Re: [RDA-L] Question on responsibility and preferred entry
Also, some books could be a combination of relevant content rather than an original creation and writing. For your reference :) On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote: From the information about Frank Booty*. *He is used to be an editor :) Yes. I made an assumption from his* *experience. You also can check if the eight authors are responsible for particular parts of the book. If they do write parts of the book, they would be authors. On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Michael Borries michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu wrote: Why do you think page xx means “editors” and not “authors”? I see nothing there to suggest this. ** ** Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Joan Wang *Sent:* Thursday, September 05, 2013 2:00 PM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Question on responsibility and preferred entry ** ** Hi, Michael I did read Page xx, “About the authors”. Apparently the term author is used differently in the book. It actually means editor rather than author as we understand in RDA. I would suggest you to stick to the title page. You also can make a judgement based on the nature of the handbook. *About the Authors* *Frank Booty is former editor of Facilities Management and a contributor to, and editor of, other market-leading titles, books and web sites in the fields of business, IT and networking. * ** ** Hopefully it helps. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System ** ** On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Michael Borries michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu wrote: I have in hand the fourth edition of Facilities management handbook. I have the edition from Routledge. (OCoLC) 244653136 is an AACR2 record for the Butterworth-Heinemann edition. (You can also search by ISBN: 9780750689779.) The cover says “edited by Frank Booty”; the title page leaves out “edited by,” at least in my copy (the record for the Butterworth-Heinemann edition suggests that “edited by” was on the title page, although other records suggest that “edited by” did not appear on the title page). Page xx, “About the authors,” lists 8 authors of the handbook, the first, of course, being Frank Booty, who seems, then, to be the primary author and the editor responsible for the final form of the volume. So, should his name be the preferred entry? Should I simply ignore “edited by” on the cover? And if I did want to give it, I assume I would not use square brackets, since it comes from the resource, although not from the source I am using for the information. Thanks in advance for any help. Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Question on responsibility and preferred entry
From the information about Frank Booty*. *He is used to be an editor :) Yes. I made an assumption from his* *experience. You also can check if the eight authors are responsible for particular parts of the book. If they do write parts of the book, they would be authors. On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Michael Borries michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu wrote: Why do you think page xx means “editors” and not “authors”? I see nothing there to suggest this. ** ** Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Joan Wang *Sent:* Thursday, September 05, 2013 2:00 PM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Question on responsibility and preferred entry ** ** Hi, Michael I did read Page xx, “About the authors”. Apparently the term author is used differently in the book. It actually means editor rather than author as we understand in RDA. I would suggest you to stick to the title page. You also can make a judgement based on the nature of the handbook. *About the Authors* *Frank Booty is former editor of Facilities Management and a contributor to, and editor of, other market-leading titles, books and web sites in the fields of business, IT and networking. * ** ** Hopefully it helps. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System ** ** On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Michael Borries michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu wrote: I have in hand the fourth edition of Facilities management handbook. I have the edition from Routledge. (OCoLC) 244653136 is an AACR2 record for the Butterworth-Heinemann edition. (You can also search by ISBN: 9780750689779.) The cover says “edited by Frank Booty”; the title page leaves out “edited by,” at least in my copy (the record for the Butterworth-Heinemann edition suggests that “edited by” was on the title page, although other records suggest that “edited by” did not appear on the title page). Page xx, “About the authors,” lists 8 authors of the handbook, the first, of course, being Frank Booty, who seems, then, to be the primary author and the editor responsible for the final form of the volume. So, should his name be the preferred entry? Should I simply ignore “edited by” on the cover? And if I did want to give it, I assume I would not use square brackets, since it comes from the resource, although not from the source I am using for the information. Thanks in advance for any help. Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Question on responsibility and preferred entry
Hi, Michael I did read Page xx, “About the authors”. Apparently the term author is used differently in the book. It actually means editor rather than author as we understand in RDA. I would suggest you to stick to the title page. You also can make a judgement based on the nature of the handbook. *About the Authors* * * *Frank Booty is former editor of Facilities Management and a contributor to, and editor of, other market-leading titles, books and web sites in the fields of business, IT and networking. * Hopefully it helps. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Michael Borries michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu wrote: I have in hand the fourth edition of Facilities management handbook. I have the edition from Routledge. (OCoLC) 244653136 is an AACR2 record for the Butterworth-Heinemann edition. (You can also search by ISBN: 9780750689779.) The cover says “edited by Frank Booty”; the title page leaves out “edited by,” at least in my copy (the record for the Butterworth-Heinemann edition suggests that “edited by” was on the title page, although other records suggest that “edited by” did not appear on the title page). ** ** Page xx, “About the authors,” lists 8 authors of the handbook, the first, of course, being Frank Booty, who seems, then, to be the primary author and the editor responsible for the final form of the volume. So, should his name be the preferred entry? Should I simply ignore “edited by” on the cover? And if I did want to give it, I assume I would not use square brackets, since it comes from the resource, although not from the source I am using for the information. ** ** Thanks in advance for any help. ** ** Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu ** ** -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] PCC RDA record examples
Thanks, Mac.
Yes. These examples need a proof-reading.
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:48 PM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
Joan said:
I still wonder about name/title access point tagged MARC 700-711. Does
it
mean that these 700-711 fields have names as well as titles?
700/711 may have just personal or corporate name, or name plus title.
Title alone would be 730 or 740.
Early on I was told 7XX$a$t have no $e or $4 between the name and
title, to my surprise. It seems inconsistent to me.
In your earlier post you cited:
264 1 Helsingfors : =C7=82b [publisher not identified], =C7=82c
193=
490 1 Acta Societatis Scientiarum Fennicae. Nova series B. =C7=82v
tom.
We would have entered:
264 1 $aHelsingfors [Sweden] :$bSocietatis Scientiarum Fennicae?].$c1939.
We would do a 710 for the society with relator $dissuing body, since we
don't know if they are the publisher for certain.
Lubetski would have just had [The Society] in 260$b.
Sommeone needs to do a editing job on those examples. But then, the
same if true of the whole RDA. The rewrite is still far short of
Michael Gorman's clarity in AACR2.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D.
Cataloger -- CMC
Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office)
6725 Goshen Road
Edwardsville, IL 62025
618.656.3216x409
618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Relator terms relation to work
I think that we can expand the relationships to projects embodied in a
work, such as a legal case, a thesis, and a government policy.
Thanks,
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 3:23 PM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
I've forgotten whether it was on Autocat or RDA-L that someone raised
an objection to chairperson as the relator term for the chair of the
issuing committee, saying the person was not chair of the work.
The same could be said of other relators, e.g., judge. The person
is the judge of the case described in the work, not of the work itself.
I suspect most patrons could figure out what is meant in these cases.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D.
Cataloger -- CMC
Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office)
6725 Goshen Road
Edwardsville, IL 62025
618.656.3216x409
618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Relator terms relation to work
I should say the intellectual content of a work :-)
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote:
I think that we can expand the relationships to projects embodied in a
work, such as a legal case, a thesis, and a government policy.
Thanks,
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 3:23 PM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
I've forgotten whether it was on Autocat or RDA-L that someone raised
an objection to chairperson as the relator term for the chair of the
issuing committee, saying the person was not chair of the work.
The same could be said of other relators, e.g., judge. The person
is the judge of the case described in the work, not of the work itself.
I suspect most patrons could figure out what is meant in these cases.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D.
Cataloger -- CMC
Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office)
6725 Goshen Road
Edwardsville, IL 62025
618.656.3216x409
618.656.9401Fax
--
Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D.
Cataloger -- CMC
Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office)
6725 Goshen Road
Edwardsville, IL 62025
618.656.3216x409
618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Title with embedded square brackets
I agree with Adam. RDA 1.7.3 seems to be the most relevant rule we can find. If the square brackets used in the word mean a correction or an emphasis, it is better to keep them. But if punctuations are used more like a decoration. For example, she is printed as S-H-E in a title page. Should we consider dash as a punctuation and keep them? Have fun :-) Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.eduwrote: Transcribe square brackets found on the source of information used. 2.3.1.4 Transcribe a title as it appears on the source of information (see 1.7). 1.7.3 Transcribe punctuation as it appears on the source except for the following situations: a) omit punctuation that separates data to be recorded as one element from data to be recorded as a different element b) omit punctuation that separates data to be recorded as one element from data recorded as a second or subsequent instance of the same element. Since brackets are marks of punctuation (see a nice list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Punctuationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuation), you transcribe them as found. 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 * On Thu, 29 Aug 2013, Billie Hackney wrote: Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:16:24 -0700 From: Billie Hackney bhack...@getty.edu Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Title with embedded square brackets I have a print title with a set of square brackets embedded in the first word on the piece itself. Here are the first few words of the title: D[a]edalus, my father's horse, taken from the mill I have looked in every place in the RDA Toolkit that I can think of, and every place listed under square brackets in the index, and cannot find instructions. I am aware that in RDA, you're supposed to describe what you see, so I assume the 245b should be exactly as I see it: D[a]edalus, my father's horse, taken from the mill and I can add a 246 with: Daedalus, my father's horse, taken from the mill Is this correct? Billie Hackney Senior Monograph Cataloger Getty Research Institute 1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688 (310) 440-7616 bhack...@getty.edu ^^** 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/**~aschiffhttp://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~** -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Title with embedded square brackets
It does not make many sense if we transcribe it as S-h-e. Who cares about that? users or catalogers? If we consider dash separating letters in the word a punctuation, I would suggest an omission of punctuations that disturb a word to be complete. Just my opinion :-) Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Patricia Sayre-McCoy p...@uchicago.eduwrote: RDA is pretty clear about which elements are to be transcribed, so yes, S-H-E would be the title proper. I’d add another title with She so people can actually find it. Pat ** ** Patricia Sayre-McCoy Head, Law Cataloging and Serials D’Angelo Law Library University of Chicago 773-702-9620 p...@uchicago.edu ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] *On Behalf Of *Joan Wang *Sent:* Friday, August 30, 2013 8:50 AM *To:* RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Title with embedded square brackets ** ** I agree with Adam. RDA 1.7.3 seems to be the most relevant rule we can find. If the square brackets used in the word mean a correction or an emphasis, it is better to keep them. But if punctuations are used more like a decoration. For example, she is printed as S-H-E in a title page. Should we consider dash as a punctuation and keep them? Have fun :-) Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System ** ** ** ** On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.edu wrote: Transcribe square brackets found on the source of information used. 2.3.1.4 Transcribe a title as it appears on the source of information (see 1.7). 1.7.3 Transcribe punctuation as it appears on the source except for the following situations: a) omit punctuation that separates data to be recorded as one element from data to be recorded as a different element b) omit punctuation that separates data to be recorded as one element from data recorded as a second or subsequent instance of the same element. Since brackets are marks of punctuation (see a nice list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuation), you transcribe them as found. 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 * ** On Thu, 29 Aug 2013, Billie Hackney wrote: Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:16:24 -0700 From: Billie Hackney bhack...@getty.edu Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Title with embedded square brackets I have a print title with a set of square brackets embedded in the first word on the piece itself. Here are the first few words of the title: D[a]edalus, my father's horse, taken from the mill I have looked in every place in the RDA Toolkit that I can think of, and every place listed under square brackets in the index, and cannot find instructions. I am aware that in RDA, you're supposed to describe what you see, so I assume the 245b should be exactly as I see it: D[a]edalus, my father's horse, taken from the mill and I can add a 246 with: Daedalus, my father's horse, taken from the mill Is this correct? Billie Hackney Senior Monograph Cataloger Getty Research Institute 1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688 (310) 440-7616 bhack...@getty.edu ^^ 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 ~~ -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Title with embedded square brackets
A little more thoughts. I think that the transcription of punctuations in a title proper serves two major purposes: understanding and searching. We transcribe a title proper (or other data) in a way that will assist users with understanding and searching a resource. Actually punctuations do not play an important role in searching. They help more for understanding (at the semantic level or data element level). I think that that is the reason for the omission or addition of punctuations.Punctuations should be used as a technique :-) Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote: It does not make many sense if we transcribe it as S-h-e. Who cares about that? users or catalogers? If we consider dash separating letters in the word a punctuation, I would suggest an omission of punctuations that disturb a word to be complete. Just my opinion :-) Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Patricia Sayre-McCoy p...@uchicago.eduwrote: RDA is pretty clear about which elements are to be transcribed, so yes, S-H-E would be the title proper. I’d add another title with She so people can actually find it. Pat ** ** Patricia Sayre-McCoy Head, Law Cataloging and Serials D’Angelo Law Library University of Chicago 773-702-9620 p...@uchicago.edu ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] *On Behalf Of *Joan Wang *Sent:* Friday, August 30, 2013 8:50 AM *To:* RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Title with embedded square brackets ** ** I agree with Adam. RDA 1.7.3 seems to be the most relevant rule we can find. If the square brackets used in the word mean a correction or an emphasis, it is better to keep them. But if punctuations are used more like a decoration. For example, she is printed as S-H-E in a title page. Should we consider dash as a punctuation and keep them? Have fun :-) Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System ** ** ** ** On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.edu wrote: Transcribe square brackets found on the source of information used. 2.3.1.4 Transcribe a title as it appears on the source of information (see 1.7). 1.7.3 Transcribe punctuation as it appears on the source except for the following situations: a) omit punctuation that separates data to be recorded as one element from data to be recorded as a different element b) omit punctuation that separates data to be recorded as one element from data recorded as a second or subsequent instance of the same element. Since brackets are marks of punctuation (see a nice list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuation), you transcribe them as found. 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 * ** On Thu, 29 Aug 2013, Billie Hackney wrote: Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:16:24 -0700 From: Billie Hackney bhack...@getty.edu Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Title with embedded square brackets I have a print title with a set of square brackets embedded in the first word on the piece itself. Here are the first few words of the title: D[a]edalus, my father's horse, taken from the mill I have looked in every place in the RDA Toolkit that I can think of, and every place listed under square brackets in the index, and cannot find instructions. I am aware that in RDA, you're supposed to describe what you see, so I assume the 245b should be exactly as I see it: D[a]edalus, my father's horse, taken from the mill and I can add a 246 with: Daedalus, my father's horse, taken from the mill Is this correct? Billie Hackney Senior Monograph Cataloger Getty Research Institute 1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688 (310) 440-7616 bhack...@getty.edu ^^ 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 ~~ -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong
Re: [RDA-L] Duplicate page numbering
I feel that cxciv, 47, 47, 48-148 pages looks better. cxciv, 47, 47, 148
pages could be interpreted as various pagings. But it is not the truth.
