price Change
Isn't it amazing that *nobody* has commented on the new prices for the RDA Toolkit? Looking at http://www.rdatoolkit.org/content/2014pricechange, I had a short moment of mirth when I noticed that the symbol for the British pound is used for the Euro prices as well (let's wait and see whether it will be corrected now). But then the laughter stuck in my throat when I started to calculate. We are told that the new pricing model will be cheaper for small libraries. Indeed, there is a reduction for up to two concurrent users. Compare the new prices with the old ones (given in brackets): * only one person needing the toolkit: $ 180 ($ 195) * 1 concurrent user: $ 180 ($ 325) * 2 concurrent users: $ 342 ($ 380) Note that there is a considerable benefit if you need one concurrent user. However, If there is only one cataloger anyway, or if two concurrent users are needed, the reduction is not a large one. If, however, an institution needs more than two concurrent users, there is a substantial rise in prices - and it gets higher and higher the more users are needed. Again, compare the new prices with the old ones (given in brackets): * 3 concurrent users: $ 513 ($ 435) * 4 concurrent users: $ 684 ($ 490) * 5 concurrent users: $ 835 ($ 545) * 6 concurrent users: $ 1002 ($ 545) * 8 concurrent users: $ 1336 ($ 600) * 10 concurrent users: $ 1620 ($ 825) * 15 concurrent users: $ 2370 ($ 1075) * 20 concurrent users: $ 3060 ($ 1225) * 25 concurrent users: $ 3825 ($ 1450) Try as I may, I can't see how the new pricing model will more fairly distribute the cost of subscription across all sizes of institutions. What I see instead is a drastic rise in prices which will hit every library which needs more than two concurrent users. My guess is that many larger libraries won't be able or willing to buy the number of concurrent users which would be needed according to the number of catalogers. Heidrun On 13.11.2013 21:14, schrieb James Hennelly: Effective January 1, 2014 RDA Toolkit will be extending a new pricing model for site subscriptions. This change will make implementation of RDA: Resource Description Access more accessible for small cataloging departments and will more fairly distribute the cost of subscription across all sizes of institutions. Learn more at http://www.rdatoolkit.org/content/2014pricechange. James Hennelly Managing Editor ALA Digital Reference 1-800-545-2433, ext 5051, or312-280-5051 jhenne...@ala.org mailto:jhenne...@ala.org -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Added access point for one name in a work that is a compilation of works
Pete, Working in Germany, I can't see the full OCLC record either, but I know exactly what you mean as this is a question which has bothered me for some time, as well. In fact, I've brought the same point up twice on this list before (oh dear, it seems I'm repeating myself...). Read up these older mails in the archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca/msg08517.html http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca/msg09183.html The first thread then went somewhere else, but in the second thread, there was a very interesting answer by Bob Maxwell: http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca/msg09188.html to which I answered with this: http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca/msg09196.html I would be very interested to hear what the common practice is in the Anglo-American world: Include an added entry for the contributing author(s) only, or include a name/title entry or do neither? The last option is certainly possible according to the LC-PCC PS for 25.1, cf. this thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca/msg08543.html Heidrun On 23.11.2013 02:36, Wilson, Pete wrote: I've just joined this list and I did it so that I can ask this question. Please take a look at OCLC record #840606230, if you would. This book is conference proceedings, and has two statements of responsibility, one for a compiler (i.e. editor of compilation) and one for 20 authors, which has been shortened in the 245 $c to one name and 19 others. I made what I hope are some useful additions and changes to this record, which was already coded as RDA, but one particular thing has got me wondering. At first I instinctively added a 700 added access point for the lone author left standing in the truncated SOR, Danilo Martuccelli, because previously there was none. Then it occurred to me that the work this book embodies is a compilation, and Martuccelli is in fact responsible only for one contribution to the compilation---i.e., one component work within the larger work. He is not a co-creator of the entirety of the larger work. (Mejia Sanabria, on the other hand, is of course a contributor to the entire compilation-work and his 700 is indubitably legitimate.) Does this mean that Martuccelli, author of just one component work, should not be given a 700 added access point unless it is in fact a name/title access point that represents the component work for which he is responsible? (An AAP for the predominant or first work in a compilation is said not to be required for conference proceedings in the LC/PCC PS for 25.1, by the way.) Or maybe I'm getting too hung up worrying about works and the plain 700 author access point is just fine. Thanks for any help! Pete Wilson Vanderbilt University -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Government, jurisdiction, territorial authority?
Mac said: Verena Schaffner asked: How would you define the differences between jurisdiction, government a= nd territorial authority? They are not mutually exclusive. We normally use jurisdiction to mean the larger government in which a smaller one is found, e.g., British Columbia in Vancouver [British Columbia]. A government may be at any level, e.g., Vancouver, British Columbia, or Canada. That confirms my suspicion that in many (though not all) cases, the best solution for the German version of RDA would be to translate both government and jurisdiction with the same German term Gebietskoerperschaft. At present, the German translation uses Regierung for government, which is rather odd, because - as Verena has already pointed out - the German Regierung has a narrow meaning only. It can refer either to the process of governing something, or (more commonly) to the people who make up the administration of a country, federal state a.s.o.. So, when reading e.g. 11.2.2.5.4 in the German translation, people would believe that the preferred name of Frau Merkel and her ministers is Germany ;-) By the way: Is this also a problem for the French translation? My French is, unfortunately, very poor, but I would have thought that gouvernement also has only the narrow meaning. The French Wikipedia explicitly points to the difference in meaning between the French and the English terms: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gouvernement So maybe, in many instances, the French term collectivité territoriale might fit government better than gouvernement. Leaving problems of translation aside, I think that the RDA glossary should give all meanings of the term in question, as it is used in RDA. Therefore, the entry for government certainly needs to be supplemented by a second meaning, which shows up e.g. in 11.2.2.18.1 Heads of State, Heads of Government, Etc.. This second definition should say something like the group of people who are responsible for governing a country, federal state, city, etc. It would also be good to include jurisdiction in the glossary. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Government, jurisdiction, territorial authority?
John, It is true that in RDA government and jurisdiction are used almost interchangeably in the sense of Gebietskoerperschaft, but perhaps with subtle differences. That paragraph in 11.2.2.5.4 gives an idea of what is meant by government, but it uses jurisdiction in another sense, which the German translation gives as Justizhoheit. (Might Rechtshoheit be an equally good or better term?) I had noticed that jurisdiction in 11.2.2.5.4 ( The conventional name of a government is the name of the area over which the government exercises jurisdiction) has a different meaning than in, say, the beginning of 11.7.1.5 (For a government, record the type of jurisdiction ...). But I think that the German Justizhoheit doesn't really fit here, as this term is restricted to the administration of justice only. I've found it translated into English as judicial sovereignty. And it sounds downright wrong when it appears together with Regierung, which in German is a term belonging to the executive sphere only. When I first read that bit in the German translation, I said to myself (tongue in cheek): Oh dear, now RDA's even abolishing the separation of powers... When I'm puzzled by questions of translation, I often turn to the German translation of AACR2, published in 2002. This was prepared by a bilingual team, who did excellent work. They used vollziehende Gewalt for jurisdiction in 24.3.E1: Der gewoehnlich gebrauchte Name einer Gebietskoerperschaft ist der geographische Name des Gebietes (z.B. Staat, Provinz, Gliedstaat, regionale oder lokale Verwaltungseinheit), in dem die betreffende Gebietskoerperschaft die vollziehende Gewalt ausuebt. Note that they also used Gebietskoerperschaft for government. Perhaps the question was discussed by the AACR2 translation team as well. If so, perhaps Charles Croissant, who was a member of the team, could add some details here (if he's following this thread)? In the last paragraph of 11.7.1.5, I think the use of government is closer to Regierung in the phrase If two or more governments claim jurisdiction over the same area (e.g., as with occupying powers and insurgent governments) ... I agree, although I think even here there is some ambivalence. If we look at the examples in 11.7.1.6, they sometimes seem to refer to a specific administration (e.g., British military government), and sometimes rather to the government(s) in the wider sense (e.g., Territory under Allied occupation). This is all very difficult, and it seems that every instance of government and jurisdiction must be closely examined in order to come to a satisfactory translation. IFLA's Statement of International Cataloguing Principles (http://www.ifla.org/publications/statement-of-international-cataloguing-principles) uses the phrase jurisdiction or territorial authority. (Official German translation: Jurisdiktion [!] oder einer Gebietskoerperschaft) I must admit that I hadn't even known that Jurisdiktion exists as a German word. I checked, and it does indeed exist, but its meaning is equivalent to the administration of justice. So I think that the translation of the ICP needs to be corrected as well. I don't know for sure, but I suspect territorial authority was added for clarity. It means about the same as jurisdiction. That sounds very plausible. And then, of course the problem was finding two different German words with roughly the same meaning. But I think there really is only one which is suitable here, namely Gebietskoerperschaft. So perhaps it is simply not possible for a German translation to copy the structure of this English sentence exactly. I wonder if the English text might be improved in this respect. Would territorial authority be an unambiguous and clear word for the thing which in RDA is sometimes called government and sometimes jurisdiction? Then a way out of this muddle might be to use only territorial authority in these cases (with a suitable definition in the glossary), and restrict the use of government and jurisdiction to the other meanings of the words. Admittedly, this would be a considerable interference with the English text, and probably would not sit well with many native speakers, who are used to the present terminology. But it certainly would make it a lot easier to use RDA outside the Anglo-American world. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Government, jurisdiction, territorial authority?
Mac, Heidrun said: That confirms my suspicion that in many (though not all) cases, the best solution for the German version of RDA would be to translate both government and jurisdiction with the same German term Gebietskoerperschaft. This ignores the fact that government refers to those in charge, and jurisdiction to the area (sometime subject) of which they are in charge. But not every time - that is just the problem. For example, in 11.2.2.5.4 RDA says: The conventional name of a government is the name of the area over which the government exercises jurisdiction, giving example like France. Here, government obviously is not used for the people in charge, but in a wider sense (as defined in the glossary). Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Qualifying access points
Mac said: If the place is part of the corporate body name, obviously a geographical qualifier is not needed for the name used as an entry. If removing that geographic name for a cross reference, should it not then be a qualifier at the end of the shorter form of the name? Exactly. And that's how our current practice is, i.e. we add a qualifier (Germany) or (Austria), respectively. But I was amazed that this doesn't seem to be absolutely necessary under RDA. Personally, I see no reason for changing our practice in this respect, but other people may have different ideas. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Conference names without meeting, symposium a.s.o.
Richard, That sounds very sensible to me. So, as there was only a vague statement in my Johannes Secundus example, and the conference was not really named in the resource, I would refrain from creating an authority record for the conference at all (and also not trouble to try and find out what the conference was really called). Another case about which I'm very unsure is something like this: http://www.bibliothekartag.de/2012/ This is the website of the 101st German Librarians' Conference. I'll give you a translation of what is at the head of the page: 101st German Librarians' Conference Libraries - portals to the world of knowledge Hamburg, 22 - 25 May 2012 According to common usage among German librarians, the name of the Hamburg conference is 101st German Librarians' Conference, and not Libraries - portals to the world of knowledge. This phrase is, I's say, rather something like a motto for the conference (not even a real topic, as it is so very general). Nobody would have asked something like: Are you going to be in Hamburg for Libraries - portals to the world of knowledge?. Instead, people simply talk about the Librarians' Conference (This year, I won't be able to make it to the Librarians' Conference.). Most of my colleagues probably would be hard pressed to remember the motto/topic of such a conference, even if they attended. In publications resulting from these conferences, typically both the motto/topic and the German Librarians' Conference name will appear on the t.p., as can be seen e.g. on the brochure with the conference programme: http://www.bibliothekartag.de/2012/media/PDFs/Bibliothekartag_HP_low_14_05.pdf Due to my personal knowledge, I would choose German Librarians' Conference as the preferred name, and make the motto/topic a variant name only. But one might also argue that according to 11.2.2.5.4, the preferred name should be Libraries - portals to the world of knowledge (as the specific name of its own in contrast to the more general name as one of a series of conferences. None of the examples at 11.2.2.5.4 here shows such a case, though, so maybe it shouldn't be treated under this instruction. How would you deal with this? Heidrun Heidrun I wouldn't assume that the title of a conference's proceedings was the name of the conference itself, without an explicit statement to that effect. It does have us scratching our heads occasionally - it's a new issue to deal with, now that LCRI 21.1.B1 has bitten the dust. We were very glad to see the change in practice, though. We started following the LCRIs nearly 20 years ago, and it was most frustrating that a conference would be considered un-named even in the face of a statement like these are the proceedings of a conference, held as one of a series of conferences at the so-and-so conference centre, and the name of the conference is Fish. Un-named. Strictly speaking. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: 05 November 2013 19:33 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Conference names without meeting, symposium a.s.o. Reading up on the treatment of conferences under RDA, I got a bit worried when I came to the question of the name of a conference. There's a very good presentation http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/source/special_topics_conferences.ppt which, among many other useful things, explains that the name of conference does not have to include a word like meeting, symposium a.s.o. any longer (slides 3-7). One of the examples given in the British Library guide to RDA name authority records (in the Toolkit, under global workflows) is: 111 2_ |a Ritual, Conflict and Consensus: Comparing Case Studies in Asia and Europe (Conference) |d (2010 : |c Budmerice, Slovakia) http://lccn.loc.gov/nb2012014893 So far, so good. But I find it difficult to imagine how this rule works in practice. In the Ritual example, there seems to have been explicit information in the book which made it clear that Ritual, Conflict and Consensus: Comparing Case Studies in Asia and Europe really was the name of the event (as the 670 field shows). But I assume that in many cases, all you've got is a resource with some title and some indication that the contents of the resource are the proceedings of a meeting, symposium or some such, which was held in a certain a place at a certain time. The title of the book may be the exact name of the conference (as it was held), or it may be something similar to the original name, or maybe the conference was called something quite different. For example, there is a book with the title
Re: [RDA-L] Qualifying access points
Following this lively discussion, I find it harder and harder to make up
my own mind...
With persons, I believe that (as I've said before) using dates as a
means of distinction doesn't really help a lot. And as long as the data
from the authority record is easily accessible (which it is in many
German catalogs) there is probably no real need for unique text strings
here.
I'm not so sure about corporate bodies. Here, I believe it may be really
confusing for patrons if they see what looks like the same thing twice
(maybe because one doesn't expect several corporate bodies to have the
same name as one does expect several people to have the same name?).
The thing which triggered of my initial question were references from
shorter forms of the name. For example, in German cataloguing it's quite
common to make a reference from a shorter form when the name of the
corporate body starts with a geographical adjective, as this might be
easily omitted in a search. I'm not sure that this kind of reference as
is common in Anglo-American cataloguing, though (I think not).
Now, if you leave out the geographical adjective, you can easily end up
with similar forms for different corporate bodies. E.g., there is a
Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Psychologie (German Society for Psychology)
and an Oesterreichische Gesellschaft fuer Psychologie (Austrian
Society for Psychology). The authorized access points are distinct, but
if you leave out the geographical adjectives, then you end up with
Gesellschaft fuer Psychologie in both cases. I really think that these
things need to be qualified by (Germany) or (Austria) to make them
work in an index, and I was a bit amazed to find that RDA doesn't seem
to require this.
Of course, an alternative might be to automatically show bits from the
rest of the authority record to allow for identification. German
authority records for corporate bodies include ISO codes for the
countries, so Germany and Austria could, in principle, be always
shown in addition to the name. On the other hand, I wouldn't want
Germany and Austria to show up together with the preferred names of
these corporate bodies, which already include this information. So, a
purely automatic solution seems a bit difficult here. At least, more so
than with persons, where it's safe to say that information like country
and profession will always be useful.
Interestingly, the German RAK rules have the concept of a localized
corporate body (in German: ortsgebundene Koerperschaft) in contrast to
a non-localized corporate body. National societies like the ones I
mentioned before are non-localized. Examples for localized corporate
bodies include everything which is purely local, e.g. a local sports
club, and also corporate bodies with a stationary facility like museums,
schools, a.s.o. For a localized corporate body, the place is always
added in angle brackets. So, the heading for my former library, the
Wuerttembergische Landesbibliothek (Wurttemberg State Library) in
Stuttgart, according to RAK is Wuerttembergische Landesbibliothek
Stuttgart. If you leave out the geographical adjective at the
beginning, you're still left with a distinct access point,
Landesbibliothek Stuttgart, which cannot be mixed up with other
State Libraries.
So, the concept of localized corporate body certainly had some
advantages. But it's already history, as we abandoned this rule in 2012
in order to move closer to RDA. So, now the authorized access point for
this library is Wuerttembergische Landesbibliothek only, without the
Stuttgart, because the place is not part of the name.
Heidrun
Mac said:
Thomas said:
I already make extensive use of that data in the new RDA-based MARC
authority fields when checking authority records. RDA authority
records are a delight to work with, even with the few odd updates to
access points such as spelled out terms.
What good does recording this data in an authority record accomplish
if patrons have no access to it? Some libraries are adding discovery
layers which make no use of authorities at all.
To help patrons, the qualifying data should show up in hitlists, i.e.,
be part of the access point (aka entry).
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
[RDA-L] Conference names without meeting, symposium a.s.o.
Reading up on the treatment of conferences under RDA, I got a bit worried when I came to the question of the name of a conference. There's a very good presentation http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/source/special_topics_conferences.ppt which, among many other useful things, explains that the name of conference does not have to include a word like meeting, symposium a.s.o. any longer (slides 3-7). One of the examples given in the British Library guide to RDA name authority records (in the Toolkit, under global workflows) is: 111 2_ |a Ritual, Conflict and Consensus: Comparing Case Studies in Asia and Europe (Conference) |d (2010 : |c Budmerice, Slovakia) http://lccn.loc.gov/nb2012014893 So far, so good. But I find it difficult to imagine how this rule works in practice. In the Ritual example, there seems to have been explicit information in the book which made it clear that Ritual, Conflict and Consensus: Comparing Case Studies in Asia and Europe really was the name of the event (as the 670 field shows). But I assume that in many cases, all you've got is a resource with some title and some indication that the contents of the resource are the proceedings of a meeting, symposium or some such, which was held in a certain a place at a certain time. The title of the book may be the exact name of the conference (as it was held), or it may be something similar to the original name, or maybe the conference was called something quite different. For example, there is a book with the title proper Johannes Secundus und die roemische Liebeslyrik (Janus Secundus and Roman love poetry). In the preface, a symposium in Freiburg in 2002 is mentioned, but without giving a formal name of this. After some googling, I have reason to believe that the official name of the conference, when it was held, was 4. Neulateinisches Symposion (4th Neo-Latin Symposium). Note that I got this information not from the preferred sources of information in resources associated with the corporate body which should be the first place to look (RDA 11.2.2.2), but from other sources (including reference sources). So, maybe I shouldn't have looked there at all... But I did, and with this background information I'd now argue that Johannes Secundus und die roemische Liebeslyrik was not the name of the conference, but rather its topic. But if I had only looked at the book (and I really don't think German catalogers have much time to spare for research), I might instead have decided that Johannes Secundus und die roemische Liebeslyrik was the name of the conference. Or should, according to 11.2.2.5.4 Conventional Name (exception for conferences etc.), 4. Neulateinisches Symposion be considered to be the more general name as one of a series of conferences, and Johannes Secundus und die roemische Liebeslyrik considered to be the specific name of its own? Then the latter should be chosen as the preferred name of the conference (although I can't even be sure that the title of the book exactly reflects the topic as it was announced for the symposium). I do hope somebody can ease my mind and give me some hints as to how these things are treated in practice. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Corporate bodies as creators: festschrift, corporate brochure a.s.o.
John, Isn't a festschrift by definition a compilation of of works by different persons, families, or corporate bodies? As such it would fall under RDA 6.27.1.4 and the authorized access point would be the preferred title of the compilation, so no corporate main entry. Yes, but isn't that also true for the collected papers of a conference? Yet, these get main entry under the conference, according to 19.2.1.1.1 d) i) (works that report the collective activity of a conference). (At least, I believe they should, although in practice I've often seen only an added entry for the conference). So I had assumed it would also be possible that 19.2.1.1.1 a) (works of an administrative nature dealing with the following aspects of the body itself) might override a title main entry. But judging from Mac's answer and yours, this is simply not the case. This does help a lot for my understanding. Would it be fair to say that multiple authorship very strongly suggests that a resource should not be treated under 19.2.1.1.1? Then a festschrift for a corporate body or its website would usually be outside the scope of 19.2.1.1.1, and it would also fit in with Mac's assessment of a corporate brochure as a borderline case. Inspired by the discussion of RDA 11.3 in another thread, I just visited the website of the Australian National Measurment Institute and looked at their brochure, which is quite a good example of the thing I had in mind (takes some time to load, however): http://www.measurement.gov.au/Documents/NMIbrochure.pdf Here, there is no indication of who the author or authors were. It is certainly about the body, but not really about the aspects listed in 19.2.1.1.1 a). So my feeling now is that title main entry might be the safer choicer. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Corporate bodies as creators: festschrift, corporate brochure a.s.o.
Mac, Hedrun said: Corporate bodies are considered to be the originator if A) they have prepared the work or B) they have initiated and edited the work What about prepared by Alpha Consulting for Beta Society? Often societies, government offices, and other corporate bodies, commission a study, e.g., environmental assessments. I'm afraid you'll be scandalized: Apart from corporate originators, there is another class of corporate bodies according to RAK, called other participating corporate body. Among this group fall corporate bodies which have, e.g., stimulated, initiated, sponsored the work. RAK doesn't deem those worthy of getting an entry at all. So the Beta Society wouldn't even be added entry. Alpha Consulting would be the corporate originator, but would only get an added entry (unless it was named in the title proper, which seems unlikely in this case). In practice, of course, people do not always follow this restrictive rule and might still make an added entry if they think the Beta Society is important. There is also a special set of rules for usage in libraries of government agencies and parliaments, and these are much more generous with added entries. And, specialized libraries generally tend to make more entries than what is common in the more general academic libraries. But still, as I said before, the German tradition is indeed fairly restrictive with respect to corporate bodies. There is a widespread belief that the only people who ever search for a corporate body are librarians ;-) So this is another area where German catalogers will have to adapt a lot when we join the RDA community. We'll even have to get used to lots of new corporate bodies. In my workshops on RDA, I always get a good laugh when I explain that ships and presidents are considered to be corporate bodies. Heidrun Postscript: Another thing which is highly amusing for German catalogers are the rules on spirits. -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Corporate bodies as creators: festschrift, corporate brochure a.s.o.
Mac said: Our practice has changed drastically. For example, once Journal of the American Chemical Society would be been entered under the Society. Actually, it still is under the German rules. RAK has a rule which is similar (yet not identical) to RDA's idea of corporate bodies which are responsible for originating, issuing, or causing to be issued. The definition in RAK is: a corporate body which has either prepared *or* initiated and edited an anonymous work. So, there is a precondition here (unknown to the Anglo-American world) that there is no personal author. Such a corporate body is called the Urheber (a possible translation might be originator). If this corporate body is named in the title proper, it gets main entry (with an added entry under the title proper). If it's not named in the title proper, main entry will be under the title proper, and the corporate body gets an added entry. I must say that I find this a beautifully simple rule (unfortunately, quite incompatible with RDA). #1: a festschrift for a corporate body, e.g. for the 75th or 100th anniversary of the body No, the body would bet a 610 and perhaps a 710. but not a 110 (speaking in MARCese). It was not produced by the body. Festschrift has multiple authors. Maybe there are differences between what is common in Germany and in the Anglo-American world. Here, in the majority of cases a festschrift for a corporate body will have in fact been produced by the body itself (unless there is a Friends of ... corporate body, which may step in here). I assume that the usual thing is for the managing board to say We'll have an anniversary next year, wouldn't it be a good idea to put together a festschrift? In RDA terms, I think that these festschrifts (is that the correct English plural of this lovely German loan word? In German, it would be Festschriften) are either issued or, at least, caused to be issued by the corporate body. Quite often, the corporate body is also named as editor. That's what made me think that the corporate body might be seen as the creator under RDA. #2: a brochure produced by a corporate body to present itself and its services to the public Yes. 110 and 610, assuming no personal author. But is is borderline. #3: the website of a corporate body Depends of the nature of the website. Usually they are of mixed responsibility, and would have title main entry. My feeling as that all of these should have the corporate body as the creator. Make that a creator. Part of the ambiguity of RDA is creator. A creator may be a main entry or and added entry. The old terminology is clearer. The difficulty really seems to be the correct understanding of creator. Applying the rules in 19.2.1.1.1 is one thing, but bringing them into line with the idea of what a creator *should be* is quite another thing. If we take RDA's basic definition of creator as a person, family, or corporate body responsible for the creation of a work, it is hard to see how a corporate body could *not* be the creator of its own website. The resource should be both created by, *and* deal with, the body, e.g., an annual report. Being about the body is not enough. Anyone may write a history of a body, and that person would be the main entry. Yes, I quite understand that. This doesn't conflict with my idea of a creator at all, as here the corporate body is really the subject of the work. Corporate festschrifts and brochures are, I think, different in that they are mainly produced to present and, as it were, market the body to general public. Oh dear, this is all very difficult. German catalogers will need a lot of guidance here when we start with RDA. Perhaps one basic guiding principle might be to use corporate body as creator very sparingly, only in cases which clearly fit the examples given in 19.2.1.1.1. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Can corporate bodies only have one associated place?
Adam said: I think the instruction was written as it is because only one place may be used in a qualifier when needed to break a conflict. Yes, that seems very plausible. One gets the feeling that the person(s) who wrote the instruction were mainly thinking of access points and not of the recording of places as separate elements. But in MARC certainly more than one place can be recorded in the 370 $e. That's very good to hear. So there should be no objection to the German community recording more than one place, if appropriate. I think a simple fix would be to propose a wording change to 11.3.3.3 that says record the name of the local place or places ... Yes, and that might even go on a fast track. On the other hand, there is another thing in 11.3.3.3 which I find a bit odd, and which might warrant a full proposal: Doesn't the instruction mix up two quite different things? - the area in which a corporate body is active - the local place in which a corporate body has its headquarters A corporate body may well have a a character that is national, state, provincial, etc. and also have an easily identifiable local place where it is located. It should be possible to record both kinds of place, preferably in different elements. So it might be a good idea to define a new element place of activity to keep the two aspects apart. Mind, I quite understand that in such a case the state etc. will be more helpful for breaking a conflict than the place of the headquarters. But I believe this should be handled by a rule under 11.13 (Constructing access points to represent corporate bodies) and not by one in 11.3. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Corporate bodies as creators: festschrift, corporate brochure a.s.o.
Bernhard said: 28.10.2013 09:11, Heidrun Wiesenmüller: RAK has a rule which is similar (yet not identical) to RDA's idea of corporate bodies which are responsible for originating, issuing, or causing to be issued. The definition in RAK is: a corporate body which has either prepared *or* initiated and edited an anonymous work. So, there is a precondition here (unknown to the Anglo-American world) that there is no personal author. Such a corporate body is called the Urheber (a possible translation might be originator). If this corporate body is named in the title proper,... ... or if the name would need to be added to the title proper in order to individualize the title [in the case of a generic title] ... Quite. I was simplying matters here a bit. ... it gets main entry (with an added entry under the title proper). If it's not named in the title proper, main entry will be under the title proper, and the corporate body gets an added entry. I must say that I find this a beautifully simple rule (unfortunately, quite incompatible with RDA). Its beauty is that it is a purely *formalistic* rule that does not require cataloger's judgement of the content. This is a very valid assessment. Indeed, the German RAK rules have a decided preference for formal criteria. I think there is an implicit ideal here: That, using the rules, cataloger A would necessarily end up with the same result for a certain resource as cataloger B. This ideal (which is, of course, unachievable even under RAK) can obviously reached much easier by formal criteria than by using criteria of content. Another consequence of this ideal is that RAK has always tried to cover every possible case. So, German catalogers get very dissatisfied if they come upon a case which is not covered by the rules. Also, using formal criteria usually takes up less time than pondering criteria of content. On the other hand, my feeling is that cataloger's judgment is seen as something quite positive in the Anglo-American world, and it is accepted that this will lead to different results. There is more built-in freedom in the rules (even more so in RDA than in AACR2). The German community will need to learn to cope with this new freedom. It won't be easy ;-) Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Can corporate bodies only have one associated place?
Richard, There are sub-elements for Location of Conference, Etc., and Location of Headquarters, but in 11.3.1.1 these are just examples (note the instruction says .e.g.). I did indeed notice the e.g. and found that odd as well. If location of conference and location of headquarters are just examples, one would at least have expected a third element called Other place associated with the corporate body to be used for other cases. I think there's a problem with 11.3.3.3, that could be resolved by having clearly defined elements for the kinds of places associated with corporate bodies. In the examples, Ill. is not the location of headquarters of the Illinois Republican Party. According to its website, its headquarters are Springfield and Chicago. Illinois is the area where it is active (I would put this in 370 $f). There should be an element for it. Similarly, the National Measurement Laboratory (now the National Measurement Institute) has its headquarters in Sydney (370 $e). Australia is its associated country (370 $c). So these different types of place should be clearly distinguished as RDA elements. The text of 11.3.3.3 actually belongs in 11.13.1.3, as it's about constructing the access point, not about recording the element. I absolutely agree. I think a proposal is needed to restructure what is now in 11.3, on the lines above. There is a similiar issue with 11.7, which we've tried to resolve with 6JSC/BL/12rev. I guess the BL would be willing to draft something for JSC 2014, unless anyone else wants to. If the BL would be willing to prepare a proposal for 2014, I'd be very happy. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Corporate bodies as creators: festschrift, corporate brochure a.s.o.
Mac said: In our practice, it is not enough to have produced the work, the work must be official. An art galley produces as exhibition catalogue, but the main entry is the artist, due to the reproductions of the artist's works being the prominent feature (336 still image precedes 336 text). Both the gallery and writer of added text are added entries. The gallery would be added entry according to our rules as well. But exhibition catalogs fall under a special rule (they always have main entry under title - don't ask me why), so I won't dwell on this example. I'm afraid I haven't explained the gist of the relevant RAK rules very well. I can try again for those who are interested (although, of course, the whole thing is of a somewhat academic nature considering that we'll start using RDA in 2015). The corporate originator (if I may use this term as a translation for the German Urheber) is not necessarily the producer in the sense you mentioned above. In many cases, the producing will be done by a commercial publisher. Also, there can - by definition - be no conflict between a personal author and a corporate body. The German cataloging tradition has always been a bit guarded with respect to corporate bodies. Our older code of rules, the Prussian Instructions, didn't have entries under corporate bodies at all. Interestingly enough, this seems to have worked quite well ;-) But lets get back to RAK. For a corporate body to be main entry, three conditions must be met: #1 The work doesn't have a personal author #2 The body must be the corporate originator #3 The body must be named in the title proper (or its name would need to be added, in the case of a generic title proper) Corporate bodies are considered to be the originator if A) they have prepared the work or B) they have initiated and edited the work Case A): Sometimes this is explicitly mentioned in the s-o-r (e.g., prepared by the Scientific Advisory Board of the Federal Medical Association), in other cases you'd assume it from other evidence like the type of publication (e.g., in the case of a corporate brochure) or the wording of the title proper (e.g., Guidelines of the body XY for topic Z). Case B): Quite often the corporate body is named as editor or is placed on the t.p. in what might be called editor position. If there is no evidence to the contrary, you'd assume that it has also initiated the work (this fact usually isn't explicitly mentioned in the resources). Case B) often covers publications which are not official in the sense of RDA 19.2.1.1.1 b) (works that record the collective thought of the body). But in most of these cases, the corporate body will not be named in the title and therefore only get added entry. I've never taken a sample, but I think that in the majority of cases, the German rules and RDA lead to the same results. But there are some noteworthy examples. We've already mentioned journals of the type Journal of body XY, which always get main entry under the corporate body according to RAK. Another example would be official statements, guidelines etc. of the corporate body, if the body is not named in the title: The corporate body would then get main entry under RDA, but added entry under RAK. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
[RDA-L] Corporate bodies as creators: festschrift, corporate brochure a.s.o.
The German rules for main entry under corporate bodies differ very much from the Anglo-American tradition, which makes it sometimes difficult for me to decide when RDA 19.2.1.1.1 (Corporate bodies considered to be creators) is to be applied. Would the following types of publications usually be considered as falling under 19.2.1.1.1 a) or not? (works of an administrative nature dealing with any of the following aspects of the body itself: ...) #1: a festschrift for a corporate body, e.g. for the 75th or 100th anniversary of the body #2: a brochure produced by a corporate body to present itself and its services to the public (e.g., a pamphlet which you can pick up when visiting an institution) #3: the website of a corporate body My feeling as that all of these should have the corporate body as the creator. Undoubtedly, these publications deal with the body itself. But I'm not absolutely sure whether they deal with the *right aspects* of the body in order to fall under the rule. As these types of publications are aimed at a the general public, they will usually not contain internal information (i). They may include some information about its officers and staff (e.g, they will list contact persons; a festschrift might also include a list of former presidents or some such), but are certainly not directories (ii). The may also touch upon its resources (iii), but they aren't catalogues or inventories. So, how are these things usually handled? Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
[RDA-L] Can corporate bodies only have one associated place?