Thanks,
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 3:46 PM, John Hostage host...@law.harvard.eduwrote:
What about cxciv, 47, 47 pages, pages 48-148 with a note as per
3.22.2.7?
--
John Hostage
Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger //
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services //
Langdell Hall 194 //
Cambridge, MA 02138
host...@law.harvard.edu
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Dana Van Meter
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 14:10
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Duplicate page numbering
Thanks Mac. I haven't been able to get AACR2 to work via Cataloger's
Desktop for 3 days, and my customer service request to the Toolkit has
been
ignored, but was able to access AACR2 via the Toolkit today, after I
sent my
question and see that the AACR2 rule has pretty much the same wording,
and the exact same example as the RDA rule, and doesn't have an LCRI.
Not
sure why this suddenly was so bothersome to me, as I would have like
further guidance with the AACR2 rule as well. I always dread these books
because of the page numbering, I must have blocked out the memory of
them!
I'm going to do what you suggest and repeat 47 in the 300 |a (cxciv, 47,
47,
148 pages)and will also add a 500 note stating pages 1-47 are
duplicated. It's
odd that others are failing to do this, as they are clearly seeing where
the
duplicated paging stops.
Thanks again,
Dana
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 1:24 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Duplicate page numbering
Dana Van Meter posted:
RDA Rule 3.4.5.12 says to record both pagings and make an explanatory
note, giving the example: xii, 35, 35 pages.
That's what you should do. The cases of one sequence missing is due to
the
cataloguer just looking at the last page and not flipping through, I
suspect
because they are too preoccupied with the complexities of RDA.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__
\__
--
Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D.
Cataloger -- CMC
Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office)
6725 Goshen Road
Edwardsville, IL 62025
618.656.3216x409
618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Relator term for committee chair
the chair of a committee, it is a relationship of a person with a work? On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:35 AM, Felix, Kyley kfe...@parliament.wa.gov.auwrote: I want to know what relator term I should use for the chair of a committee. The term “chair” is not in the RDA toolkit’s list of relationship designators. ** ** Does anybody have any suggestions, please? ** ** Many thanks. ** ** Kyley Felix Librarian Parliamentary Library Parliament House Harvest Tce Perth WA 6000 Phone: (08) 9222 7393 ** ** ** ** - PARLIAMENT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CONDITIONS OF USE, PUBLICATION, OR DISCLOSURE OF THIS EMAIL APPLICABLE TO RECIPIENT The content of this email (including any attachments) - is provided for the use of the intended recipient only; and - mere receipt in no way authorises any recipient to disclose or publish all or part of it to another person or in any form. If this email relates to matters that were, or are being, considered by one or both Houses of Parliament or a committee of either or both Houses, any unauthorised use, publication or disclosure may amount to a breach of the privileges of the House(s). A person who is not an intended recipient is requested to advise the sender and delete this email immediately. Although this email has been scanned for viruses, this email is not guaranteed to be free of viruses and should be vetted by your own security mechanisms. The Parliament of Western Australia accepts no liability for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or its attachments. -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Bibliographic 380
I am catching up. I read RDA 6.3 Form of work. If my understanding is
correct, 380 fields are used to differentiate a work from another with the
same title. I feel that most time they would be a part of authority access
points, such as additions of preferred titles for works (uniform titles).
We do not have to worry about that (adding it in bibliographic records) too
much. I do not think that we should expect that the 33x fields would cover
form of work. The reason is that none of them is related to a work.
RDA 6.3 does not provide a term list that we can choose. In the followed
examples, we can see some terms.
*
Play *
* *
* *
*Form of work of: Charlemagne*
* *
*Tapestry *
*Form of work of: Charlemagne*
* *
*Choreographic work *
*Form of work of: The nutcracker*
* *
*Computer file *
*Form of work of: NuTCRACKER*
* *
*Motion picture *
*Form of work of: Ocean’s eleven. A film released in 1960*
* *
*Motion picture *
*Form of work of: Ocean’s eleven. A film released in 2001*
* *
*Radio program *
*Form of work of: War of the worlds*
* *
*Television program *
*Form of work of: War of the worlds*
* *
*Chanson de geste *
*Form of work of: Guillaume*
* *
*Series *
*Form of work of: Scottish History Society*
* *
*Poem *
* *
*Form of work of: **Chanson de Roland*
From these examples, we can see that form of work (terms) are used to
differentiate works with the same title. *video games *is not among them. I
am not sure if RDA 6.3 should instruct us to construct terms if we need.
Or, it is a common sense?
Any more advice?
Many thanks,
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:47 PM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
Thank you Thomas for letting me know that 380 may be used in
bibliographic records. (One cataloguer reports seeing them in some
records for Blu-rays.)
We don't want to use it if redundant with data in other fields,
particularly 33X. We depend on 008/33 letter codes (added to MARC21
from CanMARC) for literary form, although Margaret Mann advocated a
bracketed term added to title, much like the later GMD. Her example
was I seem to remember Fire [poems].
The following has been added to the RDA editing and monograph
cataloguing cheat sheets:
380 Form of work
May be used with or without $2 source code.
[Assign a clarifying term if 33X do not adequately describe the
nature of the resource, e.g., kit, large print, equipment. computer
game.]
Thomas, I expect you to not agree with one or more of these terms,
particularly large print. It is good to have a field not restricted
to a set list of terms. No finite list can cover all possible
situations.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D.
Cataloger -- CMC
Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office)
6725 Goshen Road
Edwardsville, IL 62025
618.656.3216x409
618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Content/Media/Carrier Types - Video Games
Thanks. Thomas.
I have not gone through your responses. But I notice that you mentioned 380
form of work. It is possible to give some instructions about the use of 380
field in bibliographic records? I mean in what situations we should use 380
fields.
Many thanks for that in advance.
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Brenndorfer, Thomas
tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca wrote:
The two RDA examples for video games on this page are informative:
http://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/RDA%20training%20materials/SCT%20RDA%20Records%20TG/
While LDR/06=m is used, treating the video games as a computer file record
type, that is not reflected exactly in the 336 Content Types. Both records
have a 336 for two-dimensional moving image, but only one has a 336 for
computer program. The disc that is used only with a game console doesn't
have a Content Type = computer program.
For LDR/06=m, the preference is to use it in case of doubt, but to prefer
another code for Type of Record if the aspect brought out (language
material, music, moving image) is most significant. RDA tilts towards
two-dimensional moving image as the significant aspect for video games.
The records also clarify that 380 Form of Work is used for Video games.
RDA does not leave things up in the air when there is a need to tell people
what the resource is. The nature of the resource is covered in several
elements, and 338 Content Type only deals with very broad categories of
aspects of the fundamental communication of the content. Shoehorning
unrelated data into an element would only bring back messes like the GMD
which packed in too many overlapping concepts and which was pulled off in
different directions to squeeze bits of infromation into the limits of
traditional displays.
I'm currently testing out PAC displays that bring forward very useful
elements such Form of Work and Date of Work. There is great potential with
the new RDA element set approach to create displays that are both
informative and quick to glance through.
Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [
RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: August-28-13 12:54 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Content/Media/Carrier Types - Video Games
Katrina Gormley asked:
What Content/Media/Carrier Types are people using for Video games
336 $acomputer program$2rdacontent
336 $atwo-dimensional moving image$2rdacontent*
336 $aperformed music$2rdaconten * **
336 $aspoken word$2rdacontnt**
336 $atext$2rdacontent**
336 $asounds$2rdacontent**
If you follow the RDA option of single most important, I would use
computer program, although a computer game is not a what most
patrons think of as a program (something one applies to data). It
seems to me a content term for interactive resources is needed.
In assigning content terms, I think we should adopt a middle course
between single most important and all which might apply. Would anyone
go to a computer game for text, spoken word, performed music, or
sounds, even though the game might have all of those? It's on that
bases that I don't think we should apply still image to all
illustrated items; only if a patron would go to the item for the
images, e.g., an exhibition catalogue, an art book.
337 $acomputer$2rdamedia***
338 $acomputer disc$2rdacarrier
*or 336 $aimage (moving)$2isbdcontent; also some games are still
image, so of all computer games are to have the same content term,
computer program is a better choice than ... moving image.
**as applicable
***or 337 $aelectronic$2isbdmedia
or 338 $aonline resource$2rdacarrier if online
OCLC will be accepting $2isbd for content and media in November. ISBD
does not have carrier terms.
In the absense of a content term which actually tells the patron what
the resource is, it is important to have computer game as the unit
name.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D.
Cataloger -- CMC
Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office)
6725 Goshen Road
Edwardsville, IL 62025
618.656.3216x409
618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] My new blog post about RDA in China
Thanks for sharing. I read the article. I can image the situation of the implementation of RDA in China :-) Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Li Kai islande...@gmail.com wrote: Hi everyone, I wrote a new blog post about RDA's developments in China in the past year (http://kaili.us/node/53), which I believe some of you may be interested in. I look forward to hearing your opinions about this post. Kai, -- Kai Li | 李恺 MLIS student School of Information Studies, Syracuse University 343 Hinds Hall, Syracuse, New York 13244-4100 My Personal Page: https://sites.google.com/site/kailinalsi/ Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/kai.lee.nalsi Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/Nalsi Blog: http://librarianforthefuture.blogspot.com/ Gmail/Gtalk: islande...@gmail.com 博客: http://nalsi.net/ 微博: http://weibo.com/nalsi -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Reconciliation of RDA and MARC relators
Bernadette Thanks for your explanation. I know what you mean. My question actually is these two terms are quite close. It would be hard for us to choose if they both are allowed to us. Thanks again, Joan Wang On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 3:39 AM, Bernadette Mary O'Reilly bernadette.orei...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk wrote: Thanks, Joan. ** ** ‘degree supervisor’ (which is newish in Appendix I and is not in the Relators Reconciled list) and ‘thesis advisor’ (in the Relators Reconciled list but not in Appendix I) do seem to have almost the same coverage, although the former would have the advantage of clearly applying to non-textual submissions, such as original musical compositions submitted for a D.Mus degree. ** ** However, we have always used ‘thesis advisor’ here, and it would be tiresome to change to ‘degree supervisor’ and then have to change back to ‘thesis advisor’, so I would like to know more about the status and purpose of the Relators Reconciled list. ** ** Best wishes, Bernadette *** Bernadette O'Reilly Catalogue Support Librarian Bodleian Libraries, Osney One Building Osney Mead Oxford OX2 0EW. bernadette.orei...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk 01865 2-77134 *** ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Joan Wang *Sent:* 22 August 2013 21:43 *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Reconciliation of RDA and MARC relators ** ** I saw 'degree supervisor' in RDA appendix I.2.2. 'Degree supervisor is A person overseeing a higher-level academic degree. 'Thesis advisor [ths]' is A person under whose supervision a degree candidate develops and presents a thesis, mémoire, or text of a dissertation. Are they same? ** ** On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Bernadette Mary O'Reilly bernadette.orei...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk wrote: Hello I’ve just come across NDMSO’s “MARC and RDA Relators Reconciled”, http://www.loc.gov/marc/annmarcrdarelators.html, dated May. This offers a single list of relators, with MARC/RDA overlaps resolved. But I’m not clear about the status of this list. Does it mean that LC now approves the use of all the relators in it, including the ones which do not occur in Appendix I? The LC-PCC PS on I.1 still recommends the PCC guidelines, and they still require the use of terms from Appendix I. Or does it mean that the non-RDA terms will be fast-tracked into Appendix I? Or neither? I’m particularly interested in whether or when we can use ‘thesis advisor’. Please can anyone elucidate? Best wishes, Bernadette *** Bernadette O'Reilly Catalogue Support Librarian Bodleian Libraries, Osney One Building Osney Mead Oxford OX2 0EW. bernadette.orei...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk 01865 2-77134 *** -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Reconciliation of RDA and MARC relators
Sorry. should be allowed to use (not us). Thanks. On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 7:50 AM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote: Bernadette Thanks for your explanation. I know what you mean. My question actually is these two terms are quite close. It would be hard for us to choose if they both are allowed to us. Thanks again, Joan Wang On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 3:39 AM, Bernadette Mary O'Reilly bernadette.orei...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk wrote: Thanks, Joan. ** ** ‘degree supervisor’ (which is newish in Appendix I and is not in the Relators Reconciled list) and ‘thesis advisor’ (in the Relators Reconciled list but not in Appendix I) do seem to have almost the same coverage, although the former would have the advantage of clearly applying to non-textual submissions, such as original musical compositions submitted for a D.Mus degree. ** ** However, we have always used ‘thesis advisor’ here, and it would be tiresome to change to ‘degree supervisor’ and then have to change back to ‘thesis advisor’, so I would like to know more about the status and purpose of the Relators Reconciled list. ** ** Best wishes, Bernadette *** Bernadette O'Reilly Catalogue Support Librarian Bodleian Libraries, Osney One Building Osney Mead Oxford OX2 0EW. bernadette.orei...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk 01865 2-77134 *** ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Joan Wang *Sent:* 22 August 2013 21:43 *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Reconciliation of RDA and MARC relators ** ** I saw 'degree supervisor' in RDA appendix I.2.2. 'Degree supervisor is A person overseeing a higher-level academic degree. 'Thesis advisor [ths]' is A person under whose supervision a degree candidate develops and presents a thesis, mémoire, or text of a dissertation. Are they same? ** ** On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Bernadette Mary O'Reilly bernadette.orei...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk wrote: Hello I’ve just come across NDMSO’s “MARC and RDA Relators Reconciled”, http://www.loc.gov/marc/annmarcrdarelators.html, dated May. This offers a single list of relators, with MARC/RDA overlaps resolved. But I’m not clear about the status of this list. Does it mean that LC now approves the use of all the relators in it, including the ones which do not occur in Appendix I? The LC-PCC PS on I.1 still recommends the PCC guidelines, and they still require the use of terms from Appendix I. Or does it mean that the non-RDA terms will be fast-tracked into Appendix I? Or neither? I’m particularly interested in whether or when we can use ‘thesis advisor’. Please can anyone elucidate? Best wishes, Bernadette *** Bernadette O'Reilly Catalogue Support Librarian Bodleian Libraries, Osney One Building Osney Mead Oxford OX2 0EW. bernadette.orei...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk 01865 2-77134 *** -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] 264 with only a copyright date
An appropriate display would like this:
RDA record:
*Publication:* New York : Harper, [1961]
*Copyright date:* c1961
AACR2 record:
*Publication: *New York : Harper, c1961
Which one is clearer and not liable to misinterpretation by users
(non-catalogers)?