Can it really be that 11.3.3.3 allows only for the recording of *one* local place associated with a corporate body? The instruction reads: For other bodies, record the name of the local place that is commonly associated with the name of the body (...). Unlike 11.3.2.3 (Recording location of conference, etc.), there is no explicit provision for recording more than one place (If the conference was held in more than one place, record the names of each of the places in which it was held.). The wording in 11.3.3.3 is also different from e.g. that of 9.11.1.3 (Recording places of residence, etc.), where it says: Record the place or places But then, what about corporate bodies with two (equally important) locations? I'm thinking, for example, of the University of Duisburg-Essen, which is located in two cities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Duisburg-Essen At present, in such a case we record both places in the authority record (the field is repeatable). An extract from the record looks like this (please note that the format of the German authority file is not MARC, although it was based on it): 110 Universität Duisburg-Essen 410 University of Duisburg-Essen 551 Duisburg $4 orta 551 Essen $4 orta (The 551 fields in fact contain links to the authority records for the cities of Duisburg and Essen; the code orta expresses that it is the location of a corporate body). To me, this seems sensible enough, as the university really is associated with both cities in people's minds. It wouldn't be very satisfactory to record only one of them. Also, I really wouldn't know which place should be given precedence in this case. The website gives addresses both in Duisburg and in Essen, and the administration is situated in both campuses as well. I couldn't even find out where the main office of the president is located (and that would be a very arbitrary criterion, wouldn't it). But maybe (hopefully) I have misunderstood the rule, and it is perfectly possible to record several places under this element?? Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] title page verso in 500 note
Karen said, But, we are avoiding the Latin terms in RDA as often as poss., correct? Verso is a perfectly good English word, which you can find in any decent dictionary. Granted, it's a loan word from Latin. But so is title and page (which I assume were brought to the English language via Old French) - and about a third of all English words, I believe ;-) Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] RDA revisions and the November 2013 meeting of the Joint Steering Committee
John, I'm glad to hear you'll be blogging again from this year's JSC meeting. Thank you very much for taking the time, it is very much appreciated! Heidrun On 21.10.2013 19:11, JOHN C ATTIG wrote: The discussions have not yet taken place; the documents being announced are proposals and formal responses. The Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA will meet November 4-8 in Washington, DC; decisions on the proposed changes will be made at that time. Two or three weeks after the meeting, an official set of Outcomes will be issued and posted on the JSC website. That document typically includes the sort of information you are asking for. During the meeting, I will be posting a daily blog describing the discussions and decisions. The blog is available at: http://www.personal.psu.edu/jxa16/blogs/resource_description_and_access_ala_rep_notes/ This blog attempts to document the decisions in some detail, and refers back to the proposals and responses. It may be less useful to you than the official outcomes. John Attig (former) ALA representative the the JSC jx...@psu.edu -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Uniquesss of entry
But there is another problem connected with AAPs in the form text
strings: An AAP which is unique with respect to authority file A does
not necessarily have to be unique with respect to authority file B as well.
AAPs may work reasonably well as long as data stays within the bounds of
one community. But if we want to have data exchange on a global level,
between several cataloging communities which have authority files of
their own, then I doubt it is still a valid strategy.
Heidrun
On 17.10.2013 23:05, Diane Hillmann wrote:
In a world where we need to disambiguate text strings, uniqueness is a
valid strategy. In a world where a unique identifier represents a
non-unique string in data, uniqueness at the string level becomes
irrelevant. We are [still] in the first world, but I hope not forever.
Diane
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 3:21 PM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca
mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
The marvelous Mary said:
It has been suggested that the 100$a does not need to be unique
because other data/fields supply the disambiguation information.
IMNSHO that should even more be the case for 245, even with
the loss
of the GMD. There is other disambiguation information.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca
mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing
HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__
\__
--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Uniqueness of name access points
Mac said: Benjamin said: While I agree that the access point should not serve as a unique identifier for systems, there is still the need for users to distinguish easily between identically-named entities in an index. It seems to me Benjamin is *very* right about this. Too much of our discussion ignores the end result of what we do, and its purpose. I agree that Ben has a very valid point here, but I'd like to make two comments: Firstly, I think that a prefabricated, static text string is not the only means of achieving that goal. Admittedly, it may be the easiest way for most current systems to display the content of one field only. But it's equally possible to combine information from several fields for display. Secondly, the current rules for AAPs for persons rely very heavily on dates, although in the majority of cases this information will not be of much help to our users. Granted, there are cases, where persons with the same name lived in different centuries, and then the dates should suffice. But for contemporary authors, the dates are certainly not a good criterion in helping me to decide which is the person I want. In LC Authorities, I find the following AAPs: Miller, Peter, 1934- Miller, Peter, 1936- Miller, Peter, 1937- Miller, Peter, 1940- Miller, Peter, 1940 August 2- Miller, Peter, 1943- Miller, Peter, 1943-1999 I can't say I find this particularly helpful. Giving information like profession, field of science, or country would serve much better. Compare the way Wikipedia handles disambiguation of persons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Miller In my opinion, even displaying one or two random titles connected with the person would be more help than giving just the dates. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] edition statements
Isn't that perhaps a case of RDA 2.5.6 Designation of a Named Revision of an Edition, i.e. could it be the updated edition of the first edition? If so, then I think the solution would be First edition, updated edition, because 2.5.6 comes after 2.5.2 according to D.1.1. As far as I know, 2.5.6 isn't capitalized. The example Roads revised in 2.5.6.3 seems to be a mistake. Heidrun On 18.10.2013 16:48, Guy Vernon Frost wrote: You can string them along separating one from the other by a comma 250;__; $a Updated edition, First edition. Sometime after the 2nd qtr OCLC update in 2104 you'll be able to repeat the 250 field. 250:__; $a Updated edition. 250;__; $a First edition. Guy Frost Associate Professor of Library Science Catalog Librarian Odum Library/Valdosta State University Valdosta, Georgia 31698-0150 229.259.5060 gfr...@valdosta.edu FDLP 0125 *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA on behalf of Baumgarten, Richard, JCL baumgart...@jocolibrary.org *Sent:* Friday, October 18, 2013 10:24 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* [RDA-L] edition statements I cannot find anywhere in 2.5 about a situation where the title page says updated edition and the verso says First edition. The title was previously published. Do I record both statements or only the statement that I know to be true? Richard Baumgarten Cataloger Johnson County Library P.O. Box 2901 Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66201-1301 (913) 826-4494 baumgart...@jocolibrary.org -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Titles of nobility
Charles, Thomas and Richard, This has been very helpful. Many thanks for your ideas! In fact, I had been mainly thinking of authority data. I find Richard's analysis quite convincing: If you *do* create an access point, you include the title (apart from the exceptions mentioned by Arthur). I was intrigued by the question because in the German data model, up to now we didn't really have what the Anglo-American world calls an authorized access point for a person. In the current format of our Common Authority File GND (which isn't MARC, but is based on it), 100 is used only for the preferred name. Dates of persons are recorded separately, in 548 fields. The connection between a title record and a person record is not created by the use of a text string (AAP). Instead, the records are directly linked by recording the identifier for the person record in the title record. For example, up to now, there is no text string Wiesenmüller, Heidrun, 1968- in the authority record for my own person. Instead, the relevant fields look like this: 100 Wiesenmüller, Heidrun 548 1968 $4 datl The code datl makes it clear that this is a year of birth (there are other codes for other kinds of dates, e.g. datv would be used for the date of a conference). Many catalogs will still show something like Wiesenmüller, Heidrun, 1968- to their users. This is done by automatically combining the information from 100 and 548 for display. With the implementation of RDA, we plan to change this: We'll still record the dates in 548, but will also have them as part of 100, similar to Anglo-American practice. I hope that this can be achieved automatically, as I wouldn't want having to input the same information twice. After the discussion here, I now think that it would be equally possible to keep our current practice under RDA, arguing that our 100 is not really an AAP, and that AAPs are not obligatory. But it may be easier for data exchange if we conform to Anglo-American practice in this respect. Titles of nobility like Graf (count) are even trickier, because up to now they were not recorded at all. For example, the preferred name for Adolf Graf von Schack according to the RAK rules is Schack, Adolf von. The title Graf is not even recorded in a separate field. I believe this has something to do with the legal status of the former nobility in Germany (but would be hard pressed to give you the details). However, I agree that it does make sense to record them, as people will most certainly associate them with the persons, whatever the law may say. If we're going to add dates in 100, it now seems logical to me to put the titles of nobility there as well. Heidrun On 17.10.2013 09:22, Richard Moore wrote: RDA doesn't require authorized access points. 9.1.2 says An authorized access point is one of the techniques used to represent ... a person. 18.4.1 gives two ways to record a relationship between a resource and a person (etc.) associated with it: by using one of these techniques: a) identifier and/or b) authorized access point. Currently we choose to create authorized access points, but in the brave new world of linked data we might only need to record separate elements, and identifiers. There is a school of thought that the authorized access point should be regarded as a temporary device until we get there. So all 9.4.1.3 is saying, is that you can record a Title of Nobility as a separate element, or you can use it in an access point, or you can do both (as we do now). 9.19.1.2 says that if you *do* create an access point, you include the title. That's my understanding, anyway. 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 McDonald, Stephen Sent: 16 October 2013 20:54 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Titles of nobility As I see it, 9.4.1.3 is simply saying that sometimes you record it as a separate element, sometimes as part of an access point, and sometimes as both. It isn't saying you always have a choice about it. It directs you to 9.19.1.2 for specific instructions on recording as part of an access point. Steve McDonald steve.mcdon...@tufts.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 3:36 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Titles of nobility I find it difficult to reconcile the following two RDA instructions concerning titles of nobility: 9.4.1.3
Re: [RDA-L] Titles of nobility
Mary Mastraccio wrote: I hope that rather than changing your practice, the Anglo-American practice will change to your practice--as in having the dates in a separate field (046) rather than using a subfield $d. It has been suggested that the 100$a does not need to be unique because other data/fields supply the disambiguation information. This is our view as well. For exactly this reason, we don't plan to follow *all* of RDA 9.19.1 to the letter. According to the current state of our discussion, the idea is not to use the additions prescribed in 9.19.1.4 to 9.19.1.7. Instead, we'd only add dates according to 9.19.1.3 (even if there's no need to distinguish between access points) and, if applicable, titles according to 9.19.1.2. There may be cases where these additions might not be enough to distinguish between two access points. But we feel that this is no problem in our data model: There will still be enough information in other data fields to distinguish between the persons. The big advantage of our linking technique is that we don't have to rely on the access point as the only means for disambiguation. It's easy to look up the complete information stored in the authority record. Personally, I would have been quite happy to keep our current practice, i.e. record the dates only in a separate field, not adding them to 100 as well. But on the other hand, the proposed procedure can perhaps be seen as a harmonious compromise between the two cataloging traditions. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
[RDA-L] Royalty: titles/states only in the language of the agency?
Working my way through the rules for nobility and royalty, there was one more thing which bothered me. For kings, etc., RDA 9.4.1.4.1 calls for recording the title and the name of the state in a language preferred by the agency. This fits in with the principle of using a well-established form in the language of the agency (9.2.2.5.2, Exception) in such cases, e.g. (for an English-speaking agency) Frederick instead of the German Friedrich. So, for an English-speaking agency, the AAP for Frederick the Great would be: Frederick II, King of Prussia, 1712-1768 This is straightforward enough, but I'm confused about the variant access points in such a case. For a variant access point, I'd use a variant name, e.g. the German form Friedrich II. But can I also change the language of title and state, in order to have both in German? This variant access point is certainly possible: Friedrich II, King of Prussia, 1712-1768 But would the followin variant access also be possible under RDA? Friedrich II, König von Preußen, 1712-1768 Looking up a couple of authority records at LC, I only came across the first type (title and state always in English). The second type (title and state in the same language as the name) would much better reflect what is common in our current cataloging. For example, here's an excerpt from the German authority record for Louis XIV of France (don't worry about the subfield codes, I know they are not the same as in real MARC): 100 $P Ludwig $n XIV. $l Frankreich, König 400 $P Louis $n XIV. $l France, King 400 $P Louis $n XIV. $l France, Roi 400 $P Ludovicus $n XIV. $l Gallia, Rex 548 1638 $b 1715 $4 datl A consistency in language here seems only logical to me, and I would be sorry if this wasn't possible under RDA. But maybe, I'm simply worrying too much about the rules ;-) Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Titles of nobility
Kevin said: I agree about being sure we don't let current practices limit our design for the future. But if data is going to be tagged as being RDA, then it needs to conform to RDA 'Äsguidelines--which means that if authorized access points are being used, they need to be made unique. That's not adopting Anglo-American practices, it's adopting RDA. Well, well, well. If that's so, then it seems to me that LC and PCC should stop marking their data as RDA at once, because they're certainly not complying to all the rules. For example, LC does not apply chapter 17 in the current implementation scenario at all (LC-PCC PS for 17.0). And, as I've pointed out before, they also do not apply 5.3 as it is envisaged by RDA, cf. my earlier mails: http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca/msg11091.html http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca/msg11094.html But I think we're all agreed that these practices make a lot of sense in the current technical environment. With enhancements of the technical framework on the one hand, and the further development and improvement of RDA on the other, I think that theory (the rules) and practice (the application) will move closer and closer together and will - at some point in the future - be completely in agreement. But we're not there yet. Coming back to the point in question: I really think we're fine here, as we don't use AAPs to represent persons. We use identifiers, which is perfectly legitimate under RDA. In addition to this identifier, we'll also supply something which is extremely close to the AAP (in fact, I assume that it will be identical in at least 95 % of the cases). Think of it as an add-on. Also, in data exchange, the almost-AAP won't stand on its own, but will always come in combination with an identifier. It will be unique, and it will be easy to spot. So I really can't see a problem here. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
[RDA-L] Titles of nobility
I find it difficult to reconcile the following two RDA instructions concerning titles of nobility: 9.4.1.3 (Recording Titles of Persons) says: Record titles as separate elements, as parts of access points, or as both. This also refers to titles of nobility (9.4.1.5). So 9.4.1.3 seems to allow for recording a title of nobility as a separate element *only* (i.e. not also as part of the access point). On the other hand, 9.19.1.1 (General Guidelines on Constructing Access Points to Represent Persons) says: Make the additions specified at 9.19.1.2 even if they are not needed to distinguish access points representing different persons with the same name. 9.19.1.2 lists, among other things, a title of (…) nobility (see 9.4.1.5). So this rule seems to say that a title of nobility must *always* be recorded as part of the access point. This seems somewhat contradictory. Perhaps there is something I've overlooked? Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Titles of nobility
Stephen, As I see it, 9.4.1.3 is simply saying that sometimes you record it as a separate element, sometimes as part of an access point, and sometimes as both. It isn't saying you always have a choice about it. It directs you to 9.19.1.2 for specific instructions on recording as part of an access point. Thanks, I see what you mean. I had indeed interpreted this as having a choice, similar to the rules about dates of person in 9.3.1.3: Record dates as separate elements, as parts of access points, or as both. For additional instructions on recording dates as parts of authorized access points, see 9.19.1.3 (date of birth and/or death) or 9.19.1.5 (period of activity of the person and/or profession or occupation). My reading for this was: If you choose to record dates as part of the access point, then 9.19.1.3/5 will tell you how to do it. This didn't seem odd to me because not recording dates as part of the access point is perfectly possible (actually, that's what we've been doing in Germany for years; there's no real need if title and authority records are linked). So I thought the same principle applies to titles. But you said sometimes you record it as a separate element, sometimes as part of an access point, and sometimes as both. Could you give me an example for the first case in current cataloging? I can only think of a scenario where, on principle, no access points are used for persons, because otherwise 9.19.1.2 would apply. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Titles of nobility
Good point. Thanks for pointing me to the exceptions. But I agree it's not clear whether in these cases you'd want to record the title at all. Heidrun Arthur Liu wrote: This is just a guess, but could examples of the first case include the exceptions listed under 9.19.1.2? If the titles or designations in those exceptions are not added to the access point, then perhaps they could be included as other elements (e.g. 368) in an authority record. However, the three examples shown in 9.19.1.2 under the exceptions do not actually have a 368 field in their records at authorities.loc.gov http://authorities.loc.gov, so I am unsure. -Arthur Liu On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de mailto:wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote: Stephen, As I see it, 9.4.1.3 is simply saying that sometimes you record it as a separate element, sometimes as part of an access point, and sometimes as both. It isn't saying you always have a choice about it. It directs you to 9.19.1.2 for specific instructions on recording as part of an access point. Thanks, I see what you mean. I had indeed interpreted this as having a choice, similar to the rules about dates of person in 9.3.1.3 http://9.3.1.3: Record dates as separate elements, as parts of access points, or as both. For additional instructions on recording dates as parts of authorized access points, see 9.19.1.3 (date of birth and/or death) or 9.19.1.5 (period of activity of the person and/or profession or occupation). My reading for this was: If you choose to record dates as part of the access point, then 9.19.1.3/5 http://9.19.1.3/5 will tell you how to do it. This didn't seem odd to me because not recording dates as part of the access point is perfectly possible (actually, that's what we've been doing in Germany for years; there's no real need if title and authority records are linked). So I thought the same principle applies to titles. But you said sometimes you record it as a separate element, sometimes as part of an access point, and sometimes as both. Could you give me an example for the first case in current cataloging? I can only think of a scenario where, on principle, no access points are used for persons, because otherwise 9.19.1.2 would apply. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi http://www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] RDA 6.2.2.10
Adam and Kevin, Thanks for the examples. Now I understand much better what this is all about. Perhaps a comparison with the German rules is of interest here. The older German cataloging code, the Prussian instructions (1899/1908), had elaborate rules for collective titles. But with the development of the RAK rules in the 1970s, these were much reduced. RAK only knows one single collective title ([Sammlung], i.e. [Collection]); so there is no works, novels etc., and no selections. The RAK rule for the collective title isn't much in use nowadays. I think that most people feel (wrongly, I suppose) that it was only relevant in the age of card catalogs. But anyway, here's what the rule says: Make an added name-title entry (Name of author: [Collection] or Name of author: [Collection] Language]) under the following conditions: - if only the titles of the individual works are on the source of information (there is no title for the whole) - if the title of the collection is of a generic type, e.g. Collected works, Schiller's plays, Letters from the years ..., Selected philosophical writings a.s.o. I think this comes close to Kevin's idea of when a collective title should be used. Editions of poems or books of photographs or some such of one person do not fall under this rule. They are not treated as collections, but as single works. This makes a lot of sense to me: When a poet publishes a book of poems under a specific title, he or she will probably think of this as *one* work. Now back to RDA. After some more thinking, I wonder whether the problem might be that we're mixing up two quite different things: The question of what is the title of the work with a need for collocating certain types of publication. As it stands, RDA seems to fall short in two ways: 1. As Kevin has already pointed out, it is quite odd not to use a distinct title (perhaps even one chosen by the author) as the title of the work. Also, the decision which cases fall under the first sentence of 6.2.2.10 must be very difficult, so I'm not surprised that the application is somewhat arbitrary. 2. The collocation mechanism doesn't work as well as it should, because the cases treated unter the first sentence of 6.2.2.10 would not come up under the collective title. Could we perhaps solve these problems by clearly distinguishing between the title of the work on the one hand and the mechanism for collocation on the other? If you think about it, something like Short stories. Selections isn't *really* a title of the work. It is rather a description, telling us it is a collection and giving information about the genre and the degree of completeness. These are certainly attributes of the work, but it's not the title. In RDA, they should be placed somewhere else, probably in chapter 7, and they should be recorded in every case, quite regardless of whether the title is distinct or generic. The reason for disguising information about genre etc. as the title of the work may be that this is one of the few work elements which are recorded in the composite description - and therefore can be used for collocation. If we had records for every work, and these were linked with the manifestations, we could record information like collection, genre and completeness as separate elements in the work record. Then a user could search the records for the works for the combination of a certain author, collection and e.g. short stories, and also ask for all manifestations linked with these work records. I remember that ALA mentions the aspect of genre as a desideratum in their excellent discussion paper on the treatment of subjects: http://www.rda-jsc.org/working2.html#6ala-discussion2. This was welcomed in the German response: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ALA-Discussion-2-DNB-response.pdf Heidrun On 07.10.2013 17:41, Kevin M Randall wrote: Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: So, I wonder: What is the function of the first sentence in 6.2.2.10? Should it be seen as the basic rule or rather as an exception for rare cases? I do think that the expectation behind RDA 6.2.2.10 is that most compilations published in modern times will be entered under the title appearing on the resource. The guidelines in .1-.3 are for those instances in which there is no collective title (like the Barnes and Noble editions of classic works that have only the author's name and the titles of the individual works included), or perhaps has only the creator's name in a title position on the resource, or just the creator's name and a generic title like Novels, Stories, etc. The increasingly common practice of applying the conventional collective title even to things that have their own title is, in my opinion, just bizarre. Not only that, it is quite inconsistent; for instance, it is applied *much* more often to poetry collections than it is to short story collections. Why don't we see books of Stephen King's short
Re: [RDA-L] RDA 6.2.2.10
Adger Williams wrote: Actually, since these are collective titles for collections of works, I am not quite sure to what kind of entity Bernard's link would point. It wouldn't be to a single work record; it could be to some kind of collective entity or to a position in a genre/form index or to something else probably. I think that the collection as a whole is a work as well, containing other works. So it should be possible to have work records for collections, which in turn are linked to the individual works. True, some aspects of work records for collections are very tricky, but I think that the problems could be solved. Actually, there is work being done in this area by some colleagues from DNB. Heidrun Postscript: I know that my simplistic view is not in line with the results of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates, but I still think that the model they've come up with is a misconception. -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Language of Media type/carrier type/content type
Elhanan, The German-speaking community is still preparing for the implementation of RDA, and many decisions have yet to be made. So I cannot tell you for certain how we're going to do it. But we have a strong tradition of recording information about e.g. carrier in coded form. For display, they can be shown in various ways (mostly, in our catalogs they are displayed as icons). Therefore, my expectation is that we will go on using codes, at least internally. For international data exchange, these codes could then be transformed into English language terms (or terms in another language, if desired). I believe codes are especially useful in a multilingual environment. You can decide how they're going to be displayed. It's easy to implement displays in several languages and let the users choose between them. In its response to DNB/2, http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-DNB-2-LC-response.pdf LC proposed expanding RDA 0.12 (Encoding RDA Data) like this: When RDA instructions specify recording a name or a term in an element, the data may be recorded using a substitute encoding scheme (e.g., a country code from ISO 3166 for a place name), provided the encoding scheme is identified. I like this idea very much. Heidrun On 06.10.2013 07:58, Elhanan Adler wrote: Dear colleagues What do people in non-English speaking countries do about the terminology of these fields (MARC 336-338)? Do you translate them (all terms?) to the local language of cataloging? Or do you leave them in English since they are 'behind the scenes' data which you do not display directly? Here in Israel we use four distinct languages of cataloging (English, Hebrew, Arabic, Russian) according to the script of the item being cataloged (We use vernacular script in the regular MARC fields) and it would be technically simplest to just use English in 336-338 for all. What are other countries with multiple languages of cataloging doing? Elhanan Elhanan Adler Email: elhan...@savion.huji.ac.il Mobile tel.: 972-54-6829657 Tel. (home) 972-2-6515977 Fax (home): 972-2-6517129 -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] question about Publisher Name
I said (with respect to information about an imprint): I can think of at least three possible ways in which such an information can appear in the resources: #1: a statement like X, an imprint of Y #2: X on the title page, with an additional information, e.g. on the verso of the title page: X is an imprint of Y #3: X on the title page, but Y on the verso of the title page, e.g. in a copyright statement (here I can deduce und usually easily verify that X is an imprint of Y, but it doesn't say so explicitly on the resource) In cases #2 and #3, I don't really see how I could reasonably give the imprint information in the publication statement. In both cases, I would simply take X from the preferred source of information and leave it at that. Therefore I'm reluctant to treat #1 differently. Come to think of it, if somebody feels that it important to include the information about the imprint, maybe the best way to do it would be a note on publication statement (2.20.7). However, I think the general public is not really much interested in being told to which publisher a certain brand name belongs, e.g. that Academic Press nowadays really is Elsevier. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Uniqueness of titles proper
Mac said: steven Arakawa posted: I understand that work titles can conflict and we would need to break the conflict in such cases ... Only if neither has an author main entry (or author as part of AAP as Kevin would say). Of course two different works should not have the same preferred title if they are by the same person, but that is a rare problem. It certainly makes a lot of sense to say that there cannot be a conflict if the authors are different. But still I'd like to point out that this is not what RDA says. Look at 5.3: If the preferred title for a work is the same as or similar to a title for a different work, or to a name for a person, family, or corporate body, differentiate them by recording as many of the additional identifying elements in the following list as necessary. There is no exception for works with different creators. The LC-PCC PS for 6.27.1.9 shows a marked discrepancy to RDA 5.3, because it exchanges the title of the work for the AAP: If the authorized access point is the same as the authorized access point of another work represented by a bibliographic record or name/series authority record, add a parenthetical qualifier to the access point. Mind, I'm absolutely in favour of this practice, and the German-speaking community will do likewise. I think it would be a nightmare if we'd have to verify there is nothing else with the same work title in virtually every case, or add an identifying element if there was. But we should still bear in mind that this is not really RDA. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] RDA 6.2.2.10 (was: alternative titles and variant access points)
Trying to follow this thread (which is a rather difficult one for somebody not cataloging in MARC), it occured to me that it touches upon something which has puzzled me for some time. Kevin wrote: Nature is called: Smith, John. Poems. Selections The Sea is called: Smith, John. Poems. Selections This is contrary to RDA, which requires that there be something to distinguish them. Interestingly, these examples actually lead me to that other discussion that's been going on, about RDA 6.2.2.10. What titles are these works *known* by? I very strongly argue that the preferred titles for these works should be Nature and The sea, since that is what everyone knows them by (the creator, the publisher, bookstores, library selectors, researchers, etc.). It makes considerably more sense to have the following AAPs: Smith, John. Nature Smith, John. Sea and, in another mail on this thread: That is an incredibly strict reading of the word resources in 6.2.2.10. I*truly* cannot believe that the JSC intended that the first sentence in that guideline meant that the original title appearing on a compilation could only be used as the preferred title if there were more than one manifestation! By following such logic,*any* collection published for the first time would need to get 6.2.2.10.1-3 treatment, if it were cataloged right after publication; but if we waited for a while, and it were republished, then we'd look to see if the titles on the two manifestations were the same, and if so we could then follow 6.2.2.4-5. Bizarre... I really believe that 6.2.2.10 is basically meant for things that lack any collective title (the example in 6.2.2.10.3 seems to imply this), collections that have generic titles only, or (if being cataloged retrospectively) have come to be known by generic titles (e.g., generally referenced by generic titles in trade media, scholarly resources, etc.). Does anybody know for sure which cases should be treated according to the first sentence of 6.2.2.10 (If a compilation of works is known by a title that is used in resources embodying that compilation or in reference sources, apply the instructions at 6.2.2.4--6.2.2.5) and not according to 6.2.2.10.1-6.2.2.10.3? My assumption was that usually you'd use the rules under .1-.3, and that the first sentence refers to fairly rare cases. I further assumed that in these cases, the compilation needs some long-established title, but wasn't able to come up with an example. As usual, when you'd need an example in RDA, there isn't one.. Now Kevin argues, if I understand correctly, that every compilation with a non-generic, distinct title (i.e. something different from Three novels or The complete works of ...) should be treated according to the first sentence, and I can see his point. So, I wonder: What is the function of the first sentence in 6.2.2.10? Should it be seen as the basic rule or rather as an exception for rare cases? Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Uniqueness of titles proper
John, Maybe so, but 5.3 definitely says that the element(s) used to differentiate two works with the same title must be recorded *somewhere*. My understanding of current LC practice is that two works with the same title only need to be differentiated by additional element(s) if they would otherwise have the same AAP. If this isn't the case, the additional elements do not have to be recorded *anywhere* (although a cataloger might still choose to do it, cf. LC-PCC PS for 0.6.3). My impression also was that LC is quite aware of the discrepancy I mentioned. Have a look at slide 36 in this LC presentation: http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/source/refresher_module_B_oct2011.ppt Here, LC explicitly points to the difference between strict RDA and their current practice. The reason given is that this applies to current implementation in MARC still relying on authorized access points. Anyway, I think we agree that the current practice has a lot to do with today's MARC environment. Heidrun John Hostage wrote: RDA 5.3 says those identifying elements should be recorded as separate elements, as parts of the access point, or both. So I don't think the PS is going against RDA by limiting the situations when the elements are added to the access point for the work. A lot of our difficulties seem to stem from the fact that we are creating MARC records that essentially describe manifestations, but then we try to add a lot of information about the works and expressions therein. -- John Hostage Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services Langdell Hall 194 Harvard Law School Library Cambridge, MA 02138 host...@law.harvard.edu +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax) From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Heidrun Wiesenmüller [wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de] Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2013 06:49 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Uniqueness of titles proper Mac said: steven Arakawa posted: I understand that work titles can conflict and we would need to break the conflict in such cases ... Only if neither has an author main entry (or author as part of AAP as Kevin would say). Of course two different works should not have the same preferred title if they are by the same person, but that is a rare problem. It certainly makes a lot of sense to say that there cannot be a conflict if the authors are different. But still I'd like to point out that this is not what RDA says. Look at 5.3: If the preferred title for a work is the same as or similar to a title for a different work, or to a name for a person, family, or corporate body, differentiate them by recording as many of the additional identifying elements in the following list as necessary. There is no exception for works with different creators. The LC-PCC PS for 6.27.1.9 shows a marked discrepancy to RDA 5.3, because it exchanges the title of the work for the AAP: If the authorized access point is the same as the authorized access point of another work represented by a bibliographic record or name/series authority record, add a parenthetical qualifier to the access point. Mind, I'm absolutely in favour of this practice, and the German-speaking community will do likewise. I think it would be a nightmare if we'd have to verify there is nothing else with the same work title in virtually every case, or add an identifying element if there was. But we should still bear in mind that this is not really RDA. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Names found in a non-preferred script (8.4 vs. 9.2.2.5.3 and 11.2.2.12)
Adam wrote: I recently taught at RDA at the National Library of Israel. They do not have a single preferred script, nor a single language of cataloging. In fact they have four: Hebrew, Arabic, roman, and Cyrillic. Depending on the script of the resource they are cataloging, they will use an authorized access point in that script and the language of cataloging will depend on the language of the resource. They have a unique authority record structure which uses a single record with multiple 1XXs for the authorized form in different scripts. Very interesting. I'm not a specialist for original script cataloging, but I can try and explain (at least roughly) what is being done in Germany. I'll take my own union catalog, the Southwest German Library Network (SWB), as an example. In the title records, the most important fields are duplicated: One version of the field is then used for the transliterated text and the other for the same text in the original script. A code for the script is recorded in a subfield. Note that the format for the title records is not MARC. If you want to see what this looks like in the catalog, try this: http://swb.bsz-bw.de/DB=2.1/PPNSET?PPN=336050186INDEXSET=1 First click on the British flag to change to English. Then you see Show original script (above the title information). Click on Cyrillic to change to the original script version. You can change back by clicking on Latin script only. I do hope that this works globally and that you can all see the cyrillic script in your browsers! In authority data (where we use a MARC based format), the transliterated form of the preferred name of a person is recorded in 100, and the original script form of the preferred name is recorded in 700. Further variant names in original script can be recorded in 400. Again, a code for the script is always recorded in a subfield. Some examples for authority data can be found in this document (sorry, it's in German) on page 9: http://verbund-swop.bsz-bw.de/volltexte/2013/345/pdf/kathb_Originalschrift.pdf The example for Lenin shows the preferred name in Cyrillic script in 700, but there is also another Cyrillic version in a 400 and even two Japanese forms. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Names found in a non-preferred script (8.4 vs. 9.2.2.5.3 and 11.2.2.12)
Steve said: I believe it is the difference between recording the name and recording the preferred name. The General Guidelines on Recording Names (RDA 8.5) makes it clear that it is talking about recording the name as it appears in the item. On the other hand, RDA 8.6 talks of recording the authorized access point using the preferred name, and refers to RDA 9.2.2, 10.2.2, and 11.2.2 for how to do that. and John added: In addition to what Steve McDonald said, RDA 9.2.2.5.3 says Variant names. Record the other forms of the transliterated name as variant names (see 9.2.3.9). That's the option to record them in the original script. 11.2.2.12 has a similar instruction. I don't think this really answers my question. 8.4 is about names in general, without any precondition. That should cover both preferred and variant names (cf. 8.1.3). So it should be perfectly possible to record a preferred name in the original script - in fact, this is the basic rule. I also don't really see how 8.6 comes into play here. Doesn't this rule only tell us that the preferred name of a person, family or corporate body is the one used for the authorized access point? The sentence Record the other forms of the transliterated name as variant names (see 9.2.3.9), must, I believe, be seen together with the bit which comes directly before: If the name of a person is found only in a transliterated form in resources associated with the person, choose the transliterated form as the preferred name. If the name of a person is found in more than one transliterated form in resources associated with the person, choose the form that occurs most frequently.). So, I think that this refers to a situation where the original script form isn't known (so you cannot transliterate the name according to the scheme chosen by the agency), and there are several different transliterated forms. Then we're told to use the most frequent one as the preferred name and record the other transliterated forms as variant names. I got another answer to my question off-list, with the following argument: Although it doesn't say so, 9.2.2.5.3 and 11.2.2.12 is really only for libraries applying the the alternative in 8.4. If you're following the basic rule in 8.4, then you don't need these rules, because you will never come across a name that is not in one of your preferred scripts, because you 'prefer' all scripts. I hadn't looked at it this way before, but now this sounds quite plausible to me. Mac also said that the rules 9.2.2.5.3 and 11.2.2.12 are only needed if the basic rule in 8.4 cannot be followed for technical reasons. But if this interpretation is correct, then we have another case where RDA is rather obscure and difficult to understand. The wording in 9.2.2.5.3 and 11.2.2.12 should be revised to make it clear that these rules only apply if the library wants to use a transliterated form instead of the original script form as the preferred name, according to the alternative in 8.4. By the way, I've noticed that there doesn't seem to be a similar rule for families. Instead, in chapter 10, forms in different scripts are only mentioned in 10.2.3.4 (Alternative linguistic form of name among other things like language, spelling, and transliteration. The basic rule here is: If the name recorded as the preferred name for a family has one or more alternative linguistic forms, record them as variant names. This leaves it open whether the form chosen for the preferred name is a transliterated one or in the original script, and so fits in much better with 8.4 than the rules in chapter 9 and 11. However, I would like to see a reference to 8.4 in this chapter. Perhaps the rules for persons and corporate bodies could be revised according to this model? Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
[RDA-L] Names found in a non-preferred script (8.4 vs. 9.2.2.5.3 and 11.2.2.12)
I'm rather unsure about the relationship between the general rule for names found in a non-preferred script in chapter 8 and the corresponding more specific rules for persons and corporates bodies in chapters 9 and 11. The general rule in 8.4 says: Record names in the language and script in which they appear on the sources from which they are taken. The alternative reads: Record a transliterated form of the name either as a substitute for, or in addition to, the form that appears on the source. So, although it is allowed to record names in a transliterated form, the basic rule is to record them in the original script. However, in 9.2.2.5.3 we read: If the name of a person is found in a script that differs from a preferred script of the agency creating the data, transliterate the name according to the scheme chosen by the agency. And, similarly, in 11.2.2.12: If the name of the body is found in a script that differs from a preferred script of the agency creating the data, transliterate the name according to the scheme chosen by the agency. These rules seem to imply that names found in a non-preferred script should _always_ be transliterated. There doesn't seem to be any option of recording them in the original script. Is it only me, or is there really a conflict between 8.4, on the one hand, and 9.2.2.5.3 and 11.2.2.12, on the other hand? Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Illustration terms in 7.15.1.3