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Gene Fieg gf...@cst.edu wrote:
I wasn't talking about the copyright of theses.
In terms of theses: author cites New York : Harper, c1961
Catalog record reads 264 New York : Harper, [1961]
264 c1961
Thesis advisor checks citation and notes the [1961].
Calls in author. Our catalog says it was published in 1961, are you sure
you want to keep c1961.
That is what says in the book, says author.
Hmm, says advisor, I wonder why we have [1961] and where did it come from?
AACR2: New York : Harper, c1961
Which one is clearer and not liable to misinterpretation by users
(non-catalogers)?
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:28 AM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
Amy Mercer posted:
264 #4 $a London; $a Toronto : $b Schott, $c (c)2011
No. Field 264 4 has only $c date. The publisher may or may not be
the copright holder.
You do not record a copyright date in 264 1; in the absence of an
imprint date, you record an inferred imprint date in brackets, i.e.,
the copyright date in brackets without the copyright symbol. We do not
record a 264 4 date if the same as 264 1, even if in brackets in 264
1. I agree that the two 264s with the same date looks redundant. You
are right to seek a more sensible solution.
We would do this imprint as:
264 1 $aLondon [England] ;$aToronto [Ontario] : $bSchott,$c[2011]
We always transcribe or supply jurisdiction; since there is a London in
both Ontario and England that seems particularly important in this
case.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.
--
Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D.
Cataloger -- CMC
Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office)
6725 Goshen Road
Edwardsville, IL 62025
618.656.3216x409
618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] 264 with copyright date and first published date and reprint date
I would consider First published date 2012 as the publication date. Reprinted date 2013 would be a manufacture date. In this case, the manufacture statement can be ignored. Anyway, if you consider it important, put a 500 note for the reprinted date. Also, for the second 264 field (with the second indicator 4), the only thing you need is sub-field c for the copyright date. As you did, put a symbol before the date. Hopefully it helps. Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Basma Chebani b...@aub.edu.lb wrote: Hello, I have one a case with the following: Reprinted date 2013 First published date 2012 Copyright Robin Mansell (c)2012 (the author) I recorded them in RDA 246 as follows: 008 date type r Date 1 = 2012Date 2 = 2013 264 #1 $a Oxford : $b Oxford University Press, $c [2013] 264 #4 $a [Oxford] : $b Robin Mansell, $c (c)2012 588 ## $First published 2012 and reprinted in 2013. 020 ##9780199697052 Kindly advise Thank you Basma Chebani Head of Cataloging and Metadata Services Department University Libraries / Jafet American University of Beirut Beirut - Lebanon Tel: 961-1-35 ext.2614 basma.cheb...@aub.edu.lb -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: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 8:49 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 264 with only a copyright date Gene Fieg asked, regarding the inclusion of copyright date and inferred publication date in an RDA record: And how is the user supposed to make sense of this? How are thesis advisors supposed to make sense of this when checking bibliographical citations? How will it display I don't see what you think is confusing about this. The user will look for a publication date, and will find it. What is confusing about that? The same with thesis advisors. What publication date do you think thesis advisors would expect to find? This inferred publication date is only used when there is no evidence of a publication date except the copyright date. A thesis advisor would almost certainly rather some guess of the publication date than no date at all. I would note that theses generally don't have copyright dates, and do have other dates which can be inferred as publication date. So this isn't usually an issue with theses anyway. As for how it will display, that is up to the ILS, of course. One reasonable way (but hardly the only possible way) it could be displayed is: Publication date: [2011] Copyright: (c)2011 That's the way we have it set up in our catalog (Millennium, the same as you have, I believe). Steve McDonald steve.mcdon...@tufts.edu -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
[RDA-L] Manufacture statement
Hi, all I have a question about manufacture statement. Generally manufacture statement is only required if neither publication nor distribution statement is identified. Does that mean I should have two 264 fields (with like [publisher not identified] and [distributor not identified]) before the third 264 field? Or, just need a publication statement? Now I have some old books. These books only have printing information. So there could be two options. For example: 1) 264 1 $a [Illinois?] : $b [publisher not identified], $c [1860] 264 2 $a [Illinois?] : $b [distributor not identified], $c [1860?] 264 3 $a Belleville, Illinois : $b Rupp und Grimm, $c 1860. Or 2) 264 1 $a [Illinois?] : $b [publisher not identified], $c [1860] 264 3 $a Belleville, Illinois : $b Rupp und Grimm, $c 1860. I am not sure if these old books (early printed books?) would have a distributor. But I feel that I may have to take option 1. Isn't it too much work? Many thanks for your help in advance. Joan Wang -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Manufacture statement
I feel that the answer should be option 1. A similar case is for copyright date. A copyright date is only required if neither date of publication nor date of distribution is identified. So far I only have seen records with two dates: a probable publication date, and a copyright date. I haven't gotten a chance to see records with three dates: a probable publication date, a probable distribution date, and a copyright date. So I assume there is no such requirement. Is that right? On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote: Hi, all I have a question about manufacture statement. Generally manufacture statement is only required if neither publication nor distribution statement is identified. Does that mean I should have two 264 fields (with like [publisher not identified] and [distributor not identified]) before the third 264 field? Or, just need a publication statement? Now I have some old books. These books only have printing information. So there could be two options. For example: 1) 264 1 $a [Illinois?] : $b [publisher not identified], $c [1860] 264 2 $a [Illinois?] : $b [distributor not identified], $c [1860?] 264 3 $a Belleville, Illinois : $b Rupp und Grimm, $c 1860. Or 2) 264 1 $a [Illinois?] : $b [publisher not identified], $c [1860] 264 3 $a Belleville, Illinois : $b Rupp und Grimm, $c 1860. I am not sure if these old books (early printed books?) would have a distributor. But I feel that I may have to take option 1. Isn't it too much work? Many thanks for your help in advance. Joan Wang -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Manufacture statement
Sorry. Should be option 2. On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote: I feel that the answer should be option 1. A similar case is for copyright date. A copyright date is only required if neither date of publication nor date of distribution is identified. So far I only have seen records with two dates: a probable publication date, and a copyright date. I haven't gotten a chance to see records with three dates: a probable publication date, a probable distribution date, and a copyright date. So I assume there is no such requirement. Is that right? On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote: Hi, all I have a question about manufacture statement. Generally manufacture statement is only required if neither publication nor distribution statement is identified. Does that mean I should have two 264 fields (with like [publisher not identified] and [distributor not identified]) before the third 264 field? Or, just need a publication statement? Now I have some old books. These books only have printing information. So there could be two options. For example: 1) 264 1 $a [Illinois?] : $b [publisher not identified], $c [1860] 264 2 $a [Illinois?] : $b [distributor not identified], $c [1860?] 264 3 $a Belleville, Illinois : $b Rupp und Grimm, $c 1860. Or 2) 264 1 $a [Illinois?] : $b [publisher not identified], $c [1860] 264 3 $a Belleville, Illinois : $b Rupp und Grimm, $c 1860. I am not sure if these old books (early printed books?) would have a distributor. But I feel that I may have to take option 1. Isn't it too much work? Many thanks for your help in advance. Joan Wang -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Reconciliation of RDA and MARC relators
I saw 'degree supervisor' in RDA appendix I.2.2. 'Degree supervisor is A person overseeing a higher-level academic degree. 'Thesis advisor [ths]' is A person under whose supervision a degree candidate develops and presents a thesis, mémoire, or text of a dissertation. Are they same? On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Bernadette Mary O'Reilly bernadette.orei...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk wrote: Hello ** ** I’ve just come across NDMSO’s “MARC and RDA Relators Reconciled”, http://www.loc.gov/marc/annmarcrdarelators.html, dated May. This offers a single list of relators, with MARC/RDA overlaps resolved. ** ** But I’m not clear about the status of this list. Does it mean that LC now approves the use of all the relators in it, including the ones which do not occur in Appendix I? The LC-PCC PS on I.1 still recommends the PCC guidelines, and they still require the use of terms from Appendix I. Or does it mean that the non-RDA terms will be fast-tracked into Appendix I? Or neither? ** ** I’m particularly interested in whether or when we can use ‘thesis advisor’. ** ** Please can anyone elucidate? ** ** Best wishes, Bernadette ** ** *** Bernadette O'Reilly Catalogue Support Librarian Bodleian Libraries, Osney One Building Osney Mead Oxford OX2 0EW. bernadette.orei...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk 01865 2-77134 *** ** ** -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] 264 with only a copyright date
264 fields use different second indicators to separate publication, distribution, manufacture statement, and copyright date. The second indicator 4 of 264 field means copyright notice date. That means it only records the copyright date. Copyright date is a core element only if neither date of publication nor date of distribution is identified. But my feeling is that most of time people would record a copyright date if there is one appearing on the piece. The bracketed publication date in the first 264 field (with the second indicator 1) is inferred from the copyright date. The Library of Congress Policy encourages you to supply a probable publication date. The policy includes a guideline for supplying a probable publication date. Does that make sense? Thank you. Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Amy Mercer amer...@leeuniversity.eduwrote: I have seen many examples like the one below, in which there is both a publication date and a copyright date. ** ** 264 #1 $a London ; $a Toronto : $b Schott, $c [2011] 264 #4 $c ©2011 ** ** ** ** But I cannot find a rule or example in which there is only a copyright date. How is that handled? Would it be correct to do it this way? ** ** 264 #4 $a London; $a Toronto : $b Schott, $c ©2011 ** ** If not…help. ** ** If so, what is the rule? ** ** Thanks, ** ** *Amy Mercer* Technical Services / Serials Librarian Wm. G. Squires Library Lee University 260 11th St. NE Cleveland, TN 37311 423.614.8564 amer...@leeuniversity.edu ** ** ** ** -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Extent -- some ideas
My initial thought is to separate carrier from content. Carrier types and extent of carrier should be defined irrelevant of content. A sheet is a sheet. A volume is a volume, no matter what content is on or in. They all are about physical objects in your hand. Pagination seems to be a part of some carriers. So if a carrier type includes a pagination, record it. Apparently RDA attempts to use pagination instead of volume to record extent of volumes mainly with text. But it forgets that not only text could be carried by a volume. I feel that is why it causes a trouble :-) Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Brenndorfer, Thomas tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca wrote: Use subelements under Pagination. Example of similar situation: Element: Dimensions SubElement: Dimensions of Map, Etc. SubElement: Dimensions of Still Image Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [ RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Laurence S. Creider [ lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu] Sent: August-20-13 5:45 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Extent -- some ideas I am with you until, The other benefit to treating Pagination as a separate element is that it's unique in that the measurement isn't usually based on the actual number of pages, but on the recording of the last numbered page. How would this be different from recording the complete sequences of pages (whether paginated or not), as one does in the description of early printed materials and in using DCRM(B)? Thank you, Larry -- Laurence S. Creider Head, Archives and Special Collections Dept. University Library New Mexico State University Las Cruces, NM 88003 Work: 575-646-4756 Fax: 575-646-7477 lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu On Tue, August 20, 2013 1:53 pm, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote: On the topic of improving the idea of Extent, this discussion paper is on the right track: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ALA-Discussion-1.pdf The main problem has its source in cramming too many overlapping ideas into the 300$a field. There are different things being counted. Extent of Expression and Extent of Manifestation are the first distinctions that should be made. Extent of Notated Music is unabashedly an expression level measurement as the terms are pulled from the expression element in RDA 7.20.1.3. Cartographic resources and still images often don't have the same measurement as the number of carrier units (as in 1 atlas (2 volumes) or 1 print on 24 sheets). The norm for Extent should be the number of carrier type units, accompanied by carrier subunits as appropriate: Carrier type: audio disc Extent: 3 audio discs Carrier type: filmstrip Extent: 1 filmstrip (28 frames) I do have an issue with Extent of Text, in that this measurement shouldn't be associated just with text. The other problem is that pagination subunits aren't just associated with physical volumes either. Consider the example in RDA 3.4.1.7.1: 1 computer disc (xv pages, 150 maps) or in RDA 3.4.1.7.4: 3 microfiches (1 score (118 pages)). For those reasons I would treat Pagination as a new independent element under Extent of Manifestation, to be used wherever it is appropriate. To make this work one would have to count out every Extent measurement. To recreate the classic catalog card display as found in 300$a, one would have to follow rules and/or algorithms to collapse some measurements into the original compact displayed form. So for example, a book would be: Carrier Type: volume Extent of Carrier: 1 volume Pagination: xiv, 383 pages Traditional display: xiv, 383 pages But where the units of extent draw in the Carrier Type (from RDA 3.4.5.17), the logic of this arrangement becomes more apparent: Carrier Type: volume Extent of Carrier: 3 volumes Pagination: xx, 300 pages Traditional display: 3 volumes (xx, 800 pages) Such a clean and logical separation would do wonders. Consider atlases in RDA 3.4.2.5 in this way: 1 atlas (1 volume (various pagings)) would be encoded as: Content Type: cartographic image Extent of Cartographic Resource: 1 atlas Carrier Type: volume Extent of Carrier: 1 volume Pagination: various pagings where Extent of Cartographic Resource would be under a new Extent of Expression element. Consider notated music in this way: 1 score (viii, 278 pages) Content Type: notated music Extent of Notated Music: 1 score Carrier Type: volume Extent of Carrier: 1 volume Pagination: viii, 278 pages Another example of multiple things being measured-- here we see Extent of Manifestation, Extent of Expression, and Pagination all together: 3 microfiches (1 score (118 pages)) Content Type: notated music Extent
Re: [RDA-L] Citing an unnumbered page
Library of Congress Policy: *do not use square brackets in notes except when they are used in quoted data* *Example:* 500* *Types of prayer wheels found in south central Tibet, by Mei Lin: pages 310-375. (Not pages [310]-[375]) On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Nickeson, Walter wnicke...@library.rochester.edu wrote: In RDA, how would the cited page number be given in the note? AACR2: 300 $a [4], 85 p. 500 $a Published to commemorate XYZ--P. [2]. * Walter F. Nickeson, Catalog Metadata Management Librarian Rush Rhees Library University of Rochester Rochester, NY 14627-0055 wnicke...@library.rochester.edu (585) 273-2326 fax: (585) 273-1032 * -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Citing an unnumbered page
OK! Now I know what you are saying. Put a word to indicate that? like unnumbered page 2? On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Nickeson, Walter wnicke...@library.rochester.edu wrote: Yes, but if the note says: ** ** 500 $a Published to commemorate XYZ—Page 2 ** ** you still don’t know where it came from, as there are two “page 2”s in this volume, one with the number on it, the other without. ** ** * Walter F. Nickeson, Catalog Metadata Management Librarian Rush Rhees Library University of Rochester Rochester, NY 14627-0055 wnicke...@library.rochester.edu (585) 273-2326 fax: (585) 273-1032 * ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Joan Wang *Sent:* Wednesday, August 21, 2013 12:20 PM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Citing an unnumbered page ** ** Library of Congress Policy: *do not use square brackets in notes except when they are used in quoted data* *Example:* 500* *Types of prayer wheels found in south central Tibet, by Mei Lin: pages 310-375. (Not pages [310]-[375]) ** ** On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Nickeson, Walter wnicke...@library.rochester.edu wrote: In RDA, how would the cited page number be given in the note? AACR2: 300 $a [4], 85 p. 500 $a Published to commemorate XYZ--P. [2]. * Walter F. Nickeson, Catalog Metadata Management Librarian Rush Rhees Library University of Rochester Rochester, NY 14627-0055 wnicke...@library.rochester.edu (585) 273-2326 fax: (585) 273-1032 * -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Citing an unnumbered page
page ii seems to make more sense :-) On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote: OK! Now I know what you are saying. Put a word to indicate that? like unnumbered page 2? On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Nickeson, Walter wnicke...@library.rochester.edu wrote: Yes, but if the note says: ** ** 500 $a Published to commemorate XYZ—Page 2 ** ** you still don’t know where it came from, as there are two “page 2”s in this volume, one with the number on it, the other without. ** ** * Walter F. Nickeson, Catalog Metadata Management Librarian Rush Rhees Library University of Rochester Rochester, NY 14627-0055 wnicke...@library.rochester.edu (585) 273-2326 fax: (585) 273-1032 * ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Joan Wang *Sent:* Wednesday, August 21, 2013 12:20 PM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Citing an unnumbered page ** ** Library of Congress Policy: *do not use square brackets in notes except when they are used in quoted data* *Example:* 500* *Types of prayer wheels found in south central Tibet, by Mei Lin: pages 310-375. (Not pages [310]-[375]) ** ** On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Nickeson, Walter wnicke...@library.rochester.edu wrote: In RDA, how would the cited page number be given in the note? AACR2: 300 $a [4], 85 p. 500 $a Published to commemorate XYZ--P. [2]. * Walter F. Nickeson, Catalog Metadata Management Librarian Rush Rhees Library University of Rochester Rochester, NY 14627-0055 wnicke...@library.rochester.edu (585) 273-2326 fax: (585) 273-1032 * -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Citing an unnumbered page
Unnumbered page 2 looks weird to me, personally. I am sorry about that :-) On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.eduwrote: I think the solution depends on what those initial unnumbered pages actually contain. If pages [2-4] are some sort of preface or foreword you could perhaps use that as the citation. ** ** 500 $a Published to commemorate XYZ--Preface. ** ** Failing that, some other suggestions: ** ** 500 $a Published to commemorate XYZ--Page following title page. 500 $a Published to commemorate XYZ--Preliminary text. 500 $a Published to commemorate XYZ. ** ** Unnumbered page 2 looks weird to me, personally. ** ** --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 *Nickeson, Walter *Sent:* Wednesday, August 21, 2013 12:54 PM *To:* RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Citing an unnumbered page ** ** Yes, but if the note says: ** ** 500 $a Published to commemorate XYZ—Page 2 ** ** you still don’t know where it came from, as there are two “page 2”s in this volume, one with the number on it, the other without. ** ** * Walter F. Nickeson, Catalog Metadata Management Librarian Rush Rhees Library University of Rochester Rochester, NY 14627-0055 wnicke...@library.rochester.edu (585) 273-2326 fax: (585) 273-1032 * ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Joan Wang *Sent:* Wednesday, August 21, 2013 12:20 PM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Citing an unnumbered page ** ** Library of Congress Policy: *do not use square brackets in notes except when they are used in quoted data* *Example:* 500* *Types of prayer wheels found in south central Tibet, by Mei Lin: pages 310-375. (Not pages [310]-[375]) ** ** On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Nickeson, Walter wnicke...@library.rochester.edu wrote: In RDA, how would the cited page number be given in the note? AACR2: 300 $a [4], 85 p. 500 $a Published to commemorate XYZ--P. [2]. * Walter F. Nickeson, Catalog Metadata Management Librarian Rush Rhees Library University of Rochester Rochester, NY 14627-0055 wnicke...@library.rochester.edu (585) 273-2326 fax: (585) 273-1032 * -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Citing an unnumbered page
300 $a4 unumbered pages, 85 pages
500 $aPublished to commemorate XYZ--Unnumbered page 2.
My initial idea. Anyway, more than one person hates it :-)
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 1:18 PM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
Wakter Nickeson posted:
AACR2:
300 $a [4], 85 p.
500 $a Published to commemorate XYZ--P. [2].
I suggested:
300 $a[iv], 85 pages
500 $aPublished to commemorate XYZ--Page [ii]
But I suspect RDA would have:
300 $a4 unumbered pages, 85 pages
500 $aPublished to commemorate XYZ--Unnumbered page 2.
Hate it. Silliest page reference since Page 4 of cover for
back cover.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D.
Cataloger -- CMC
Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office)
6725 Goshen Road
Edwardsville, IL 62025
618.656.3216x409
618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Recording text and symbol in copyright dates
This is the rule: Precede the date by the copyright symbol (©) or the phonogram copyright symbol (℗). If the appropriate symbol cannot be reproduced, precede the date by copyright or phonogram copyright. Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Crum, Cathy (KDLA) cathy.c...@ky.govwrote: Hi all, ** ** Here’s yet another question about the copyright date! ** ** I know that you would include the copyright symbol with the copyright date in a 264 if the symbol appears on the resource. Would you include any accompanying text in the 264 as well? ** ** For example… ** ** On source: Copyright © 2009 ** ** Would you include “Copyright” or just record the copyright symbol and the date? ** ** 264 _4 $c Copyright ©2009 ** ** Or ** ** 264 _4 $c ©2009 ** ** ** ** Thanks! Cathy ** ** *Cathy Crum*** *Cataloging Supervisor*** *State Library Services*** *Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives*** *(502) 564-8300, ext. 227*** *cathy.c...@ky.gov*** ** ** ** ** -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Question re: 776 for Custom Editions, which are excerpts/adapted from full textbooks
I am not sue if the custom edition in your email means a different edition or a different physical form. If it is a different edition, I would use 775. If it is a different physical form, I would use 776. Hopefully it helps :-) Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:37 AM, MCCUTCHEON, SEVIM lmccu...@kent.eduwrote: I have many books to rush catalog, all of which are custom editions for classes taught at Kent State University. I’m taking the record for the full textbook and deriving an original record for the custom edition. I’d like to add a 776 to link the full textbook to the custom edition. I’m not sure of what to put in the subfield I of the 776 to explain the relationship. I think that in most cases, the custom editions are excerpts, but the first one I’ve looked at closely appears to have the same pagination as the texbook, with the addition of a course syllabus. ** ** I really like my coworkers suggestion, ** ** 776 08 ǂi Excerpts from (work): ǂa Hamilton, Cheryl. ǂt Communicating for success. ǂd Boston : Allyn Bacon, c2011 ǂz 0205524753 ǂw (DLC) 2009045254 ǂw (OCoLC)316017345 ** ** But wonder if it’s safe to assume these are all excerpts versus modifications. ** ** Thus I’d just like to check with the collective wisdom before I take final action. Since these are rush cataloging requests, the sooner I can hear from you all the better! ** ** Thanks in advance for your help. ** ** Sevim McCutcheon Catalog Librarian, Assoc. Prof. Kent State University Libraries 330-672-1703 lmccu...@kent.edu ** ** -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Question re: 775 (not 776) for Custom Editions, which are excerpts/adapted from full textbooks
If you want to link full textbook to the custom edition, I think that $i custom edition in 775 field should be OK. Does custom edition appear on the source as well as the record? If you want to use a more specific relationship term, the relationship seems to be at the expression instead of work level. Does excerpts means an abbreviated version? Or mean a rewriting? If it means a rewriting, the relationship will be at the work level. See if anybody else can help more. I am also learning :-) Thanks, Joan Wang On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 10:09 AM, MCCUTCHEON, SEVIM lmccu...@kent.eduwrote: 775! Of course! Thanks. What would you suggest for the wording of the subfield i? ** ** Sevim McCutcheon Catalog Librarian, Assoc. Prof. Kent State University Libraries 330-672-1703 lmccu...@kent.edu ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Joan Wang *Sent:* Tuesday, August 20, 2013 10:48 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Question re: 776 for Custom Editions, which are excerpts/adapted from full textbooks ** ** I am not sue if the custom edition in your email means a different edition or a different physical form. If it is a different edition, I would use 775. If it is a different physical form, I would use 776. Hopefully it helps :-) Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System ** ** On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:37 AM, MCCUTCHEON, SEVIM lmccu...@kent.edu wrote: I have many books to rush catalog, all of which are custom editions for classes taught at Kent State University. I’m taking the record for the full textbook and deriving an original record for the custom edition. I’d like to add a 776 to link the full textbook to the custom edition. I’m not sure of what to put in the subfield I of the 776 to explain the relationship. I think that in most cases, the custom editions are excerpts, but the first one I’ve looked at closely appears to have the same pagination as the texbook, with the addition of a course syllabus. I really like my coworkers suggestion, 776 08 ǂi Excerpts from (work): ǂa Hamilton, Cheryl. ǂt Communicating for success. ǂd Boston : Allyn Bacon, c2011 ǂz 0205524753 ǂw (DLC) 2009045254 ǂw (OCoLC)316017345 But wonder if it’s safe to assume these are all excerpts versus modifications. Thus I’d just like to check with the collective wisdom before I take final action. Since these are rush cataloging requests, the sooner I can hear from you all the better! Thanks in advance for your help. Sevim McCutcheon Catalog Librarian, Assoc. Prof. Kent State University Libraries 330-672-1703 lmccu...@kent.edu -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Question re: 775 (not 776) for Custom Editions, which are excerpts/adapted from full textbooks
Adaptation in RDA seems to mean the modification would result in another literary form. On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Aaron Smith aaronkaysm...@gmail.comwrote: I might suggest Adaptation of: ... It seems that would cover both excerpts and modifications. A - Aaron Smith Assistant Manager for Technical Services The Genealogy Center Allen County Public Library 900 Library Plaza Fort Wayne, Ind. 46802 asm...@acpl.lib.in.us 260.421.1200, x2652 On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:09 AM, MCCUTCHEON, SEVIM lmccu...@kent.eduwrote: 775! Of course! Thanks. What would you suggest for the wording of the subfield i? ** ** Sevim McCutcheon Catalog Librarian, Assoc. Prof. Kent State University Libraries 330-672-1703 lmccu...@kent.edu ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Joan Wang *Sent:* Tuesday, August 20, 2013 10:48 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Question re: 776 for Custom Editions, which are excerpts/adapted from full textbooks ** ** I am not sue if the custom edition in your email means a different edition or a different physical form. If it is a different edition, I would use 775. If it is a different physical form, I would use 776. Hopefully it helps :-) Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System ** ** On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:37 AM, MCCUTCHEON, SEVIM lmccu...@kent.edu wrote: I have many books to rush catalog, all of which are custom editions for classes taught at Kent State University. I’m taking the record for the full textbook and deriving an original record for the custom edition. I’d like to add a 776 to link the full textbook to the custom edition. I’m not sure of what to put in the subfield I of the 776 to explain the relationship. I think that in most cases, the custom editions are excerpts, but the first one I’ve looked at closely appears to have the same pagination as the texbook, with the addition of a course syllabus. I really like my coworkers suggestion, 776 08 ǂi Excerpts from (work): ǂa Hamilton, Cheryl. ǂt Communicating for success. ǂd Boston : Allyn Bacon, c2011 ǂz 0205524753 ǂw (DLC) 2009045254 ǂw (OCoLC)316017345 But wonder if it’s safe to assume these are all excerpts versus modifications. Thus I’d just like to check with the collective wisdom before I take final action. Since these are rush cataloging requests, the sooner I can hear from you all the better! Thanks in advance for your help. Sevim McCutcheon Catalog Librarian, Assoc. Prof. Kent State University Libraries 330-672-1703 lmccu...@kent.edu -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Question re: 775 (not 776) for Custom Editions, which are excerpts/adapted from full textbooks
I feel that the modification in your case more likes a revision. On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote: Adaptation in RDA seems to mean the modification would result in another literary form. On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Aaron Smith aaronkaysm...@gmail.comwrote: I might suggest Adaptation of: ... It seems that would cover both excerpts and modifications. A - Aaron Smith Assistant Manager for Technical Services The Genealogy Center Allen County Public Library 900 Library Plaza Fort Wayne, Ind. 46802 asm...@acpl.lib.in.us 260.421.1200, x2652 On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:09 AM, MCCUTCHEON, SEVIM lmccu...@kent.eduwrote: 775! Of course! Thanks. What would you suggest for the wording of the subfield i? ** ** Sevim McCutcheon Catalog Librarian, Assoc. Prof. Kent State University Libraries 330-672-1703 lmccu...@kent.edu ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Joan Wang *Sent:* Tuesday, August 20, 2013 10:48 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Question re: 776 for Custom Editions, which are excerpts/adapted from full textbooks ** ** I am not sue if the custom edition in your email means a different edition or a different physical form. If it is a different edition, I would use 775. If it is a different physical form, I would use 776. Hopefully it helps :-) Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System ** ** On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:37 AM, MCCUTCHEON, SEVIM lmccu...@kent.edu wrote: I have many books to rush catalog, all of which are custom editions for classes taught at Kent State University. I’m taking the record for the full textbook and deriving an original record for the custom edition. I’d like to add a 776 to link the full textbook to the custom edition. I’m not sure of what to put in the subfield I of the 776 to explain the relationship. I think that in most cases, the custom editions are excerpts, but the first one I’ve looked at closely appears to have the same pagination as the texbook, with the addition of a course syllabus. I really like my coworkers suggestion, 776 08 ǂi Excerpts from (work): ǂa Hamilton, Cheryl. ǂt Communicating for success. ǂd Boston : Allyn Bacon, c2011 ǂz 0205524753 ǂw (DLC) 2009045254 ǂw (OCoLC)316017345 But wonder if it’s safe to assume these are all excerpts versus modifications. Thus I’d just like to check with the collective wisdom before I take final action. Since these are rush cataloging requests, the sooner I can hear from you all the better! Thanks in advance for your help. Sevim McCutcheon Catalog Librarian, Assoc. Prof. Kent State University Libraries 330-672-1703 lmccu...@kent.edu -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date
Shahrzad
do [between 2000 and 2013?]