Lynn wrote: Is there a reason we can't do something like this for graphic novels and the like: 1 volume of illustrations ; some color or 138 pages of illustrations ; some color I haven't gone through the RDA rules in depth like many of you, but 3.4.12.1 says to give the number of units and/or subunits and if we look at the examples under 3.4.5.9 (leaves or pages of plates). It looks like 'pages of plates' would be considered a subunit, so why not consider 'volume of illustrations (or other appropriate term)' or 'pages of illustrations' a subunit. The challenge is to find a solution which is easily understandable for our users and also fits in with the internal logics of RDA (the second aim is the harder one, I think). As RDA now stands, if there is no text at all, you can't use the element 3.4.5 Extent of text (it is not quite clear to me whether it can/should be used if there is a little bit of text, though). But you also cannot use the element 3.4.4. Extent of still image, if the resource is a volume. So you need to work with the general rule in 3.4.1. The unit is supposed to be given as a term from the carrier type list, which gives us 1 volume. If my coffee-table book has 350 pages, I think these are the subunits, so we get 1 volume (350 pages). I don't think that, according to the logics of RDA, we can use volume of illustrations instead of volume. The alternative in 3.4.1.3 allows us to use a term in common usage instead of the carrier type term, but I don't think this applies here. I also think that we cannot use pages of illustrations as the name of the subunit instead of a mere pages. The definition in 3.4.1.1 says a subunit is a physical or logical subdivision of a unit (e.g., a page of a volume, a frame of a microfiche, a record in a digital file). The problem seems to be that illustrations are seen as belonging to the level of the expression, whereas chapter 3 is only about manifestations. However, it has been noted that RDA doesn't keep this distinction up consistently in chapter 3: 1 map, for example, mixes up carrier and content. The extent of the manifestation should really be 1 sheet. The information that there is a map on the sheet should be treated somewhere in chapter 7. I believe this is one of the main messages of the ALA discussion paper on machine-actionable data, as Francis Lapka has already pointed out earlier on this thread: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ALA-Discussion-1.pdf They propose to introduce a new element extent of expression. So, we could have 1 volume (350 pages) as the extent of manifestation according to chapter 3, and 300 illustrations or some such as the extent of expression according to chapter 7. That makes a lot of sense to me. On the other hand, the EURIG discussion paper on illustrative content and other augmentations http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-EURIG-Discussion-2.pdf proposes a completely different approach. They see illustrations not as a part of a certain expression but as a work in its own right, of which the illustrator is the creator. Up to this point, I'm quite willing to follow. I'm not so sure about the next steps: The combination of the expression of a textual work and of an illustration work is seen as taking place on the level of the manifestation. It is argued that - if the illustrations are not described as a work in their own right - the information should be handled as part of the description of the carrier. Therefore, the idea is to move 7.15 to somewhere in chapter 3. What bothers me is that illustrators are (if I understand the paper correctly) supposed to be two different things at the same time: 1. creators of the illustration work 2. persons with a relationship to a manifestation, if the illustration work isn't described in its own right I think the situation is a bit similar to a volume of essays by different authors: Each of them is a creator of his or her essay. But they are not seen as having a direct relationship to the collection as such. They aren't creators of their essay work *and also* contributors of the collection work. So how can it be different for illustrators? Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Illustration terms in 7.15.1.3
Michael, I absolutely see your point. The other day, a colleague of mine said to me, after reading this thread: Why must something which used to be quite simple become so complicated now? And I wholeheartedly agreed with her. The main reason I am so insistent is that we simply must have a solution for this case, which is really quite an ordinary one. I don't want to have to tell my students: I've got no idea how RDA expects us to handle books with many pictures. Admittedly, as a catalog theoretician, I'm also interested in the theory behind the RDA rules. By the way, it's not the first time I've noticed how the strict distinction between work, expression and manifestation is not really helpful for actual cataloging. Coming back to the problem in hand: I think something must have gone seriously wrong here in the development of RDA. The accepted way of dealing with the case was removed, but it seems as if it was forgotten to replace it with something else. Maybe JSC could act swiftly and give us *some* acceptable way of handling coffee-table books and the like (even if the question may have to be discussed in a wider context in connection with the proposal and the discussion paper I mentioned)? Personally, I'm much in favour of the policy of the British Library and Cambridge University Library: If I've understood correctly, they simply go on using chiefly and all, ignoring the restrictions to 7.15. We had one other suggestion by Marie-Chantal. I would be very interested to know how others have dealt with it. Heidrun Michael Mitchell wrote: The fact that RDA rules create a conundrum like this regarding what should be a simple line of description has got to be one of the most ridiculous examples of why this whole set of rules will be just another (big) nail in our professional coffins. The public doesn't want to be confused with all this nit-picking. They just want to know if they are looking for a thick or thin book with or without a lot of pictures. The machines can figure out what they need to figure out from the 33x fields if they are properly developed. This is a rant against the folly of RDA, NOT a knock on Prof. Wiesenmüller's ruminations. I just don't understand how the profession can embrace such folly though. Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 2:19 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustration terms in 7.15.1.3 Lynn wrote: Is there a reason we can't do something like this for graphic novels and the like: 1 volume of illustrations ; some color or 138 pages of illustrations ; some color I haven't gone through the RDA rules in depth like many of you, but 3.4.12.1 says to give the number of units and/or subunits and if we look at the examples under 3.4.5.9 (leaves or pages of plates). It looks like 'pages of plates' would be considered a subunit, so why not consider 'volume of illustrations (or other appropriate term)' or 'pages of illustrations' a subunit. The challenge is to find a solution which is easily understandable for our users and also fits in with the internal logics of RDA (the second aim is the harder one, I think). As RDA now stands, if there is no text at all, you can't use the element 3.4.5 Extent of text (it is not quite clear to me whether it can/should be used if there is a little bit of text, though). But you also cannot use the element 3.4.4. Extent of still image, if the resource is a volume. So you need to work with the general rule in 3.4.1. The unit is supposed to be given as a term from the carrier type list, which gives us 1 volume. If my coffee-table book has 350 pages, I think these are the subunits, so we get 1 volume (350 pages). I don't think that, according to the logics of RDA, we can use volume of illustrations instead of volume. The alternative in 3.4.1.3 allows us to use a term in common usage instead of the carrier type term, but I don't think this applies here. I also think that we cannot use pages of illustrations as the name of the subunit instead of a mere pages. The definition in 3.4.1.1 says a subunit is a physical or logical subdivision of a unit (e.g., a page of a volume, a frame of a microfiche, a record in a digital file). The problem seems to be that illustrations are seen as belonging to the level of the expression, whereas chapter 3 is only about manifestations. However, it has been noted that RDA doesn't keep this distinction up consistently in chapter 3: 1 map, for example, mixes up carrier and content. The extent of the manifestation should really be 1 sheet. The information that there is a map on the sheet should be treated somewhere in chapter 7. I believe this is one
Re: [RDA-L] Illustration terms in 7.15.1.3
Mac said: I would consider architectural drawings to be plans, not maps, regardless of scale. Maps usually depict the earth's surface. There are also maps of the moon, and of fictitious places, etc. Yes, but not all architectural drawings are plans (e.g. if the drawing shows the front of a building). On the other hand, there are plans which show more than one building (e.g. plan of a park or a campus area). For the forms, I liked Adam's example of forms used in a survey very much - The ones we most often encounter are legal forms in legal texts. I'll ask somebody from a law library whether this is also typical for German legal texts. Unless I come up with something better, my explanation for my students (who are bound to ask) will be that with graphs, you usually have an x-/y-axis Don't forget bar graphs, in which you have adjacent bars representing times, populations, etc. You're right, of course, also it doesn't make the explanation any easier. It's been a long standing distinction, and unless explicitly changed, we should stick with it. Reproductions of photographs are illustrations. (Photographs on photo sensitive paper are becoming more rare; we most often saw them mounted in theses and consultants' reports.) We should not promise the patron photographs unless there are real photographs. I think we'll have to discuss that for the German application. Judging from the discussion here and some examples I've seen, I'm not so sure this rule has been universally followed (although I see your point). RDA gives three options for content terms (paraphrased): all, important, single most prominent. We take a middle course. A few illustrations would not get 336 $astill image; an exhibition catalogue would. The litmus for me is, would a patron go to this item for the illustrations? I also think that a middle course is the most sensible here, so I prefer to follow the alternative in 6.9.1.3. For example, there's no point in giving cartographic image, if there's only one or two maps in a book (although I would give these as illustrative content). I assume that content terms will also be used for limiting a search (e.g. in a facet). It would be misleading if all books with a few maps would turn up unter cartographic image (or some more sensible term for the end-user, like map). Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Illustration terms in 7.15.1.3
Many thanks to Steven, John, Mac and Adam. As usual, the discussion has been very helpful. I wonder what would I do without this list? Things have been cleared up a lot. As samples isn't so very common, I think it might be a good idea to take it out from the list under Alternative (where it will only lead to confusion), and instead give a suitable example for this under 7.15.1.4. Mac is certainly right that paint chips or fabric swathes would be more helpful than samples. The difference between maps and plans is indeed one of scale, I believe. For the forms, I liked Adam's example of forms used in a survey very much - I hadn't thought of that. I'm still a bit uncertain about the difference between charts and graphs, despite Mac's explanation. Unless I come up with something better, my explanation for my students (who are bound to ask) will be that with graphs, you usually have an x-/y-axis: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/241997/graph But I still find it doubtful that users will appreciate the distinction. Here's another explanation of the difference, and its author says: The concepts of chart and graph are commonly confused, mainly because of the similarities between the usual representations of both, with axes and labels almost always in the same locations. Some charts are even based on graphs, leading to additional confusion. http://www.reference.com/motif/science/what-is-the-difference-between-a-chart-and-a-graph It wouldn't have occurred to me that photographs should only be used for real photographs and not for reproductions, as Mac suggested, and I haven't made up my mind yet whether I find this a good idea or not. As RDA doesn't say anything about it, we are probably free to decide for ourselves. This is one of the examples which shows that RDA definitely needs to give more guidance here, if the terms are to be used somewhat consistently. I don't know why they even left out the hint in AACR2 that portraits is used for both single and group portraits (2.5C2). According to the German policy statements, illustrative content will be a required element, but it will be up to cataloger's judgement whether the basic rule or the alternative is used. I assume that in most cases, people will use the basic rule and give only illustration(s) anyway. By the way: I noticed that there doesn't seem to be an equivalent in RDA for AACR2 2.5C5.: If the publication consists wholly or predominantly of illustrations, give all ill. or chiefly ill., as appropriate. I find this rather unsatisfactory because illustrations then will be used quite indifferently for a coffee table book and a book with only a couple of pictures (unless you give the exact number of illustrations). The German rules did not stipulate giving exact numbers of illustrations, but we put them in four categories: We distinguish just ill. for one or several illustrations, numerous ill., predominantly ill. or only ill.. I found this a quite useful rule and would be sorry to see it gone under RDA. Heidrun On 14.08.2013 20:47, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: I find it really difficult to understand what is meant by some of the terms for the various kinds of illustrations in 7.15 (in German cataloging, we only distinguish four kinds of illustrations). The German RDA translation isn't much help either. So, could anybody help with my questions? 1. charts vs. graphs: I believe both are some kind of diagrams. Wikipedia distinguishes graph-based diagrams and chart-like diagrams - is that what is meant by the distinction? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagram If so, is it really necesssary to distinguish this (wouldn't diagrams be good enough to cover both types)? 2. forms: Does that really refer to forms as in fill in this form, please? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_(document) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_%28document%29 If so, I'm not sure I would have counted this as an illustration at all. I think it's not much different from tables containing only words and/or numbers, which we're told to ignore. 3. illuminations: I assume that this refers to manuscripts (or facsimiles of manuscripts), so I would use it for miniatures, decorated initials a.s.o. Is that the correct interpretation? 4. samples: Here, I must say, I'm totally at a loss. If it's used in the ordinary meaning, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_(material) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_%28material%29 I find it very difficult to think of an example in the field of illustrations . Many thanks for your help! Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Illustration terms in 7.15.1.3
Francis, If a resource consists wholly or predominantly of image content, then this content is no longer illustrative. That is, the images *are the primary content* in such a resource, so they no longer fulfill RDA's definition of illustrative content: Content designed to illustrate the primary content of a resource. I hadn't looked at it this way before, but now that I do, I cannot but agree. So, if my resource is mainly pictures, it follows that I should not record the element illustrative content at all. And this is probably the reason why the former AACR2 rule about chiefly ill. and only ill. was abandoned. But then: How do we tell users of our catalog that a book is mainly pictures? If we think of a typical coffee-table book, where the pictures are the main content, and the text is only of secondary importance, we can certainly bring it out by the content type (we use still image, perhaps even as the only one if we apply the alternative in 6.9.1.3). For the extent element, I believe I still have to use 3.4.5 Extent of text, so here we will only record the number of pages. It's different in 3.4.6 Extent of image, where we give extent as something like 1 drawing - but as far as I can see, this element is not used for my coffee-table book. So, the information that the book is mainly pictures can neither be recorded in the extent element nor in the element 7.15 Illustrative content (as the illustrations aren't supplementary). It will only be visible in the content type. Phew. Does that really work in practice?? Let's compare two resources: A: mainly illustrations, but also some text (coffee-table book) B: mainly text, some illustrations For A, we record: still image text 386 pages For B, we record: text still image 125 pages : illustrations I don't think there is a way of marking one content type as the most important one. I've given the more important one first here, but I'm not even sure whether there is such a practice in MARC (is there?). Now, looking at this, how could anybody arrive at the conclusion that A has more illustrations than B? I admit that it would work better if only the predominant carrier type was recorded. But still: I'm not convinced this is a good solution, although it seems to be in accordance with RDA (unless I've overlooked something - I'd be glad if I had, actually). Now I wonder: How *are* these materials treated in practice under RDA, at the moment? In the BL Monograph WEMI Workflow in the Toolkit, I've found the following examples (in the Expression Index): Under Record illustrative content (7.15): 300 ##:$ball photographs (black and white, and colour) Under Record content type (6.9): 300 ## $a12 unnumbered pages :$bchiefly illustrations (colour) ;$c26 cm 336 ## $atext $2rdacontent 336 ## $astill image $2rdacontent 336 ## $athree-dimensional form $2rdacontent (Resource is a children's pop-up book) So at the British Librariy, they obviously use illustrative content in these cases, and also continue the AACR2 practice of all and chiefly. What do others do? By the way: This is a good example of how RDA often seems like an iceberg to me. One puts an innocent little question, and under the surface it turns out to be something much bigger... Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Illustration terms in 7.15.1.3
Kathie wrote: I brought up this very issue last month in a thread titled Volumes containing only images. I only received one reply. (From Mac, pragmatic as always.) I'm not sure if URLs work to link threads in this format, but it is here: https://listserv.collectionscanada.gc.ca/cgi-bin/wa?A2=RDA-L;db70d096.1307 Thanks, Kathie. I had indeed missed that one. Actually, when I wrote that mail earlier today, I was wondering whether perhaps I was hallucinating. It didn't seem probable to me that such curious things could be going on in RDA. It's reassuring to find I'm not the first one who noticed ;-) Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Illustration terms in 7.15.1.3
Francis, I believe RDA could be altered to make a clearer distinction between extent of carrier and extent of content. The proposal for an Extent of Expression element is one of the key components of a discussion paper (on machine-actionable data) to be brought before JSC later this year: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ALA-Discussion-1.pdf Thanks, I just worked my way through that. It may be of interest that for German catalogers the idea of recording something like 1 atlas (37 maps) is rather bewildering. For a printed atlas, the physical description according to the German RAK rules looks like this: 476 p. : chiefly maps The same principle goes for printed music. So, the German rules have a bit less mixing up of content and carrier here. We do record things like 1 map, though. One might argue that some of the terms we currently use to record Extent of Still Images (3.4.4.2) more accurately describe extent of content. The same might be said of some of the other format-specific subelements. In your example of the coffee-table book, we could say that the Extent of Expression (content) is 300 photographs, while the Extent of Carrier is 350 pages. That sounds very plausible to me, and I think having an extent of expression element would be a good thing. I wouldn't be happy if I had to count the pictures in my coffee-table book for this, but I assume that a subsequent proposal would not call for this. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Illustration terms in 7.15.1.3
Greta said: I thought that if we decided something was a still image rather than text, that we were required to use the list of still image carriers for the extent at RDA 3.4.4.2. In that case, neither pages nor volume are in that list, so i think you are stuck with 300 photographs. Good point. But I think that the first sentence in 3.4.4.1 only refers to real drawings, photographs etc., and not to reproductions of them: For a resource consisting of one or more still images in the form of drawings, paintings, prints, photographs, etc., record the extent by applying the instructions at 3.4.4.2–3.4.4.5. So, in the case of the coffee-table book I believe 3.4.4.2-3.4.4.5 does not apply. RDA goes on to say: For resources consisting of still images in other media (e.g., slides, transparencies), apply the basic instructions at 3.4.1. So it seems that our coffee-table book should belong there, but of course it is noteworthy that the examples given are slides and transparencies, and not printed material. Then in 3.4.1 we stumble over the exception for text: For resources consisting of printed or manuscript text (with or without accompanying illustrations), see 3.4.5. We've already decided that the pictures in the book are not accompanying illustrations. On the other hand, in 3.4.5.1 the scope is slightly differently phrased: For a printed or manuscript resource consisting of text (with or without illustrations) I'd say as long as my book has a bit of text (it probably will have some introductory pages and captions for the photographs) I'm fine with using 3.4.5. But I agree that it's all a bit fishy here. Also, what would we do if the book had only the photographs, and absolutely no text at all? Then we'd have to use the basic rule in 3.4.1.3. The carrier type would still be volume, so my guess is: 1 volume (300 photographs). Isn't RDA fun? Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Coding Minimal level records as RDA?