in FF
008/06 Type of date
q
008/07-10
2000
008/11-14
2013
For call number, between 2000 and 2013, use 2000. Is that LC policy?
Joan
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Khosrowpour, Shahrzad
shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu wrote:
Oh,
I did lots of
Thanks-- Shahrzad
Thank you Adam Mac,
I did lots of Web searches before posting my question in the list. After
all the conversation, here is what I am putting in the imprint field:
264 _1 $a[United States?] : $b[publisher not identified], $c[20--?]
OR is it preferable to give the date as you suggested as: $c [between
2000 and 2013] but then with this form, I am just wondering what would be
the dates at FF and in the call number! Probably the same as they would be,
if I use the $c[20--?], right?
Shahrzad
-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 11:29 AM
To: Khosrowpour, Shahrzad
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date
Shahrazad asked:
I have a book that doesn't have any information on date, publication,
manuf= acture, distribution, anything. Then how and in which field I
can indicate = the information is taken from
Imprint not identified patrons tells patrons nothing, and is space
consuming. The cataloguer is in a better place to guess than the patron at
at the catalogue.
Total lack of information is most common for self published materials.
One could do, for example:
264 2 $a[Colorado?] :$b[Joe Smith?],$c[201-?] for a currently received
probably self published item in your state. But a Web search should give
you the author's home city,
RDA purists would have you do $c[between 2000 and 2013?], or [before
2013], but the AACR2 form works better in a multilingual situation.
Web searches are a great help. I find one can almost always find
something.
To record where you found data use field 588, e.g.:
588 $aPublication information based on author's website viewed ...
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D.
Cataloger -- CMC
Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office)
6725 Goshen Road
Edwardsville, IL 62025
618.656.3216x409
618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Illustration terms in 7.15.1.3
There is a difference between content type and illustrative content. Content type is at a higher level. It refers to the way a work (an idea) is realized. It could be text, still image, and so forth. I would say that it actually refers to the major content, the fundamental form a work is communicated. Certainly it is not limited to one type (one fundamental form). I do not think that the definition for illustrative content in RDA is correct. Illustrative content actually only apply to textual content. I do not think that illustrative content would apply to other content, such as still image, sound, or moving image content. Also, illustrations may not be the primary content. When we put portraits in $b of 300 field, it does not mean that this book is primarily composed of portraits. For text books, when we put illustrations in $b of 300 field, an assumption has been there. The assumption is that the content type is text. I believe that we would see at least one illustration in most books. So we put 336 still image for most books? I do not think that it is correct. When we put chiefly illustrations in 500 note, the major content (still) seems to be text. A work is express by text with many illustrations :-) In such a case, the writer (if there is one) would be in 100 field, and the illustrator (if there is one) would be in 700 field. For picture books like comic books, I think that we will put still image in 336 field. But I do not think that there is a necessity for chiefly illustrations. In such a case, the artist (if there is one) would be in 100 field. Is that right? Any more clarification is appreciated. Thanks Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote: 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
Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date
a) probable range of years *Example:* 264* 1* $a … : $b … , $c [between 2000 and 2004] b) known earliest and/or latest possible date *Example:* 264* 1* $a … : $b … , $c [not after August 21, 2003] c) Supply [date of publication not identified] if no date identified LC Policy: supply a date of publication if possible, rather than give [date of publication not identified] :-) On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Khosrowpour, Shahrzad shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu wrote: Could someone give an example for that, please? ** ** I have a book that doesn’t have any information on date, publication, manufacture, distribution, anything. Then how and in which field I can indicate the information is taken from…. ** ** ** ** Thanks—Shahrzad ** ** Shahrzad Khosrowpour, Assistant Professor of Library Services Cataloging/Metadata Librarian Colorado State University-Pueblo *shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu* * * * * * * ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *JSC Secretary *Sent:* Wednesday, August 14, 2013 7:55 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date ** ** Gary, If supplying a date per 1.9.2 is not possible, then you can apply the 2nd paragraph of 2.8.6.6: If an approximate date of publication for a single-part resource cannot reasonably be determined, record *date of publication not identified*. Indicate that the information was taken from a source outside the resource itself (see 2.2.4). Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote: 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 ** ** -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date
Adam Thanks a lot for letting me know :-) Joan On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.eduwrote: Joan, The between dates should have a question mark at the end according to RDA. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries On Thu, 15 Aug 2013, Joan Wang wrote: Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 11:05:22 -0500 From: Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.org 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] Unknown date a) probable range of years *Example:* 264* 1* $a … : $b … , $c [between 2000 and 2004] b) known earliest and/or latest possible date *Example:* 264* 1* $a … : $b … , $c [not after August 21, 2003] c) Supply [date of publication not identified] if no date identified LC Policy: supply a date of publication if possible, rather than give [date of publication not identified] :-) On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Khosrowpour, Shahrzad shahrzad.khosrowpour@**colostate-pueblo.edushahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu wrote: Could someone give an example for that, please? ** ** I have a book that doesn’t have any information on date, publication, manufacture, distribution, anything. Then how and in which field I can indicate the information is taken from…. ** ** ** ** Thanks—Shahrzad ** ** Shahrzad Khosrowpour, Assistant Professor of Library Services Cataloging/Metadata Librarian Colorado State University-Pueblo *shahrzad.khosrowpour@**colostate-pueblo.edushahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu * * * * * * * ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-**BAC.GC.CA RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *JSC Secretary *Sent:* Wednesday, August 14, 2013 7:55 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date ** ** Gary, If supplying a date per 1.9.2 is not possible, then you can apply the 2nd paragraph of 2.8.6.6: If an approximate date of publication for a single-part resource cannot reasonably be determined, record *date of publication not identified*. Indicate that the information was taken from a source outside the resource itself (see 2.2.4). Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de** wrote: 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 ** ** -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax ^^** 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/**~aschiffhttp://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~** -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date
Adam Sorry. I found the following example in LC-PCC PS for 2.8.6.6. Does that mean that the 264 field ($c) in the example is not correct? EXAMPLE Title page verso Distributed in the USA in 1999 Preface signed London, January 1993 Date of publication not given Transcription 264 https://lc-dev.searchtechnologies.com/saved/Mabibl_264 #1 $a … $b … $c [between 1993 and 1999] 008/06 Type of date q 008/07-10 1993 008/11-14 1999 Thank you very much for your time. Regards, Joan On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote: Adam Thanks a lot for letting me know :-) Joan On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.edu wrote: Joan, The between dates should have a question mark at the end according to RDA. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries On Thu, 15 Aug 2013, Joan Wang wrote: Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 11:05:22 -0500 From: Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.org 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] Unknown date a) probable range of years *Example:* 264* 1* $a … : $b … , $c [between 2000 and 2004] b) known earliest and/or latest possible date *Example:* 264* 1* $a … : $b … , $c [not after August 21, 2003] c) Supply [date of publication not identified] if no date identified LC Policy: supply a date of publication if possible, rather than give [date of publication not identified] :-) On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Khosrowpour, Shahrzad shahrzad.khosrowpour@**colostate-pueblo.edushahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu wrote: Could someone give an example for that, please? ** ** I have a book that doesn’t have any information on date, publication, manufacture, distribution, anything. Then how and in which field I can indicate the information is taken from…. ** ** ** ** Thanks—Shahrzad ** ** Shahrzad Khosrowpour, Assistant Professor of Library Services Cataloging/Metadata Librarian Colorado State University-Pueblo *shahrzad.khosrowpour@**colostate-pueblo.edushahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu * * * * * * * ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-**BAC.GC.CA RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *JSC Secretary *Sent:* Wednesday, August 14, 2013 7:55 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date ** ** Gary, If supplying a date per 1.9.2 is not possible, then you can apply the 2nd paragraph of 2.8.6.6: If an approximate date of publication for a single-part resource cannot reasonably be determined, record *date of publication not identified*. Indicate that the information was taken from a source outside the resource itself (see 2.2.4). Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de** wrote: 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 ** ** -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax ^^** 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/**~aschiffhttp://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~** -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date
It is possible to supply a probable county, like United States? Also,Place (upper-cased) not place :-) On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Khosrowpour, Shahrzad shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu wrote: Then my record will have: $a [place of publication not identified] : $b [publisher not identified], $c [date of publication not identified] And FF will read for the 1st date? Thanks-- Shahrzad -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: Thursday, August 15, 2013 10:09 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date Joan, The between dates should have a question mark at the end according to RDA. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries On Thu, 15 Aug 2013, Joan Wang wrote: Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 11:05:22 -0500 From: Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.org 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] Unknown date a) probable range of years *Example:* 264* 1* $a … : $b … , $c [between 2000 and 2004] b) known earliest and/or latest possible date *Example:* 264* 1* $a … : $b … , $c [not after August 21, 2003] c) Supply [date of publication not identified] if no date identified LC Policy: supply a date of publication if possible, rather than give [date of publication not identified] :-) On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Khosrowpour, Shahrzad shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu wrote: Could someone give an example for that, please? ** ** I have a book that doesn’t have any information on date, publication, manufacture, distribution, anything. Then how and in which field I can indicate the information is taken from…. ** ** ** ** Thanks—Shahrzad ** ** Shahrzad Khosrowpour, Assistant Professor of Library Services Cataloging/Metadata Librarian Colorado State University-Pueblo *shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu* * * * * * * ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *JSC Secretary *Sent:* Wednesday, August 14, 2013 7:55 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date ** ** Gary, If supplying a date per 1.9.2 is not possible, then you can apply the 2nd paragraph of 2.8.6.6: If an approximate date of publication for a single-part resource cannot reasonably be determined, record *date of publication not identified*. Indicate that the information was taken from a source outside the resource itself (see 2.2.4). Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote: 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 ** ** -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax ^^ 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 ~~ -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date
Forgot to say, a probable country would like this: [United States?] On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote: It is possible to supply a probable county, like United States? Also,Place (upper-cased) not place :-) On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Khosrowpour, Shahrzad shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu wrote: Then my record will have: $a [place of publication not identified] : $b [publisher not identified], $c [date of publication not identified] And FF will read for the 1st date? Thanks-- Shahrzad -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: Thursday, August 15, 2013 10:09 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date Joan, The between dates should have a question mark at the end according to RDA. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries On Thu, 15 Aug 2013, Joan Wang wrote: Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 11:05:22 -0500 From: Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.org 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] Unknown date a) probable range of years *Example:* 264* 1* $a … : $b … , $c [between 2000 and 2004] b) known earliest and/or latest possible date *Example:* 264* 1* $a … : $b … , $c [not after August 21, 2003] c) Supply [date of publication not identified] if no date identified LC Policy: supply a date of publication if possible, rather than give [date of publication not identified] :-) On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Khosrowpour, Shahrzad shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu wrote: Could someone give an example for that, please? ** ** I have a book that doesn’t have any information on date, publication, manufacture, distribution, anything. Then how and in which field I can indicate the information is taken from…. ** ** ** ** Thanks—Shahrzad ** ** Shahrzad Khosrowpour, Assistant Professor of Library Services Cataloging/Metadata Librarian Colorado State University-Pueblo *shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu* * * * * * * ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *JSC Secretary *Sent:* Wednesday, August 14, 2013 7:55 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date ** ** Gary, If supplying a date per 1.9.2 is not possible, then you can apply the 2nd paragraph of 2.8.6.6: If an approximate date of publication for a single-part resource cannot reasonably be determined, record *date of publication not identified*. Indicate that the information was taken from a source outside the resource itself (see 2.2.4). Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote: 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 ** ** -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax ^^ 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 ~~ -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409
Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date
No, only for the first sub-field. I hope that I am right :-) On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Khosrowpour, Shahrzad shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu wrote: Joan, ** ** Is it the same for Publisher Date? ** ** ** ** Thanks so much -- Shahrzad * * * * * *** ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Joan Wang *Sent:* Thursday, August 15, 2013 10:29 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date ** ** It is possible to supply a probable county, like United States? Also,Place (upper-cased) not place :-) ** ** On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Khosrowpour, Shahrzad shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu wrote: Then my record will have: $a [place of publication not identified] : $b [publisher not identified], $c [date of publication not identified] And FF will read for the 1st date? Thanks-- Shahrzad -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: Thursday, August 15, 2013 10:09 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date Joan, The between dates should have a question mark at the end according to RDA. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries On Thu, 15 Aug 2013, Joan Wang wrote: Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 11:05:22 -0500 From: Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.org 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] Unknown date a) probable range of years *Example:* 264* 1* $a … : $b … , $c [between 2000 and 2004] b) known earliest and/or latest possible date *Example:* 264* 1* $a … : $b … , $c [not after August 21, 2003] c) Supply [date of publication not identified] if no date identified LC Policy: supply a date of publication if possible, rather than give [date of publication not identified] :-) On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Khosrowpour, Shahrzad shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu wrote: Could someone give an example for that, please? ** ** I have a book that doesn’t have any information on date, publication, manufacture, distribution, anything. Then how and in which field I can indicate the information is taken from…. ** ** ** ** Thanks—Shahrzad ** ** Shahrzad Khosrowpour, Assistant Professor of Library Services Cataloging/Metadata Librarian Colorado State University-Pueblo *shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu* * * * * * * ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *JSC Secretary *Sent:* Wednesday, August 14, 2013 7:55 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date ** ** Gary, If supplying a date per 1.9.2 is not possible, then you can apply the 2nd paragraph of 2.8.6.6: If an approximate date of publication for a single-part resource cannot reasonably be determined, record *date of publication not identified*. Indicate that the information was taken from a source outside the resource itself (see 2.2.4). Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote: 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 ** ** -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch
Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date
In regard to question marks in the elements: If they are known or reasonably certain, then no question marks are necessary. But when you say that an element value is probable, that indicates lack of certainty, which then necessitates use of a question mark. You may KNOW that something was published between 2000 and 2004, or you may assume that it was PROBABLY published between 2000 and 2004; those are two different things. Yes, Kevin. You are right. I just read RDA 1.9.2.4 and 1.9.2.5 and found the difference. Thanks. Also thanks to Adam :-) Joan Wang On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Kevin M Randall k...@northwestern.eduwrote: Yes, known or probable place is certainly valid. (I would even consider using the continent, if necessary; although I wonder if hemisphere or Earth might be going a bit too far...) ** ** Interesting that it's Place of publication not identified and publisher not identified. The use of upper- and lowercase seems to be based on an ISBD publication statement. ** ** In regard to question marks in the elements: If they are known or reasonably certain, then no question marks are necessary. But when you say that an element value is probable, that indicates lack of certainty, which then necessitates use of a question mark. You may KNOW that something was published between 2000 and 2004, or you may assume that it was PROBABLY published between 2000 and 2004; those are two different things. ** ** Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 ** ** Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! ** ** ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Joan Wang *Sent:* Thursday, August 15, 2013 11:29 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date ** ** It is possible to supply a probable county, like United States? Also,Place (upper-cased) not place :-) ** ** On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Khosrowpour, Shahrzad shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu wrote: Then my record will have: $a [place of publication not identified] : $b [publisher not identified], $c [date of publication not identified] And FF will read for the 1st date? Thanks-- Shahrzad -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: Thursday, August 15, 2013 10:09 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date Joan, The between dates should have a question mark at the end according to RDA. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries On Thu, 15 Aug 2013, Joan Wang wrote: Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 11:05:22 -0500 From: Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.org 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] Unknown date a) probable range of years *Example:* 264* 1* $a … : $b … , $c [between 2000 and 2004] b) known earliest and/or latest possible date *Example:* 264* 1* $a … : $b … , $c [not after August 21, 2003] c) Supply [date of publication not identified] if no date identified LC Policy: supply a date of publication if possible, rather than give [date of publication not identified] :-) On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Khosrowpour, Shahrzad shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu wrote: Could someone give an example for that, please? ** ** I have a book that doesn’t have any information on date, publication, manufacture, distribution, anything. Then how and in which field I can indicate the information is taken from…. ** ** ** ** Thanks—Shahrzad ** ** Shahrzad Khosrowpour, Assistant Professor of Library Services Cataloging/Metadata Librarian Colorado State University-Pueblo *shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu* * * * * * * ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *JSC Secretary *Sent:* Wednesday, August 14, 2013 7:55 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date ** ** Gary, If supplying a date per 1.9.2 is not possible, then you can apply the 2nd paragraph of 2.8.6.6: If an approximate date of publication for a single-part resource cannot reasonably be determined, record *date of publication not identified*. Indicate that the information was taken from a source outside the resource itself (see 2.2.4). Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designators in LC Records
The following lists core elements for RDA and Library of Congress. Primary relationships - Only the predominant or first-named work manifested is required, if more than one work is embodied in the manifestation. - Only the predominant or first-named expression manifested is required, if more than one expression is embodied in the manifestation. Relationships of a person/family/corporate body with a resource - Creator (if more than one, only the principal or first-named creator is required) - Other than a creator associated with a work (when used to construct the authorized access point representing the work) - Contributor for illustrators of resources intended for children (LC core) Related works - Whole-part relationships: compilations (LC Core) Related expressions - Whole-part relationships: compilations (LC Core) Related manifestations - Reproductions (LC Core) Related items - Reproductions (LC Core) - Special relationships for rare materials as warranted (LC Core) - “Bound with” (LC Core) Serial relationships (LC Core) Thanks, Joan Wang On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Arakawa, Steven steven.arak...@yale.eduwrote: *I believe so. LC practice (as distinguished from PCC practice) is to require RDs only for illustrators of children’s books, although that doesn’t mean LC catalogers cannot make individual decisions to add RDs in other categories. And I see the PCC guidelines more as best practice rather than mandatory.* * * Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metada Services Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu ** ** * * * * *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Panchyshyn, Roman *Sent:* Wednesday, August 14, 2013 12:47 PM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* [RDA-L] Relationship designators in LC Records ** ** Like many libraries, we have an approval plan set up through YBP where we get LC records through OCLC PromptCat for materials. With some of the new materials, we are getting full RDA records (all have $e rda in the 040), generated by LC, but there is no relationship designator ($e) in the 100 tag for the creator. Here are two examples from OCLC: (OCLC number) ** ** # 805831494 # 813690891 ** ** I’m looking at a document titled: PCC Guidelines for the Application of Relationship Designators in Bibliographic Records, form 05/16, that states: Include a relationship designator for all creators, whether they are coded MARC 1XX or MARC 7XX. If the MARC 1XX is not a creator, the addition of a relationship designator is optional though strongly encouraged. Add a relationship designator even if the MARC field definition already implies a relationship. Relationships should be coded explicitly and not inferred from MARC or other parts of the record. ** ** Is this an area where PCC and LC differ? ** ** Roman S. Panchyshyn, MLIS Catalog Librarian, Assistant Professor University Libraries Kent State University tel: 330-672-1699 e-mail: rpanc...@kent.edu ** ** [image: Description: Description: cid:340CA688-84F9-46CF-97E9-1D715D86ACB5] ** ** -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax inline: image001.png
Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print?
Look at this: 150 Large type books 450 Large print books On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Dawn Grattino dawn.gratt...@cpl.org wrote: I have always wondered why the 650/655 term was Large type books. We have (or had): 245 |h [text (large print) 300 350 p. (large print) or 350 pages (large print) 655 Large type books People know what large print means, so why the discrepency? Dawn Grattino Senior Cataloger Catalog Department Cleveland Public Library 17133 Lakeshore Blvd. Cleveland, OH 44110-4006 (phone) 216.623.2885 (fax) 216.623.6980 e-mail: dawn.gratt...@cpl.org http://www.cpl.org -- *From: *Thomas Brenndorfer tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca *To: *RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Sent: *Thursday, August 1, 2013 9:23:13 AM *Subject: *Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print? -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mitchell, Michael Sent: August-01-13 9:10 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print? -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Brenndorfer, Thomas Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 8:26 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print? [...] Currently we require: 008 fixed field -- this generates a Large Print icon and facet term; it also shows up at the end of a title in the Title Browse index) 300 $a ... (large print) -- this is the current placeholder for the RDA Font Size element; 340$n would be its replacement, and I would put that in the Brief Display as well 650 Large type books [...] Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library Since we are not analyzing books ABOUT large type books, one should use, rather than a 650 Topical subject, a 655 _0 Large type books. Particularly if one is trying to engage in some consistent separation of elements and precision in description. Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu That is on my to-do list. Because so many other new 655 headings have occupied my time over the last few years (these are the LC authorized ones), changing the 650 for Large type books has not been a priority, especially as we get records from multiple sources, many of which continue to use 650 (including LC). It would be about a 15-minute batch job to change just under 5000 large print bibliographic records. There does seem to be a need for greater co-ordination between genre/form/audience 650/655 terms and bibliographic elements (variable and controlled). Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4
I look at corresponding examples in AACR2, they are capitalized. Also, the following examples in RDA 2.9.4.4 are misleading. The recording or supplying of the function, such as distributed by and [distributor], is not necessary in RDA records. The second indicator 2 of 264 fields already indicates its function. *Distributed by Independent Publishers Group* * * * * * * *Distribution by: MapArt Publishing Corporation * * * *Distributed by Coach House Records Ltd.* * Voluntary Committee on Overseas Aid Development [distributor] Guild Sound and Vision [distributor]* The rule should be changed like this: 2.9.4.4 Record words or phrases indicating the function (other than solely distributing) performed by a person, family, or corporate body as they appear on the source of information. My opinion! Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 4:54 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote: 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 -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4
OR, to simplify things further, and perhaps even better yet, we should get rid of the “(other than solely publishing)” instruction at 2.8.4.4 and just apply the ‘principle of representation’ (0.4.3.4) to ‘put down what we see’ for publisher data also. Deborah, thanks for pointing it out. I actually thought about that. But my concern is that the element title is Publisher's Name. We transcribe a publisher's name in the form as it appears on the source (the representation principle). I am not sure if the statement of function is supposed to be a part of a publisher's name. I do not mind the removal of other than solely publishing in instruction at 2.8.4.4. But it seems to be a big difference :) At least the relevant instructions in the three statements are not consistent. Thanks, Joan Wang On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Deborah Fritz debo...@marcofquality.comwrote: This is a display issue that should be handled by the ILS setup. ** ** If the distributor information is displayed in a single line, along with the publisher, etc. information, as ISBD requires, then it is logical to retain the words or phrases indicating functions other than publishing, as per AACR: ** ** 260$a Boulder : $b East European Monographs ; $a New York : $b Distributed by Columbia University Press, $c 2010. *Displays as:* Publication, etc.: Boulder : East European Monographs ; New York : Distributed by Columbia University Press, 2010. ** ** If the distributor information is in a separate MARC field (264_2) and is therefore not displayed in a single line, then there should not be any point in including the ‘Distributed by’ wording, since the ILS can be set up to display the separate field labeled according to the second indicator: ** ** 264 1 $a London ; $a New York : $b I.B. Tauris, $c 2012. 264 2 $a New York : $b Distributed in the United States and Canada exclusively by Palgrave Macmillan, $c [2012] *Displays as:* Publication: London ; New York : I.B. Tauris, 2012. Distribution: New York : Distributed in the United States and Canada exclusively by Palgrave Macmillan, [2012] ** ** The only reason for not displaying the field label for separate 264, is to try to make it look like ISBD: ** ** *Displays as:* Publication: London ; New York : I.B. Tauris, 2012. New York : Distributed in the United States and Canada exclusively by Palgrave Macmillan, [2012] ** ** But this doesn’t display as per ISBD anyway, so it does seem that it might be time to treat these statements as separate and distinct, in which case I agree that the RDA instructions could be changed for both Distribution and Manufacture, with the addition of “(other than solely distributing)” and “(other than solely manufacturing)” ** ** OR, to simplify things further, and perhaps even better yet, we should get rid of the “(other than solely publishing)” instruction at 2.8.4.4 and just apply the ‘principle of representation’ (0.4.3.4) to ‘put down what we see’ for publisher data also. ** ** Deborah ** ** P.S. It is good to know about A.7B1 after all these years (how did I miss that??) but I still wonder what the rationale was for this capitalization, given the way it was meant to be displayed, in a string. ** ** - - - - - - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. debo...@marcofquality.com www.marcofquality.com ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *rball...@frontier.com *Sent:* Thursday, August 08, 2013 9:23 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4 ** ** Joan, I disagree with your proposed rule change only because, unless one's local system is set up to specifically display something to the user that indicates that they are seeing a distribution statement (based on indicator 2), the user might wonder why there are two separate statements with no seeming difference. If the distributed by statement is included in $b of the 264, the role of the distributor is clear. Thanks, Kevin Roe Supervisor, Media Processing Fort Wayne Community Schools Fort Wayne, IN 46802 ** ** *From:* Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.org *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Sent:* Thursday, August 8, 2013 8:53 AM *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4 ** ** I look at corresponding examples in AACR2, they are capitalized. Also, the following examples in RDA 2.9.4.4 are misleading. The recording or supplying of the function, such as distributed by and [distributor], is not necessary in RDA records. The second indicator 2 of 264 fields already indicates its function. ** ** *Distributed by **Independent Publishers Group* *Distribution
Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4