Beth, I cannot help with the MARC coding, but I can try and explain 0.6.1: My colleagues and I are confused by the two subpoints (a and b) outlined in 0.6.1 which refer to choosing to apply various levels of description and/or detail. Do those options only apply when including “other specific elements” in /addition/ to all “applicable and readily ascertainable” core elements? Or can an agency choose not to include certain core elements when cataloging less than Full-level? 0.6.1 first calls for including all the core elements that are applicable, as long as they can be found out without doing a sleuth's work (readily ascertainable). But note that quite often, only one instance of a core element is obligatory, e.g. only one statement of responsibility, only the first place of publication, only the first creator, a.s.o. This is not stated explicitly in 0.6.1, but you can find the information at the beginning of the rules for the elements in question. In some cases, you may also have to include additional elements that are required in a particular case to differentiate the resource from one or more other resources with similar identifying information. You could say that this is RDA's way of defining its minimum level. Everything else is, on principle, optional. So, the subpoints a) and b) apply to - additional instances of core elements (e.g. a second creator or a second place of publication) - everything which has not been covered up to now, i.e. the vast abundance of elements defined in RDA which are not marked core or core if One of the proposals of the German community http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-DNB-3.pdf includes a suggestion for a slight rewording 0.6.1 in order to make it more easily understandable. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date
Gary, The rules which you need can be found in 1.9.2 (Supplied date). Under 1.9.2.4 (Probable range of years) there are examples like this: [between 1800 and 1899?] [between 1400 and 1600?] In 2.8.6.6, there is a reference to 1.9.2. Heidrun On 13.08.2013 21:19, Gary Oliver wrote: I have searched the Toolkit and can not locate instructions for a situation like this one. If a manifestation has no date of any kind, how is that recorded? There are no dates associated with the author, so I do not have either an earliest or latest possible year. I would say that based on the condition of the piece, I am able to assume a century. Thank you, Gary Oliver Abilene Christian University -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
[RDA-L] Illustration terms in 7.15.1.3
I find it really difficult to understand what is meant by some of the terms for the various kinds of illustrations in 7.15 (in German cataloging, we only distinguish four kinds of illustrations). The German RDA translation isn't much help either. So, could anybody help with my questions? 1. charts vs. graphs: I believe both are some kind of diagrams. Wikipedia distinguishes graph-based diagrams and chart-like diagrams - is that what is meant by the distinction? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagram If so, is it really necesssary to distinguish this (wouldn't diagrams be good enough to cover both types)? 2. forms: Does that really refer to forms as in fill in this form, please? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_(document) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_%28document%29 If so, I'm not sure I would have counted this as an illustration at all. I think it's not much different from tables containing only words and/or numbers, which we're told to ignore. 3. illuminations: I assume that this refers to manuscripts (or facsimiles of manuscripts), so I would use it for miniatures, decorated initials a.s.o. Is that the correct interpretation? 4. samples: Here, I must say, I'm totally at a loss. If it's used in the ordinary meaning, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_(material) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_%28material%29 I find it very difficult to think of an example in the field of illustrations . Many thanks for your help! Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4
Marie-Chantal said: Perhaps the solution is to give rare/older materials cataloguers the possibility to record phrases such as « published by » as an optional addition ... Otherwise, the general instruction could simply ask cataloguers to record the name of the publisher, distributer, etc. ... This is certainly a way it could be done. However, I wonder: Would it really be such a bad thing if phrases like published by were routinely transcribed for all resources? From a cataloging teacher's point of view, there is a lot to say for LC's proposal, because: 1. Exceptions are always difficult to learn and to remember. 2. A rule is easier to understand if it can be explained from a higher principle. According to the German rules RAK (just as in AACR2), phrases like published by are not transcribed. This is not very difficult to explain to my students, as it fits in with the main principle for publisher's name: Keep it short! But now, in RDA, the main principle is a different one, namely Take what you see! It's hard to see why there should be an exception here. I think that's what they're driving at in the proposal http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-LC-24.pdf when they say, as a second argument: Publisher's name is a transcribed sub-element. However, by instructing catalogers to remove statements of function, part of the transcription is lost. (Change #10, Rationale, 2) Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
[RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4
It beats me why the examples in 2.9.4.4 (and other similar rules, e.g. 2.10.4.4) are all capitalized, e.g.: Distributed by New York Graphic Society Sold by Longman I cannot find any justification for this in appendix A. It's certainly not mentioned among the elements where the first word must always be capitalized. Corresponding examples in the ISBD consolidated (4.2.5) aren't capitalized, e.g.: distributed by Harvard University Press to be sold by Jas. Gardner So, is there something I've overlooked, or is this a mistake in RDA? Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4
Kevin, Thanks for pointing me to the right instruction in AACR2. Personally, I don't really mind whether these words or phrases are capitalized or not (although I don't quite see why a deviation from ISBD should be necessary here). One can probably find arguments for both solutions. But what I *do* mind is that RDA doesn't explicitly say that these things are always capitalized (unlike AACR2 did). This is a bit worrying, as it means you can't be really certain that appendix A lists all the bits which have to be capitalized. It's not the first flaw I've noticed in appendix A, by the way. For example, A.5 only mentions the designation of edition (2.5.2), but not the parallel designation of edition (2.5.3). Heidrun Kevin said: Heidrun, AACR2 A.7B1 calls for capitalization of words or phrases that do not make up part of the name of the publisher, distributor etc., e.g. Released by, Printed in association with, etc. My thinking is that this is simply a holdover from AACR2, and does not really make any difference at all to the user. Outt of habit, I capitalize. You are correct in that it doesn't seem to be part of ISBD, so where it came from, I don't know. Kevin Roe Supervisor, Media Processing Fort Wayne Community Schools Fort Wayne IN 46802 *From:* Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Sent:* Thursday, August 8, 2013 5:54 AM *Subject:* [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4 It beats me why the examples in 2.9.4.4 (and other similar rules, e.g. 2.10.4.4) are all capitalized, e.g.: Distributed by New York Graphic Society Sold by Longman I cannot find any justification for this in appendix A. It's certainly not mentioned among the elements where the first word must always be capitalized. Corresponding examples in the ISBD consolidated (4.2.5) aren't capitalized, e.g.: distributed by Harvard University Press to be sold by Jas. Gardner So, is there something I've overlooked, or is this a mistake in RDA? Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4
Jack, if there was a rule in RDA saying that the first word of every element must be capitalized, I would agree. But as far as I understand it, that's not how RDA works. The main rule of RDA concerning capitalitation is that you use upper and lower case just like you would do it *within* a sentence (not *at the beginning* of a sentence). There are only a very limited number of elements for which RDA prescribes capitalization of the first word. If RDA doesn't say anything special about capitalization, the logical thing would be to use the main rule. As I already said, I don't mind adding the function statements to the bits which always have to be capitalized. But if this is intended, then RDA must state this explicitly. Heidrun On 08.08.2013 18:10, Jack Wu wrote: I don't know if this is oversimplification. The way I see it. If you have Place Name followed by Distributed by, Published by or whatever, it's entirely logical to capitalize the first word. I can say this is great. Come. So what. O, no. Each is a separate statement. Regardless whether Separated by : , by , by . We are not saying Place that is distributed, or sold by. Jack Franciscan University j...@franciscan.edu mailto:j...@franciscan.edu Heidrun Wiesenmüllerwiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de 8/8/2013 5:54 AM It beats me why the examples in 2.9.4.4 (and other similar rules, e.g. 2.10.4.4) are all capitalized, e.g.: Distributed by New York Graphic Society Sold by Longman I cannot find any justification for this in appendix A. It's certainly not mentioned among the elements where the first word must always be capitalized. Corresponding examples in the ISBD consolidated (4.2.5) aren't capitalized, e.g.: distributed by Harvard University Press to be sold by Jas. Gardner So, is there something I've overlooked, or is this a mistake in RDA? Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Date given in an incomplete form
Marie-Chantal, I would give 1961, without using any square brackets. My reasoning goes as follows: You do not have to supply the date, because in fact you know the year. The only problem is that it is written on the source of information in some kind of shorthand. But when you think about it, this is no problem, because the date of production is, as has already been mentioned, not a transcribed element. So your are left with the basic rule that you are to record the date. O.k., then we'll record 1961, because that's what it is. Also note 1.8.4, which covers a similar case: In the example, the second year is only given with the last digits (72 instead of 1972). But we're advised to record the second year also in the ordinary way in which a year is given, i.e. as 1972. There is no need to use square brackets and write [19]72, as we're not transcribing, but only recording. Heidrun On 08.08.2013 16:54, L'Écuyer-Coelho Marie-Chantal wrote: Hi, I am presently describing an etching. The artist simply wrote « 61 » as year of production, under the image. Does it means I must record « 61 » in 264 $c, and then write up a note ? As much as I can tell, we're not allowed to use « 61 [i.e. 1961] » or « [19]61 ». What do you think ? Thank you! /*/Marie-Chantal L'Ecuyer-Coelho/*/ /*/Bibliothécaire /*//*//*/ Direction du traitement documentaire des collections patrimoniales Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec 2275, rue Holt Montréal (Québec) H2G 3H1 Téléphone : 514-873-1101 poste 3730 mc.coe...@banq.qc.ca mailto:mc.coe...@banq.qc.ca www.banq.qc.ca http://www.banq.qc.ca/ *Avis de confidentialité *Ce courriel est une communication confidentielle et l'information qu'il contient est réservée à l'usage exclusif du destinataire. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire visé, vous n'avez aucun droit d'utiliser cette information, de la copier, de la distribuer ou de la diffuser. Si cette communication vous a été transmise par erreur, veuillez la détruire et nous en aviser immédiatement par courriel. -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4
Mac said: My reaction is, why is this phrase included, when function is covered by 264 2nd indicators? My understanding is that transcribing things like Distributed by ... is all about the so-called principle of representation: The data describing a resource should reflect the resource's representation of itself. (0.4.3.4). If you think about it, it's not really that much different from giving a statement of responsibility like by XY in addition to recording a creator relationship to XY and adding an appropriate relationship designator. You could argue that if the name of the element and the relationship designator are displayed, then all the necessary information is already there. Giving the statement of responsibility as well might be considered redundant information. But we still give it, because it is valuable in itself to show exactly *how* the information about the author is presented on the resource. I think this also applies to these statements of function, although this information is probably of less importance to our users. On the other hand, the proposal mentioned by Francis http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-LC-24.pdf even proposes transcribing things like published by, arguing: Differences between publication statements help users identify different manifestations of a work. This is especially important for manifestations without ISBNs, which did not appear on manifestations until the later part of the 20th century. One manifestation of a work might say Published by Isaac Riley and another might say Isaac Riley, Publisher. (I'm not sure how often this case occurs, though). Admittedly, I sometimes wonder whether RDA doesn't take the principle of representation a bit too far. For example, in shortening names of publishers, the older codes of rules like AACR2 and RAK definitely violated the principle of representation. But I can also see an advantage in this and similar practices: You could say that catalogers did some preprocessing with the raw data found on the source by clearly bringing out the things which are really important for the users, separating them from the noise around them. Now, in times of RDA, our users have to find their way for themselves - through things like legal information about publishers (Ltd.) or their advertising slogans (Peter Lang, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, i.e. international publisher of sciences). If one of the main aims of description is to represent the resource as it represents itself, then perhaps a scan of the title pages would work just as well. (Sorry for being a bit provocative here). Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4
Mac, In the absence of a rule, shouldn't we follow Chicago Manual of Style for sentences? With the exception of a few words and names (e-Book, ebrary) shouldn't all sentences begin with a capital letter? But which elements should be seen as sentences - all of them? Then we would also capitalize other title information and statements of responsibility. I'm not saying this can't be done (publishers do it all the time). But I think that the laws of design which are in effect on a title page are different from those of a catalog record. To achieve good readability there, I think we should use beginning of sentence capitalization only cautiously. By the way, I'm very much in favour of including the rule to capitalize the beginning of each ISBD area, as proposed by CCC http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-CCC-12.pdf I also heartily agree that the whole structure of appendix A, which takes English as the model language and covers all other languages only to the degree in which they differ from the model, is counterproductive for an international application of RDA. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmüller M.A. Hochschule der Medien Fakultät Information und Kommunikation Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart Tel. dienstl.: 0711/25706-188 Tel. Home Office: 0711/36565868 Fax. 0711/25706-300 www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Date given in an incomplete form
Mac said: It does not matter to me, or patrons I suspect, whether one uses $c[19]61. $c[1961] or $c1961. It *is* important that the whole year be there, since one should not have to wait for a note to know whether it is 1761, 1861, or 1961. A little pragmatism is in order here! To transcribe '61 as opposed to recording the whole year serves no purpose. Quite. That's why I voted for recording all four digits, i.e. 1961. Having looked at RDA again, I think the most relevant rule here is 1.8.2, where it says to record numerals in the form preferred by the agency. As per 1.8.1, this also applies to the date of production. The preference of our agencies is to record a year as an arabic numeral with four digits. So, in my opinion, changing 61 to 1961 here is similar to changing a date given in Roman numerals to the preferred form. We do not mark that either. But it would, of course, be possible to add a note saying Year given as 61 on the resource, just as you could write a note Year given in Roman numerals, if you think users would be interested in this information (personally, I don't think they would be). A resource which only has a copyright year falls in a different category, I believe. Because there, you do not have a year of publication at all. True, there is year, but it's a year for something else (the copyright), and from that you're deducing that the publication year is identical. So bracketing is in order here (although, in German cataloging, we do not use brackets in this case at all, and as far as I know, no user has ever complained about it). But in the case of the etching, I claim that the production year is actually there, only the artist didn't use the preferred form with the four digits. As I said, for me the case is not one of a supplied date. But I concede that a second interpetation is possible: You might feel that it's not obvious that 61 here is a shorthand form for 1961, and that you need some sort of deduction from other clues to decide that this is a work from the 20th century. Then you could argue that the year of production is not given in the resource, and that therefore you have to supply it. If this is way you want to go, I think it would be better to bracket the whole year. But I really think it would be cataloging overkill. Well, as Mac already said, in the end it doesn't matter so much whether the catalog record shows 1961, [1961] or [19]61, as long as all four digits are shown. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
[RDA-L] Names of conferences as title proper, other title information or statement of responsiblity
I'm rather unsure about what the title and statement of responsibility area should look like if there is both a formal name of the conference and a specific title of a conference on the preferred source of information. Let's consider the following example (which I've translated from German to English; in German it reads 100. Deutscher Bibliothekartag in Berlin 2011 and Bibliotheken für die Zukunft - Zukunft für die Bibliotheken). The t.p. looks like this: --- 100th CONFERENCE OF GERMAN LIBRARIANS IN BERLIN 2011 LIBRARIES FOR THE FUTURE - FUTURE FOR THE LIBRARIES [this is printed slightly smaller than the name of the conference above, but still in capitals] edited by Ulrich Hohoff and Daniela Luelfing -- According to the German cataloging rules RAK, the name of the conference here would be given as a statement of responsibility, i.e. (in ISBD): Libraries for the future - future for the libraries / 100th Conference of German Librarians ; edited by Ulrich Hohoff and Daniela Lülfing Note that for RAK, it doesn't matter which of the statements is most prominent and in which order the statements are presented on the t.p. - you would always take the specific title of the conference as title proper and the name of the conference as s-o-r. How would this case be treated according to the Anglo-American tradition? In WorldCat, I've found my example with the name of the conference as other title information, like this (again, I'm using the translated version): Libraries for the future - future for the libraries : 100th Conference of German Librarians / edited by Ulrich Hohoff and Daniela Lülfing Looking at LC's catalog, I've found no less than three different ways of handling similar cases - with the name of the conference either given as title proper, as other title information, or as a statement of responsibility. Examples: In http://lccn.loc.gov/98209348 (where the t.p. should look quite similar to the one in my example), the name of the conference has been given as the title proper, and the specific title of the conference (From Gutenberg to the internet) is given as other title information. In http://lccn.loc.gov/97152273, the specific title of the conference is given as title proper and first part of other title information (The new library : claim and reality), and the the name of the conference (31st Conference of Austrian Librarians Innsbruck 2011) has been treated as a second bit of other title information. I imagine this is due to the layout of the t.p., which gives prominence to the specific title. Have a look at the cover here: http://www.univie.ac.at/voeb/publikationen/schriften-der-voeb/band-11-die-neue-bibliothek/ But I've also come across examples where the name of the conference is treated as a statement of responsibility, e.g. in another of the Austrian Librarians' conferences: http://lccn.loc.gov/99185606 So I wonder: Is this a matter of cataloger's judgment, triggered mainly by the presentation and layout of the preferred source of information? Or is there some deeper rule which I haven't worked out yet? Personally, I think that it would make sense to give the name of the conference as a statement of responsibility: The congress is seen as the creator of the work according to RDA 19.2.1.1.1, and a statement of responsibility is defined as a statement relating to the identification and/or function of any persons, families, or corporate bodies responsible for the creation of, or contributing to the realization of, the intellectual or artistic content of a resource. As always: Many thanks for your help! Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Difference between Introduction and Preface