Francis, thanks for letting me know. I have been wondering the issue for a while :) On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Lapka, Francis francis.la...@yale.eduwrote: This topic is the subject of proposal to be put forth to JSC later this year. ** ** See 6JSC/LC/24 (particularly in the neighborhood of change #10): http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-LC-24.pdf ** ** ** ** ** ** _ *Francis Lapka, Catalog Librarian* Yale Center for British Art, Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts 1080 Chapel Street, PO Box 208280, New Haven, CT 06520 203.432.9672francis.la...@yale.edu ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Joan Wang *Sent:* Thursday, August 08, 2013 10:29 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4 ** ** OR, to simplify things further, and perhaps even better yet, we should get rid of the “(other than solely publishing)” instruction at 2.8.4.4 and just apply the ‘principle of representation’ (0.4.3.4) to ‘put down what we see’ for publisher data also. Deborah, thanks for pointing it out. I actually thought about that. But my concern is that the element title is Publisher's Name. We transcribe a publisher's name in the form as it appears on the source (the representation principle). I am not sure if the statement of function is supposed to be a part of a publisher's name. I do not mind the removal of other than solely publishing in instruction at 2.8.4.4. But it seems to be a big difference :) At least the relevant instructions in the three statements are not consistent. Thanks, Joan Wang ** ** On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Deborah Fritz debo...@marcofquality.com wrote: This is a display issue that should be handled by the ILS setup. If the distributor information is displayed in a single line, along with the publisher, etc. information, as ISBD requires, then it is logical to retain the words or phrases indicating functions other than publishing, as per AACR: 260$a Boulder : $b East European Monographs ; $a New York : $b Distributed by Columbia University Press, $c 2010. *Displays as:* Publication, etc.: Boulder : East European Monographs ; New York : Distributed by Columbia University Press, 2010. If the distributor information is in a separate MARC field (264_2) and is therefore not displayed in a single line, then there should not be any point in including the ‘Distributed by’ wording, since the ILS can be set up to display the separate field labeled according to the second indicator: 264 1 $a London ; $a New York : $b I.B. Tauris, $c 2012. 264 2 $a New York : $b Distributed in the United States and Canada exclusively by Palgrave Macmillan, $c [2012] *Displays as:* Publication: London ; New York : I.B. Tauris, 2012. Distribution: New York : Distributed in the United States and Canada exclusively by Palgrave Macmillan, [2012] The only reason for not displaying the field label for separate 264, is to try to make it look like ISBD: *Displays as:* Publication: London ; New York : I.B. Tauris, 2012. New York : Distributed in the United States and Canada exclusively by Palgrave Macmillan, [2012] But this doesn’t display as per ISBD anyway, so it does seem that it might be time to treat these statements as separate and distinct, in which case I agree that the RDA instructions could be changed for both Distribution and Manufacture, with the addition of “(other than solely distributing)” and “(other than solely manufacturing)” OR, to simplify things further, and perhaps even better yet, we should get rid of the “(other than solely publishing)” instruction at 2.8.4.4 and just apply the ‘principle of representation’ (0.4.3.4) to ‘put down what we see’ for publisher data also. Deborah P.S. It is good to know about A.7B1 after all these years (how did I miss that??) but I still wonder what the rationale was for this capitalization, given the way it was meant to be displayed, in a string. - - - - - - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. debo...@marcofquality.com www.marcofquality.com *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *rball...@frontier.com *Sent:* Thursday, August 08, 2013 9:23 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4 Joan, I disagree with your proposed rule change only because, unless one's local system is set up to specifically display something
Re: [RDA-L] Date given in an incomplete form
According to RDA 1.4, date of production, as well as date of publication, is a transcribed element. But if the date as it appears in the resource is not of the Gregorian or Julian calendar, we are allowed to supply the corresponding date or dates of the Gregorian or Julian calendar. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 1:33 PM, John Hostage host...@law.harvard.eduwrote: The date of production is not a transcribed element. 2.7.6.3 says to “record the date of production” and then refers to 2.7.1. In 2.7.1.4 it says “Transcribe places of production and producers' names as they appear on the source of information” but “Record dates of production as they appear on the source of information.” Supposedly there is a difference between “transcribe” and “record,” but what it is here is entirely muddy.* *** ** ** -- 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) ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *L'Écuyer-Coelho Marie-Chantal *Sent:* Thursday, August 08, 2013 10:54 *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* [RDA-L] Date given in an incomplete form ** ** 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 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. ** ** -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] 1st original RDA record - questions
In this case the second indicator value 2 tells you that the thing in that field is contained within the resource described, but the coding alone can't tell you whether it is a work or an expression, so the relationship designator allows us to be more specific. You can tell whether it is a work or an expression by the heading (authorized access point). If the heading has elements for an expression such as a language, it contains an expression (with the second indicator 2). Otherwise, it contains a work. My interpretation of RDA Appendix I.1, guidelines for using relationship designators. Anyway, more work is always good :) Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.eduwrote: 700 1_ $i Contains (work): $a Estes, David. $t Anna's story. should be 700 12 $i Contains (work): $a Estes, David. $t Anna's story. The PCC recommended guidelines for use of relationship designators ( http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/**rda/PCC%20RDA%20guidelines/** Relat-Desig-Guidelines.docxhttp://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/PCC%20RDA%20guidelines/Relat-Desig-Guidelines.docx) say to include the relationship designator even when the MARC coding has the same or similar meaning. In this case the second indicator value 2 tells you that the thing in that field is contained within the resource described, but the coding alone can't tell you whether it is a work or an expression, so the relationship designator allows us to be more specific. Adam Schiff On Thu, 1 Aug 2013, Jean Marie Taylor wrote: Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 11:40:26 -0400 From: Jean Marie Taylor jtay...@wrl.org Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] 1st original RDA record - questions Hello, I just entered my first originally cataloged RDA record to OCLC and have a couple of questions if the group would be so kind to review my record. I apologize for bringing up the self-published issue again so soon after the previous discussion but here are my questions: In my record: 264 1[Place of publication not identified] : ǂb [David Estes], ǂc [2012] 264 2[North Charleston, South Carolina] : ǂb [CreateSpace] What is on the resource is: c2012 David Estes Made in the USA, Lexington, KY, 28 June 2013 Amazon has: Publisher: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform (November 23, 2012) So for the publication statement I have: 264 _1 $a [Place of publication not identified] : $b [David Estes], $c [2012] The author travels all over the world so I didn't think I could use [United States]. For the distribution statement I have: 264 _2 $a [North Charleston, South Carolina] : $b [CreateSpace] I looked up the location of the corporate headquarters of CreateSpace on the Internet. [North Charleston, South Carolina] is required because the place of publication is not provided in the publication statement. Is that correct? [CreateSpace] is not technically required because there is a publisher in the 264 _1 but I wanted CreateSpace in the record. The date is not required in the 264 _2 for the same reason. Is that correct? Also, I think of CreateSpace as more of a manufacturer than a distributor (with Amazon being the distributor) but the recent discussion on the list has been referring to CreateSpace as a distributor and CreateSpace does sometimes refer to themselves as a distributor. The other problem is there is a long short story (41 p.) contained in the book. I made this 500 note. Includes Anna's story, a dwellers short story and an excerpt from Fire country, book 1 of The country saga. I added a 700 12 Estes, David. $t Anna's story. I consulted 25.1 and J.5.4 in RDA and the MARC mappings for the whole-part relationship information. I did see examples in the LCPS for something like this: 700 1_ $i Contains (work): $a Estes, David. $t Anna's story. but that wouldn't validate. Also the 774 can be used I think. What is the current best practice in this area? Thanks a lot for your consideration. Jean Marie Taylor Technical Services Williamsburg Regional Library ^^** 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/**~aschiffhttp://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~** -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] 1st original RDA record - questions
Does that mean it contains both a work and an expression? On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Kevin M Randall k...@northwestern.eduwrote: However, in PCC practice the language element is not used in the access point for an expression in the original language. Consequently, the access point for a work and its original language expression may be identical.*** * ** ** Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 ** ** Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Joan Wang *Sent:* Friday, August 02, 2013 9:21 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] 1st original RDA record - questions ** ** In this case the second indicator value 2 tells you that the thing in that field is contained within the resource described, but the coding alone can't tell you whether it is a work or an expression, so the relationship designator allows us to be more specific. You can tell whether it is a work or an expression by the heading (authorized access point). If the heading has elements for an expression such as a language, it contains an expression (with the second indicator 2). Otherwise, it contains a work. My interpretation of RDA Appendix I.1, guidelines for using relationship designators. Anyway, more work is always good :) ** ** Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] 1st original RDA record - questions
I do think that I am right. It should mean that it contains an expression, although the heading would not have an element for the original language. Sorry about that :) On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote: Does that mean it contains both a work and an expression? On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Kevin M Randall k...@northwestern.eduwrote: However, in PCC practice the language element is not used in the access point for an expression in the original language. Consequently, the access point for a work and its original language expression may be identical.** ** ** ** Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 ** ** Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Joan Wang *Sent:* Friday, August 02, 2013 9:21 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] 1st original RDA record - questions ** ** In this case the second indicator value 2 tells you that the thing in that field is contained within the resource described, but the coding alone can't tell you whether it is a work or an expression, so the relationship designator allows us to be more specific. You can tell whether it is a work or an expression by the heading (authorized access point). If the heading has elements for an expression such as a language, it contains an expression (with the second indicator 2). Otherwise, it contains a work. My interpretation of RDA Appendix I.1, guidelines for using relationship designators. Anyway, more work is always good :) ** ** Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] 1st original RDA record - questions
No. It is possible if we use the same heading to represent a work and its expression (for a compilation). Is that right? On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote: I do think that I am right. It should mean that it contains an expression, although the heading would not have an element for the original language. Sorry about that :) On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote: Does that mean it contains both a work and an expression? On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Kevin M Randall k...@northwestern.eduwrote: However, in PCC practice the language element is not used in the access point for an expression in the original language. Consequently, the access point for a work and its original language expression may be identical. ** ** Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 ** ** Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Joan Wang *Sent:* Friday, August 02, 2013 9:21 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] 1st original RDA record - questions ** ** In this case the second indicator value 2 tells you that the thing in that field is contained within the resource described, but the coding alone can't tell you whether it is a work or an expression, so the relationship designator allows us to be more specific. You can tell whether it is a work or an expression by the heading (authorized access point). If the heading has elements for an expression such as a language, it contains an expression (with the second indicator 2). Otherwise, it contains a work. My interpretation of RDA Appendix I.1, guidelines for using relationship designators. Anyway, more work is always good :) ** ** Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] 1st original RDA record - questions
So better to put two identical headings, and respectively $i Contains (work) and Contains (expression) -:) On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote: No. It is possible if we use the same heading to represent a work and its expression (for a compilation). Is that right? On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote: I do think that I am right. It should mean that it contains an expression, although the heading would not have an element for the original language. Sorry about that :) On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote: Does that mean it contains both a work and an expression? On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Kevin M Randall k...@northwestern.eduwrote: However, in PCC practice the language element is not used in the access point for an expression in the original language. Consequently, the access point for a work and its original language expression may be identical. ** ** Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 ** ** Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Joan Wang *Sent:* Friday, August 02, 2013 9:21 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] 1st original RDA record - questions ** ** In this case the second indicator value 2 tells you that the thing in that field is contained within the resource described, but the coding alone can't tell you whether it is a work or an expression, so the relationship designator allows us to be more specific. You can tell whether it is a work or an expression by the heading (authorized access point). If the heading has elements for an expression such as a language, it contains an expression (with the second indicator 2). Otherwise, it contains a work. My interpretation of RDA Appendix I.1, guidelines for using relationship designators. Anyway, more work is always good :) ** ** Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] 1st original RDA record - questions
I think that you are right. Kevin. For me, I would not put anything. I think that the second indicator 2 is enough -:) Thanks again. Joan Wang On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Kevin M Randall k...@northwestern.eduwrote: I think if you use Contains (expression) that should be sufficient. If it contains the expression, by definition it also contains the work (since the expression expresses the work). ** ** Examples of situations where you're relating to the *work* might be some derivative relationships. The film Doctor Zhivago was based on the *work* that was the novel by Boris Pasternak. ** ** Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 ** ** Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Joan Wang *Sent:* Friday, August 02, 2013 9:59 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] 1st original RDA record - questions ** ** So better to put two identical headings, and respectively $i Contains (work) and Contains (expression) -:) ** ** On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.org wrote: No. It is possible if we use the same heading to represent a work and its expression (for a compilation). Is that right? ** ** On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.org wrote: I do think that I am right. It should mean that it contains an expression, although the heading would not have an element for the original language. Sorry about that :) ** ** On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.org wrote: Does that mean it contains both a work and an expression? ** ** ** ** ** ** On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Kevin M Randall k...@northwestern.edu wrote: However, in PCC practice the language element is not used in the access point for an expression in the original language. Consequently, the access point for a work and its original language expression may be identical.*** * Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Joan Wang *Sent:* Friday, August 02, 2013 9:21 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] 1st original RDA record - questions In this case the second indicator value 2 tells you that the thing in that field is contained within the resource described, but the coding alone can't tell you whether it is a work or an expression, so the relationship designator allows us to be more specific. You can tell whether it is a work or an expression by the heading (authorized access point). If the heading has elements for an expression such as a language, it contains an expression (with the second indicator 2). Otherwise, it contains a work. My interpretation of RDA Appendix I.1, guidelines for using relationship designators. Anyway, more work is always good :) Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] 300 #e
See LC-PCC PS for 3.1.4 accompanying materials.http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp3target=rda3-1777#rda3-1777 The answer is Yes. http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp3target=rda3-1777#rda3-1777 On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Hinchcliff, Marilou mhinc...@bloomu.eduwrote: Is subfield e accompanying materials still allowed in RDA? I know we’re supposed to mention related works, but I’m not seeing an example of doing it in this manner in 24.4. It looks to me as if they all have to be handled as notes (24.4.3). If we are still allowed to record accompanying material with the physical description, I would have this: ** ** 2 videodiscs (6 hrs., 25 min.) : ǂb sound, color ; ǂc 4 3/4 in. + ǂe 1 viewers guide (32 pages ; 22 cm) ** ** Marilou Z. Hinchcliff, Coordinator of Cataloging and Interim Coordinator of Collection Development Harvey A. Andruss Library Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania 400 E. 2nd St. Bloomsburg PA 17815 570-389-4226 mhinc...@bloomu.edu ** ** -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] RDA--How dynamic is it?