And what about writer of afterword, while we're at it? I've just have such a case in front of me: A novel, where the translator has also provided notes and the said afterword. It gives information about the author and her work. What is here presented as an afterword might, in other cases, just as well be presented as an introduction. 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. Heidrun On 05.08.2013 11:29, Duncan Chalmers wrote: I see that the relationship designators “writer of introduction” and “writer of preface” have been fast tracked into RDA Appendix I. However, nowhere in RDA can I see an explanation of what an “introduction” is and what a “preface” is. It may be that the unwritten assumption is that a preface is by the author of a book and an introduction by a second party, but I’m speculating. As publishers use “foreword”, “introductory”, “preface” etc. according to ad hoc considerations of marketing, taking the path of least resistance here and following title page usage would result in the same relationship having two different designators, and two different relationships (if indeed the relationships “writer of introduction” and “writer of preface” can be said to be different) potentially being expressed with the same designator. I’d be grateful if anyone could elucidate this, and apologies if it’s already been covered on the list. *Duncan Chalmers* Cataloguer, Ingram Content Group Coutts Information Services Avon House, Headlands Business Park, Ringwood, Hampshire, BH24 3PB p: +44 (0) 1425 485848 *| *f: +44 (0) 1425 471525. duncan.chalm...@ingramcontent.com mailto:name.lastn...@ingramcontent.com *www.ingramcontent.com* http://www.ingramcontent.com* **Registered Office: 5 New Street Square, London, EC4A 3TW. Registered in England and Wales No: 2574299; VAT No: 818302250* -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Names of conferences as title proper, other title information or statement of responsiblity
Gene, Thanks, but perhaps I didn't explain my problem clearly enough. It's not about the main entry - I had indeed assumed that the conference would be creator according to 19.2.1.1.1 d). My problem is about the bibliographical description of such an item. Where does the name of the conference go - main title, other title information or s-o-r? Heidrun On 05.08.2013 17:25, Gene Fieg wrote: I am not speaking for every American cataloger here, but we would have the m.e as the conference since it is a named conference. A parallel to this would be if you had the title followed by statement of responsibility with a personal name and did not make the personal name the main entry or preferred entry. On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de mailto:wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote: I'm rather unsure about what the title and statement of responsibility area should look like if there is both a formal name of the conference and a specific title of a conference on the preferred source of information. Let's consider the following example (which I've translated from German to English; in German it reads 100. Deutscher Bibliothekartag in Berlin 2011 and Bibliotheken für die Zukunft - Zukunft für die Bibliotheken). The t.p. looks like this: --- 100th CONFERENCE OF GERMAN LIBRARIANS IN BERLIN 2011 LIBRARIES FOR THE FUTURE - FUTURE FOR THE LIBRARIES [this is printed slightly smaller than the name of the conference above, but still in capitals] edited by Ulrich Hohoff and Daniela Luelfing -- According to the German cataloging rules RAK, the name of the conference here would be given as a statement of responsibility, i.e. (in ISBD): Libraries for the future - future for the libraries / 100th Conference of German Librarians ; edited by Ulrich Hohoff and Daniela Lülfing Note that for RAK, it doesn't matter which of the statements is most prominent and in which order the statements are presented on the t.p. - you would always take the specific title of the conference as title proper and the name of the conference as s-o-r. How would this case be treated according to the Anglo-American tradition? In WorldCat, I've found my example with the name of the conference as other title information, like this (again, I'm using the translated version): Libraries for the future - future for the libraries : 100th Conference of German Librarians / edited by Ulrich Hohoff and Daniela Lülfing Looking at LC's catalog, I've found no less than three different ways of handling similar cases - with the name of the conference either given as title proper, as other title information, or as a statement of responsibility. Examples: In http://lccn.loc.gov/98209348 (where the t.p. should look quite similar to the one in my example), the name of the conference has been given as the title proper, and the specific title of the conference (From Gutenberg to the internet) is given as other title information. In http://lccn.loc.gov/97152273, the specific title of the conference is given as title proper and first part of other title information (The new library : claim and reality), and the the name of the conference (31st Conference of Austrian Librarians Innsbruck 2011) has been treated as a second bit of other title information. I imagine this is due to the layout of the t.p., which gives prominence to the specific title. Have a look at the cover here: http://www.univie.ac.at/voeb/publikationen/schriften-der-voeb/band-11-die-neue-bibliothek/ But I've also come across examples where the name of the conference is treated as a statement of responsibility, e.g. in another of the Austrian Librarians' conferences: http://lccn.loc.gov/99185606 So I wonder: Is this a matter of cataloger's judgment, triggered mainly by the presentation and layout of the preferred source of information? Or is there some deeper rule which I haven't worked out yet? Personally, I think that it would make sense to give the name of the conference as a statement of responsibility: The congress is seen as the creator of the work according to RDA 19.2.1.1.1, and a statement of responsibility is defined as a statement relating to the identification and/or function of any persons, families, or corporate bodies responsible for the creation of, or contributing to the realization of, the intellectual or artistic content of a resource. As always: Many thanks for your help! Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi http://www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi -- Gene
Re: [RDA-L] Names of conferences as title proper, other title information or statement of responsiblity
Gene, Without seeing the actual item, I would place it in the area of resp. Sorry, that was too much shorthand for a non-native speaker: Does resp here mean the same as depends? If so, on what - the layout? If you want to have a closer look, here's a scan of the title page: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2aFdx26Qi9sMDhIb1lZMFE2SlU/edit It's a typical case of conference proceedings, a collection of papers given at the so-called Bibliothekartag (the German equivalent to the ALA conference, with about 4.000 participants). My reading is that such proceedings originate with the conference, and therefore that the conference is seen as the creator. I apologize for being so insistent. But it's an example from my teaching collection, and I would very much like to get a sound RDA solution for it (or perhaps several acceptable solutions, if that's how it is). Thanks again, Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Names of conferences as title proper, other title information or statement of responsiblity
Thanks, Gene. Now all is revealed (actually, I should have been able to work that one out myself...) I'm quite happy to hear that. German catalogers will have to get used to so many new things; it's rather nice if some things stay the same. Heidrun On 05.08.2013 19:46, Gene Fieg wrote: I meant area of responsibility. The 245 line would read [title] / |c [name of conference] On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de mailto:wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote: Gene, Without seeing the actual item, I would place it in the area of resp. Sorry, that was too much shorthand for a non-native speaker: Does resp here mean the same as depends? If so, on what - the layout? If you want to have a closer look, here's a scan of the title page: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2aFdx26Qi9sMDhIb1lZMFE2SlU/edit It's a typical case of conference proceedings, a collection of papers given at the so-called Bibliothekartag (the German equivalent to the ALA conference, with about 4.000 participants). My reading is that such proceedings originate with the conference, and therefore that the conference is seen as the creator. I apologize for being so insistent. But it's an example from my teaching collection, and I would very much like to get a sound RDA solution for it (or perhaps several acceptable solutions, if that's how it is). Thanks again, Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi http://www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu mailto: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. -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Names of conferences as title proper, other title information or statement of responsiblity
Ben, your two cents are, as usual, worth a lot more than that ;-) I hadn't realized that RDA has brought a change here. Now I understand why I found so many cases of the conference name as other title information in the catalogs. Thanks also for pointing out the subtle difference in the wording here. Up to now, although of course I had noticed the changed wording, I hadn't really thought about the implications. Heidrun On 05.08.2013 20:04, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote: Under AACR2 and perhaps even earlier practice, it was quite common to treat the conference name as other title information and so put it in $b: $a Biblitheken für die Zukunft, Zukunft für die Bibliotheken : $b 100. deutscher Bibliothekartag in Berlin 2011 / $c herausgegeben von Ulrich hohff und Daniel Lülfing. Since Main Entry was understood as a simply cataloging device for collocating resources in a useful fashion, the fact that what appeared in the 1xx (the conference) was not in the statement of responsibility did not seem to trouble anyone. But with RDA having banished Main Entry in favor of relationships, and having declared (19.2.1.1.1.d) a conference proceedings the creation of a conference (note how, in the AACR2 equivalent, 21.1B2, the phrase is a work emanating from one or more corporate bodies, whereas as RDA says, Corporate bodies are considered to be creators) there seems to be an (unspoken?) re-evaluation of this practice in favor of putting the conference in the $c: $a Biblitheken für die Zukunft, Zukunft für die Bibliotheken / $c 100. deutscher Bibliothekartag in Berlin 2011 ; herausgegeben von Ulrich hohff und Daniel Lülfing. I don't think there is a specific chapter and verse where this is stated but it's what I've been seeing in OCLC lately. Of course the real question is: is 100. deutscher Bibliothekartag in Berlin 2011 other title information, or a statement of responsibility? I think the answer is likely, Both, so I'm afraid we probably shouldn't expect to see consistency in the way catalogers treat it. My .02, --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 *From:*Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] *On Behalf Of *Gene Fieg *Sent:* Monday, August 05, 2013 1:46 PM *To:* RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Names of conferences as title proper, other title information or statement of responsiblity I meant area of responsibility. The 245 line would read [title] / |c [name of conference] On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de mailto:wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote: Gene, Without seeing the actual item, I would place it in the area of resp. Sorry, that was too much shorthand for a non-native speaker: Does resp here mean the same as depends? If so, on what - the layout? If you want to have a closer look, here's a scan of the title page: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2aFdx26Qi9sMDhIb1lZMFE2SlU/edit It's a typical case of conference proceedings, a collection of papers given at the so-called Bibliothekartag (the German equivalent to the ALA conference, with about 4.000 participants). My reading is that such proceedings originate with the conference, and therefore that the conference is seen as the creator. I apologize for being so insistent. But it's an example from my teaching collection, and I would very much like to get a sound RDA solution for it (or perhaps several acceptable solutions, if that's how it is). Thanks again, Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi http://www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu mailto: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. -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
[RDA-L] RDA 2.3.2.9 Resource lacking a collective title
Could anybody please explain to me the second part of 2.3.2.9 Resource lacking a collective title? I'm quite at a loss here. If the sources of information identifying the individual parts are being treated as a collective source of information for the resource as a whole (see 2.1.2), record the titles proper of the parts in the order in which they appear in the resource. One of the examples given is: Henry Esmond Bleak House I assume that this refers to a resource which includes both Thackeray's The history of Henry Esmond and Dickens' Bleak House. I also assume that this resource doesn't have a title page which names both works (as in the examples in the first part of 2.3.2.9), but instead has two separate title pages, one for each novel (e.g., as tête-bêche). Is this the correct interpretation? If so, I'm still not clear as to how the two titles proper are to be recorded. What would it look like in MARC? And does it mean that I have two instances of the RDA element title proper in this case, or do the titles proper of both novels together make up the element title proper of the manifestation? Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] RDA 2.3.2.9 Resource lacking a collective title
Thanks, Thomas. So the real instruction can, in this case, only be found in appendix D.1.2.2, and turns out to be nothing new ;-) But I wonder: Shouldn't there be an eqivalent rule to the second part of 2.3.2.9 for the statement of responsibility, somewhere in chapter 2.4? I mean something like If the sources of information identifying the individual parts are being treated as a collective source of information for the resource as a whole (see 2.1.2), record the statements of responsibility of the parts in the order in which they appear in the resource. with an example like this: Darius Milhaud Henry Barraud Heidrun On 27.07.2013 15:06, Thomas Brenndorfer wrote: Check RDA D.1.2.2 Title and Statement of Responsibility Area for ISBD punctuation Use semicolons to separate titles proper if by same person. Use full stop to separate each grouping of titles proper and statements of responsibility if by different persons. Using the example: Saudades do Brasil : suite de danses pour orchestre / Darius Milhaud. Symphonie concertante pour trompette et orchestre / Henry Barraud Separated into MARC subfields (note that $c carries the burden of all repeating elements). 245 $a Saudades do Brasil :$b suite de danses pour orchestre /$c Darius Milhaud. Symphonie concertante pour trompette et orchestre / Henry Barraud But RDA always combines a value with the name of the element and includes no instructions for punctuation or repeatability, but some elements are defined as being associated with, appearing in conjunction with, or subordinate to other elements: Title proper: Saudades do Brasil Other title information: suite de danses pour orchestre Statement of responsibility relating to title proper: Darius Milhaud Title proper: Symphonie concertante pour trompette et orchestra Statement of responsibility relating to title proper: Henry Barraud Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller [wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de] Sent: July-27-13 5:54 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] RDA 2.3.2.9 Resource lacking a collective title Could anybody please explain to me the second part of 2.3.2.9 Resource lacking a collective title? I'm quite at a loss here. If the sources of information identifying the individual parts are being treated as a collective source of information for the resource as a whole (see 2.1.2), record the titles proper of the parts in the order in which they appear in the resource. One of the examples given is: Henry Esmond Bleak House I assume that this refers to a resource which includes both Thackeray's The history of Henry Esmond and Dickens' Bleak House. I also assume that this resource doesn't have a title page which names both works (as in the examples in the first part of 2.3.2.9), but instead has two separate title pages, one for each novel (e.g., as tête-bêche). Is this the correct interpretation? If so, I'm still not clear as to how the two titles proper are to be recorded. What would it look like in MARC? And does it mean that I have two instances of the RDA element title proper in this case, or do the titles proper of both novels together make up the element title proper of the manifestation? Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] RDA 2.3.2.9 Resource lacking a collective title
Thomas Brenndorfer said: In 2.4.1.6, multiple statements of responsibility are linked to the corresponding title, edition, or series information. RDA D.1.2.2 prescribes semicolons to separate these statement of responsibility elements. So once the individual titles proper are recorded for resources lacking a collective title, one just adds the associated statements of responsibility in conjunction with each title proper. Right, that works. Punctuation separating elements and subfield codes are display and encoding conventions outside of RDA. I'm aware of that. I think I got confused mainly because in the first part of 2.3.2.9, there are only examples _with_ ISBD puncuation, and in the second part, there are only examples _without_ ISBD punctuation. This led me to believe that there is an inherent difference in the way the titles must be recorded in the two cases. Well, it's not the first time that examples in RDA have led me on a wrong track, and it probably won't be the last. After looking again, I suppose that this difference is only due to the fact that in both of the examples for the first case, the titles proper of the contained works are linked by a conjunction (and or et). It might be clearer if there was an additional example for the first case of the type we see below (for a title page where there is no conjunction between the two titles proper), i.e. title proper 1 title proper 2 By the way, it is hard to see how one could separate the titles proper in the examples with a conjunction (if we're supposed to think of them as two instances of the same element). Perhaps in cases like this, it would make sense to treat the whole thing as one title proper only. I'm working on a project now with some archival relational database software that uses the labelled element-by-element and entity-by-entity approach as seen in the RDA element set. Creating an RDA overlay that would work with this software appears to me to be quite straightforward, as it would be unencumbered by the stringent punctuation and subfield dependencies, and occasional lack of granularity, as found in AACR2 and MARC. In addition to labeling values with the element name (providing meaning and context to recorded data), there is a feature in this software that points to how one can treat recorded data that can be turned into machine-actionable data. Entering a date in one field, for example, results in a recorded form that is automatically converted into an accompanying normalized form (as found in 008 and 046). All forms of the date are seen together so the cataloger can see how the date will appear to the user and how it will be manipulated by the computer. This sounds very interesting. Will it be possible to see a demo or some screenshots of this at some stage? Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] RDA 2.3.2.9 Resource lacking a collective title
Mac said: RDA gives the option, in the absence of a collective title, of creating one (with the contents in a note), or of using the titles of the contents. I strongly urge EURIG to have a policy statement to always supply a title for the sake of consistency in describing the same resource; otherwise there will be great variety. The German working group for the implementation of RDA has set up a sub-working group for all questions concerning whole-part relationships, and compilations without a collective title are one of the cases they are looking into. It's a rather complicated topic, and it's all still under discussion, but if I remember correctly (not being a member of the group myself), the question of title proper is one of the stumbling blocks here. I don't think we'll end up with made-up titles, though. It wouldn't be in accordance with our cataloging tradition, and the implementation group is not in favour of the alternative in 2.3.2.9. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] RDA 2.3.2.9 Resource lacking a collective title
Mac, Heidrun said: I don't think we'll end up with made-up titles, though. It wouldn't be in accordance with our cataloging tradition ... How is it possible to catalogue without made up titles? How would you catalogue realia for example? I'm sorry, I meant in this case. The German RAK rules do not call for devising a title such as [Two novels] for a resource without a collective title, as you had suggested. Of course there are cases where a title must be devised, although I think that German cataloging always has tried to keep this to a minimum. If the works in a collection without a collective title are by the same author, then according to RAK, there would have been an added entry author: [Collection]. But this is a practice which has gone out of fashion for quite some time now, unfortunately. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
[RDA-L] 2.2.3.1 Preferred sources of information in different languages or scripts
I may (as usual) simply worry too much about the rules, but I'm wondering about bilinguial dictionaries with separate facing title pages in two languages. Which of these two title pages should be used as the preferred source of information? 2.2.3.1 a) to d) aren't applicable, so we're left with e): the first occurring of the sources. Now what is the first occurring of the sources in this case - the one on the left-hand side, as it comes before the right-hand side? According to the German cataloguing rules RAK I would have used the title page on the right-hand side as the preferred source of information (RAK § 26,2, note). I assume the reasoning behind this is that traditionally a title page is always placed on a recto, not on a verso page. This makes sense to me, so I would like to go on using the right-hand title page in a case like this - but I'm not sure whether that's compatible with RDA 2.2.3.1 e). Any thoughts? Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] 2.2.3.1 Preferred sources of information in different languages or scripts
Mac said: We would treat this the same way we treat any title page which extends over two pages. often happens with chilren's books. Right, I see that this can be done, although it's perhaps a bit of a stretch in the light of the existence of 2.2.3.1. But if you treat the two facing title pages as only one source of information, then you still must decide which one comes first in the description, i.e. which version gives us the title proper and which gives us the parallel title proper. This leads to 2.3.2.4 Titlein More Than One Language or Script, where you're supposed to choose the one in the language of the main content of the resource. This isn't applicable in my example. But indeed, the rule here is a bit more flexible than 2.2.3.1, as you do not necessarily have to take the first one, but can choose the title proper on the basis of the sequence, layout, or typography of the titles. Therefore, I could probably say that sequence and layout have lead me to decide that the title on the right-hand side is the main one. By the way, I've just noticed something funny with 2.3.2.4. Before the rewording, the last sentence used to read (as I can see in an old PDF printout): If this criterion is not applicable, choose the title proper on the basis of the sequence, layout, or typography of the titles on the source of information. But now it reads: If the content is not written, spoken, or sung, choose the title proper on the basis of the sequence, layout, or typography of the titles on the source of information. I don't thinj that this was an intentional change, because now the case of a written/spoken/sung resource, where the criterion of language of the main content isn't applicable, is no longer covered at all. Perhaps something has gone wrong here with the rewording?? They don't even have to be facing, e.g., tete-beche. Yes, but then this case is explicitly covered in RDA 2.2.3.1 f). With tete-beche, we're supposed to favour the language of the agency. It doesn't say which to take if the language agency isn't used in the ressource (I suppose then we can toss a coin). Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] 2.2.3.1 Preferred sources of information in different languages or scripts
Kevin M Randall wrote: If the resource is one in which pages are read left to right, then I would probably take the one on the left-hand side as the preferred source. But seeing as the sequence of the two pages is probably arbitrary, I would not object to someone just deciding that none of the categories is applicable and simply choosing based on the agency's preferences. If a)-d) don't apply, then isn't this resource pretty much the equivalent of something that could have been presented as tete-beche but instead was put together interleaved? In that case, the spirit behind f) would seem to apply. Good point. Thanks, Kevin. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
[RDA-L] Change to option in 2.4.1.5 (Statement of responsibility naming more than one person, etc.)
Has everybody noticed the change to the option in 2.4.1.5 (Statement of responsibility naming more than one person, etc.) in the July update? It went over the fast track, so it's not marked in the Toolkit and also doesn't appear in the update history. The option used to read omit *all* but the first of each group of such persons, families, or bodies, and now it says omit *any* but the first of each group of such persons, families, or bodies. I remember this was one of the possibilities suggested when we discussed the rule on the RDA list, some time ago. There is also a new second example, where only the first and the fourth name (out of a list of six names) have been transcribed. I noticed the change especially, as I had just written a draft proposal for this option myself (with a slightly different solution), which now probably doesn't need to go any further. By the way: It would be nice to know somewhat in advance which changes to RDA are in the pipeline. Perhaps we could establish a wiki or something where everybody could make a note of changes they have proposed via the fast track (apart from typos a.s.o.) or of work being done on proposals. This might save us doing the same or similar work twice, and also perhaps give people, who are interested in the same topic, a chance to work together and exchange their ideas. I know it's a lot to ask, though. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Recording (large print) in the 300
Kristen, my understanding is that RDA 3.13.1.3 only tells us that we can record the font size of resources for persons with visual impairments in this element, and how we should do it if we choose to. But font size is no core element, so it is not obligatory to record it. There is also no LC-PCC PS for 3.13.1.3, so it seems that LC and PCC do not have a policy of always recording it. Compare this e.g. with RDA 3.11.2 (Layout of cartographic elements), where the LC-PCC PS quite clearly says Core element for LC/PCC. So, in the case of large print you have to fall back on the general rule in RDA 0.6.1: Either you can set up a policy for your own library, if you think it's a good idea to always record it (personally, I'd be in favour of this), or the decision can be left to the individual cataloger. Heidrun On 06.07.2013 20:16, Kristen D. Northrup wrote: I just hit three consecutive RDA records that don't include (large print) in the 300. Usually RDA large print records include this, and 3.13.1.3 seems to imply that they should, but the fact that I hit several in a row is making me wonder if there has been a recent change. They're all pcc and we're only enhance, so I'm only submitting error reports, not changing anything. Insights appreciated. Kristen Northrup Head, Technical Services State Document Depository North Dakota State Library Bismarck, ND 701-328-4610 -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Translated from notes and code for original language
Bob, admittedly, it would never have occured to me that a language preferred by the agency creating the data could also be a code language. But if that's a legitimate interpretation, then of course I'm all for it. Not for the first time, I find that I need to learn to read RDA in a somewhat more liberal way than I was used to with our German RAK rules. I also like your reasoning about the codes in 041 $h; that was a real eye-opener. If seen like this, recording the code indeed does fit the definition of a structured description for the related expression. Heidrun On 02.07.2013 03:15, Robert Maxwell wrote: Heidrun, I believe the code in 008/35-37 and the code in subfield $a of 041 (and probably most of the other 041 subfields, except $h) do qualify as legitimate ways to record language of expression under 6.11.1.3. We are told to record the language or languages of the expression using an appropriate term or terms in a language preferred by the agency creating the data and the agency could say its preference is to record the language as a code. In fact that is exactly how we record language of expression under PCC practice in an expression authority record (language code in 377). So I don't believe that 6.11.1.3 only allows recording the information in natural language. I also agree that 041 $h gives exactly the same information as the Translated from note (at least the very general one we've been discussing), but the reason I think (or thought--see the next paragraph) in this case that the code is non-RDA is because of the definitions of structured and unstructured description in 24.4.3, which is pretty clearly given in terms of natural language (structured description: a full or partial description of the related resource using the same data that would be recorded in RDA elements for a description of that related resource; unstructured description: a full or partial description of the related resource written as a sentence or paragraph). I suppose this could be remedied by tweaking the definition of structured description -- codes in 041 seem pretty structured to me. Alternately it could be argued that the same data that would be recorded in RDA elements for ... the related resource could in fact apply to the code in 041 $h: if the element we're talking about is the language of expression element, and we've agreed (as seen above in the first paragraph) that in the description /of the related resource/ (that is the description of the French original, whether that description is a bibliographic record or an authority record for the expression) the language of expression element can be recorded as a code in bibliographic 041 $a (or the code in 008/35-37), or in an authority record it can be recorded as a code in 377, then under the definition of structured description it can be recorded as a code in 041 $h in the bibliographic record /for the translation/. Under this argument the code is in fact a structured description of that particular element and thus is /not/ a non-RDA element. I think I've convinced myself. How about you? :-) 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 [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Heidrun Wiesenmüller [wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de] *Sent:* Monday, July 01, 2013 3:01 PM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Translated from notes and code for original language Bob, Translated from the French is an unstructured description of the relationship of the resource to another expression (though it's not a very specific description) and is covered by RDA 24.4.3. See also the example at 26.1.1.3 The English edition of a Spanish publication, which is also issued in French, German, and Arabic editions, which like the Translated from the French note describes in a very general way the relationship of the resource to four other expressions. Thanks. You're probably right, it could count as an (albeit very general) unstructured description. I'd say the codes in 041 are non-RDA (at least they don't fall under the definition of either structured or unstructured description in 24.4.3), but that doesn't mean that they can't be recorded in a MARC record (they aren't AACR2 either). Good point. Actually, they also aren't mentioned in the German RAK rules, and it never bothered me before ;-) But there is one more general point which comes to mind: If you think about it, the code in 041 $h gives exactly the same information as the Translated from note - only in coded form instead
Re: [RDA-L] Translated from notes and code for original language
Bob, Translated from the French is an unstructured description of the relationship of the resource to another expression (though it's not a very specific description) and is covered by RDA 24.4.3. See also the example at 26.1.1.3 The English edition of a Spanish publication, which is also issued in French, German, and Arabic editions, which like the Translated from the French note describes in a very general way the relationship of the resource to four other expressions. Thanks. You're probably right, it could count as an (albeit very general) unstructured description. I'd say the codes in 041 are non-RDA (at least they don't fall under the definition of either structured or unstructured description in 24.4.3), but that doesn't mean that they can't be recorded in a MARC record (they aren't AACR2 either). Good point. Actually, they also aren't mentioned in the German RAK rules, and it never bothered me before ;-) But there is one more general point which comes to mind: If you think about it, the code in 041 $h gives exactly the same information as the Translated from note - only in coded form instead of natural language. But we've come to the conclusion that the note can be seen as an RDA element, but the code cannot (if we take the wording of 24.4.3 seriously). I feel that RDA needs to become more aware of the existence of coded information. 6.11.1.3 (Recording language of expression) is a good example for this. If I understand the rule correctly, it only provides for recording the language of the expression in natural language, but not as a code. I accept that using natural language terms makes sense e.g. as part of an authorized access point (although, of course, you could still record a code, but show it to the users as natural language). But isn't it also a way of recording language of the expression, whenever a language code is used in MARC 008 35-37? So, why not have a more general rule in the first place and say, e.g. Record the language or languages of the expression using appropriate means, e.g. an appropriate term in the language preferred by the agency creating the data? Then the natural language terms could be used where appropriate, but the use of codes would also be covered by the wording of the instruction. But perhaps I'm on the wrong track here altogether and have simply misunderstood the application of 6.11.1.3. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Translated from notes and code for original language
Joan, good idea, I hadn't thought of that. So this seems to confirm my assumption that at least the code for the original language cannot be mapped to any RDA element (perhaps it's different for the Translated from note). Pity - I had hoped for someone to come up with a clever idea ;-) I'm not sure how common this kind of coding is in the Anglo-American world, anyway. If it is done regularly, I'd be interested to know how it is handled now by people who already do their cataloging in RDA. In German cataloging, it's quite normal to record a code for the original language, and I wouldn't want to give this up when we switch to RDA (at least not until our data is much more FRBRized than it is now). Well, I suppose nobody will stop us from still recording this kind of information, even if it's not covered in RDA. Heidrun Heidrun, I look at MARC to RDA mapping. It shows that the corresponding RDA instruction number is N/A. So I have to say that I do not know :) Have a great weekend, Joan Wang On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de mailto:wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote: Joan, That is exactly the question: Is it indeed a matter of recording relationships between two expressions when I record the original language in 041 $h or write a note like Translated from the French? My feeling is that it is something else, and I wonder what exactly it is and whether this is covered by RDA somehow. If we look at RDA 26.1 (Related expression), there are three possibilities for recording a relationship between two expressions: Either by an identifier, by an authorized access point or by a description (structured or unstructured). The first two options are certainly out of the question in our case. Now, could Translated from the French or the code fre in 041 $h be counted as some sort of shorthand way for an unstructured description of the related expression? That's where I have my doubts. Now, if the information we record by the translation note or the code for the original language is _not_ a relationship to another expression - what else could it be? I think that what we record here is in fact an attribute of another expression. So, the composite description seems to contain attributes of two different expressions at the same time (the one I'm actually describing and the one with the original language). This looks a bit odd to me. Mind, I'm not saying that the information given in a translated from note or a code in 041 is not useful. Quite the contrary: I think it's very sensible to record it. Only I can't find a suitable RDA element for it - unless we really see it as shorthand for a relationship, which I would find hard to stomach. Probably Mac is going to say that we shouldn't agonize about it and simply go on doing it ;-) Heidrun Hi, Heidrun I am not sure if I understand your issue correctly. Does it go relationships between expressions? So we can use structured or unstructured descriptions, or relationship designators in authorized access points. If I am not right, please feel free to correct me. Thanks, Joan Wang On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de mailto:wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote: Sorry, I pushed the wrong button just now - here's the complete text of the mail: -- I wonder how a note like Translated from the French does fit in with RDA, in a composite description scenario. The same goes for codes in MARC 041 $h giving information about the original language, e.g.: 041 1# $a eng $h fre (text in English, translated from French) The only possible RDA elements I can think of for this kind of information are 6.11 (Language of expression) and 7.12 (Language of the content), but I'm not really happy with that. 6.11 doesn't seem to work, because French is not the language of the expression described, but the language of a different expression. Similarly, 7.12 is about the content of the present resource only. The problem seems to be that the information we're giving here is an attribute of a different expression. Admittedly, this is a perhaps an academic question only, but still: Any ideas? Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi http://www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville
[RDA-L] Publication date including month or exact date: examples?
In 2.8.6.3 (Recording date of publication) there is an example May 2000. This shows that not only the year, but also the month and presumably even the exact date of publication is to be recorded in this element, if it is given in the source of information. I'd like to see some real live examples for this in actual cataloging. Has somebody already come across such a case and could point me to the corresponding title record? Thanks, Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
[RDA-L] Translated from notes and code for original language
I wonder how a note like Translated from the French does fit in with RDA, in a composite description scenario. The same goes for codes in MARC 041 $h giving information about the original language, e.g.: 041 1# $a eng $h fre (text in English, translated from French) The only possible RDA elements I can think of for this kind of information are 6.11 (Language of expression) and 7.12 (Language of the content), but I'm not really happy with that. 6.11 doesn't seem to work, because Italian is not the language of the expression described, but the language of a different Again, this is a perhaps an academic question -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
[RDA-L] Translated from notes and code for original language
Sorry, I pushed the wrong button just now - here's the complete text of the mail: -- I wonder how a note like Translated from the French does fit in with RDA, in a composite description scenario. The same goes for codes in MARC 041 $h giving information about the original language, e.g.: 041 1# $a eng $h fre (text in English, translated from French) The only possible RDA elements I can think of for this kind of information are 6.11 (Language of expression) and 7.12 (Language of the content), but I'm not really happy with that. 6.11 doesn't seem to work, because French is not the language of the expression described, but the language of a different expression. Similarly, 7.12 is about the content of the present resource only. The problem seems to be that the information we're giving here is an attribute of a different expression. Admittedly, this is a perhaps an academic question only, but still: Any ideas? Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