That is the thing bothering me. I cited RDA rules in my training materials. But once I go back, there are some changes. I cannot see when I can truly end my work :) On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Gene Fieg gf...@cst.edu wrote: With all these discussions and proposals about RDA being submitted, how dynamic is RDA? Is it still a code in process of becoming? How can we call it a cataloging code, when the code keeps changing, almost daily? -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only. -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
[RDA-L] Compilation
The question about 505 content notes reminds me a question about compilations. According to FRBR, the primary relationships are between work, expression, and manifestation, and item of Group 1 entities. These relationships are actually at a general level, a natural relationship between the four entities, such as a work is realized by an expression. In our current cataloging practice, we do not use particular conventions such as relationship designators to reflect the primary relationships. For example, 130 fields indicate the work embodied in the manifestation being described. 240 fields with expression elements indicate the expression embodied in the manifestation. We can say that we use authorized access points representing the work or expression to reflect the relationships. So the question is about compilations. Compilations contain more than one work/expression embodied in a manifestation being described. Should it go primary relationships or relationships for related works? Do 505 content notes and 7xx with indicator 2 analytical entry fields reflect the relationships between works/expressions and the manifestation being described, or between works (each other) embodied in the same manifestation? I know that Library of Congress Policy puts compilations under Related Works. I am trying to understand that :) Any insights or comments? Thank you very much in advance :) Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Compilation
Probably they (505 content notes and 7xx with indicator 2 analytical entry fields) indicate two types of relationships: works/expressions embodied in the manifestation, and whole-part relationships between works/expressions. Is that right? I feel that I find an answer :) On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote: The question about 505 content notes reminds me a question about compilations. According to FRBR, the primary relationships are between work, expression, and manifestation, and item of Group 1 entities. These relationships are actually at a general level, a natural relationship between the four entities, such as a work is realized by an expression. In our current cataloging practice, we do not use particular conventions such as relationship designators to reflect the primary relationships. For example, 130 fields indicate the work embodied in the manifestation being described. 240 fields with expression elements indicate the expression embodied in the manifestation. We can say that we use authorized access points representing the work or expression to reflect the relationships. So the question is about compilations. Compilations contain more than one work/expression embodied in a manifestation being described. Should it go primary relationships or relationships for related works? Do 505 content notes and 7xx with indicator 2 analytical entry fields reflect the relationships between works/expressions and the manifestation being described, or between works (each other) embodied in the same manifestation? I know that Library of Congress Policy puts compilations under Related Works. I am trying to understand that :) Any insights or comments? Thank you very much in advance :) Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print?
RDA 2.5.14 provides an optional addition: “If a resource lacks an edition statement but is known to contain significant changes from other editions, supply an edition statement, if considered important for identification or access. Indicate that the information was taken from a source outside the resource itself”. As Deborah mentioned, it meets the principle of differentiation. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 7:28 AM, Watters, Tim (MDE) watte...@michigan.govwrote: On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 J. McRee Elrod posted: ** ** “We do not create records as an end in themselves for bibliographic utilities or catalogues, but as a service to patrons in identifying what they seek.” ** ** Similarly, identifying abridged vs unabridged audio books is an attribute patrons strongly seek but RDA does not address at all that I can find. I am wondering if it could go in a bracketed 250? ** ** Tim Watters Special Materials Cataloger Library of Michigan 702 West Kalamazoo St P.O. Box 30007 Lansing, MI 48909-7507 Tel: 517-373-3071 e-mail: watte...@michigan.gov ** ** ** ** ** ** -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] RDA Content/Media/Carrier types [was: The A in RDA]
I believe that RDA provides two options to record the three types. We are allowed to use one or more of terms listed in relevant tables (in 3.2, 3.3, and 6.9). The Library of Congress suggests repeating the entire field rather than $a in 33x fields. An alternative is to record the type a) that applies to the predominant part of the resource (if there is a predominant part), or b) that apply to the most substantial parts of the resource (including the predominant part, if there is one). Hopefully that my understanding is correct :) Thank you! Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Amanda Raab runjul...@gmail.com wrote: But those 006/007/008 codes are only useable in MARC and understandable by librarians (actually: just catalogers). RDA provides that same description written out in actual words and made available as linked datahttp://rdvocab.info/so that description can viewed and used in schemas, structures, and displays that aren't MARC or MARC-dependent. Amanda Raab | Catalog and Metadata Librarian ROCK AND ROLL HALL OF FAME + MUSEUM | Library and Archives 2809 Woodland Ave. | Cleveland, OH 44115 ar...@rockhall.org | 216-515-1932 | fax 216-515-1964 www.rockhall.com/library | Facebookhttp://www.facebook.com/rockandrollhalloffame| Twitter http://twitter.com/#%21/rock_hall On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Mitchell, Michael michael.mitch...@brazosport.edu wrote: The 006 has 17 places for pertinent information by the way which is pretty granular. ** ** Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Mitchell, Michael *Sent:* Tuesday, July 30, 2013 9:31 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] RDA Content/Media/Carrier types [was: The A in RDA] ** ** in the case of the record type, they require one to assign one and only one type ** ** Unless, of course, one also uses the repeatable 006 field. ** ** ** ** Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu ** ** http://twitter.com/#%21/rock_hall http://www.rockhall.com/library -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
FRBR defines the four user tasks for searching and making use of bibliographic records. They may not be so typical in Google or Yahoo. Also, they are general tasks. They generalize tasks that user would perform when searching and making use of bibliographic records. In an OPAC environment, we can understand find as searching (by title, author, whatever users already know). The searching can be at the work (for example, by author), expression (for example, limited by languages), or manifestation (for example, limited by publication years) level. When user get a list of searching result, they need to select a manifestation that meets their needs.This process is identify. Users make a discrimination and decision based on descriptions in bibliographic records. In this process, users may navigate from one record to related records. After users make a decision, users need to select one they want, and then request access to a manifest ion or an particular item (from a particular library). The select is generally at the manifestation level. Users may not require a particular copy. But when users obtain a resource such as a book or DVD, they actually have an item. The request process includes inter-library loan and online access to digital resources. So far, I think that the process for searching and making use of bibliographic records is fulfilled. The above is my (maybe limited) understanding of user tasks defined in FRBR :) Thank you! Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:39 AM, James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com wrote: On 29/07/2013 21:31, Kevin M Randall wrote: snip Even after a few years of hearing this, I'm still trying to figure out what are these other types of tasks users have that do not fit into the FRBR user tasks. Would it be possible to list just a few of them? And not dissertations about them, but just some succinct examples. I have a feeling (a very strong one) that if we're able to come to agreement about the meaning of the FRBR tasks there would be much less disagreement about what users are actually doing. /snip I have already done this several times. The FRBR user tasks (one more time) are to be able to find, identify, select, and obtain (what?) works, expressions, manifestations, and items (how?) by their authors, titles and subjects. (Again, this is short-hand because nobody wants to obtain all items of a work) Please show us how you can do this in Google, or Yahoo. Sure, you can search by Mark Twain, but there is no telling what you will get, and certainly not anywhere near works, expressions... and so on. Show us how you can do the FRBR user tasks even in the LC library catalog. I have demonstrated this often enough, for instance in my podcast Problems with Library Catalogs http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2013/02/catalog-matters-podcast-no-18-problems.html. I showed how something that worked more or less intuitively in print fell apart in the virtual, online environment. It is *impossible* to do the FRBR user tasks in Google, Yahoo, and the like, but the uncomfortable fact is: people prefer Google, Yahoo and the like to library catalogs--that is, unless someone wants to dispute that. While the FRBR user tasks can be done (after a fashion) in the current LC catalog, if you are to do it, you must search by left-anchored textual strings, and even then, things fall apart because of the problems of alphabetical arrangement in the computer. In printed library catalogs, or card catalogs, the uniform title Works came in logical order: first under a personal name heading. This was clear enough to the searcher from the arrangement of the catalog. In the OPAC however, you have to look under the author's name, and then scroll to W, so e.g. if you want the different versions of Twain's complete works, you have to search: find author: Twain, Mark,[date] and then scroll dozens of screens to W. *Nobody* will *ever* do that, unless as I mentioned earlier, someone wants to dispute that people will do it. Even I refuse to do it although I know how it works. Today, there are brand new ways of searching, by keyword, by citations, by likes of others, or of your friends, of your friend's friends, or even their friends, by the idiosyncracies of your own personal profile, and by who knows what else, but the method uses all kinds of algorithms. I did an entire podcast on Search http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2010/12/cataloging-matters-podcast-no-7-search.html. Plus there are all different new types of items that defy what anybody knew of before. To be blown away by new types of searching and new ideas, you can watch Daniel Russell's talk at Princeton University awhile back: What Does It Mean To Be Literate in the Age of Google? https://www.princeton.edu/WebMedia/flash/lectures/20120228_publect_russell.shtml This is the reality for those who want to accept it. The FRBR user tasks, although I won't argue
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
Let's help our users. This is the reason we discuss issues here and assist with proposals to improve RDA :) Happy Monday! Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:53 AM, JSC Chair jscch...@rdatoolkit.org wrote: RDA is about describing bibliographic resources and their relationships and enabling access to those resources to meet our users needs. It is intended to be used as an online tool that can be consulted as needed once a cataloger has learned the basics. That is not different from earlier cataloging codes. What is different, is that now we can access those instructions online and we can build on the expertise of thousands of people to help improve those instructions and vocabularies to offer even better descriptions and access to those resources for our users -- now. - Brabara Tillett JSC Chair On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Ford Davey ford_da...@hotmail.comwrote: I don’t mean to be offensive; not to demean the hard work that has gone into (and the ongoing work) making RDA …. But, RDA is a nonsense! It’s about cataloguing the sake of cataloguing! I has nothing to do with access, or the user! Looking at this forum, and a couple of others; the discussion by “cataloguers” – and I recognize “names” who I would consider have experience of, and know their cataloguing seems to me to suggest that nobody really seems to know what they’re on about! That disturbs me, a lot! I would like to know how those of you who can “explain” to the rest of what the 33x fields are all about (and to be honest those explanations are far too wordy for me to follow!) …. How do you explain them to your users, you know the folks who actually want to find stuff! Who don’t want, or have the time to read through the equivalent of a 1,000 page manual (that at times looks as if t was put together by Lewis Carroll and a bunch of lawyer!); just in case there has been any changes since they last looked at it??*** * ** ** It’ll be OK when at some undetermined point in time (how long did RDA take?), some undetermined solution is put in place? ** ** Sorry to rant. ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *James Weinheimer *Sent:* 27 July 2013 14:59 *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA ** ** On 26/07/2013 22:10, JSC Chair wrote: snip Taking the bigger view is precisely what RDA will help us do - stop focusing on creating records and see how the resources we are describing fit into the bibliographic universe. We are living with lots of MARC limitations for now, but the data built using RDA will be especially useful when we can move beyond MARC. It is still usable in MARC just as records created with AAACR2 were useful in MARC, and RDA can even be used to create catalog card records, if that is your limited environment for now, but we want to look beyond the current limitations of just building a catalog to re-use of bibliographic data in the broader information community - to enable libraries to interact better in that larger realm where our users are - to connect users to the rich resources and related resources we have to offer and beyond. - Barbara Tillett JSC Chair /snip The idea that the problem is with records and that things will get better once they are discombobulated into various bits of data is a theory that has never been demonstrated. It also goes against reason: why should a separate bit of information such as Paging300/Paging or TitlePoems/Title make such a big difference? On their own, these little bits and pieces of information are completely meaningless and they must be brought together again--or recombobulated--if anything is to make sense. ( http://s3-media2.ak.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/Ao1Tpjx5r0ZFwHDZHb49Pg/l.jpg. This area apparently really exists at the airport in Milwaukee. I love it!) The fact is: catalogs currently do not have records as such, because in any catalog based on an RDBMS, everything is already discombobulated into separate tables for headings, language codes, perhaps dates and all sorts of things. Internally, each catalog may separate the information in different ways. Anyway, there is *nothing at all new* about getting rid of the record--it's been the case for decades. When a searcher of the catalog sees a record, these bits and pieces are brought together, and the human experiences the same thing as a record, although it can be displayed completely, partially, or it could be in many, many unique and novel ways. I think the argument has confused database structure with data transfer. For instance, I can't imagine anybody wanting just the Paging information or the SubjectChronologicalSubdivision without a lot of the rest of the record so that the final product will be coherent and useful. And internal database structure
Re: [RDA-L] 338 field for a volume of art prints
I cannot help laughing. Sorry :) On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Kathie Coblentz kcobl...@nypl.org wrote: May I take the occasion to point out another confusing definition in the RDA glossary? Portfolio: A unit of extent of text that is a container for holding loose materials (e.g., paintings, drawings, papers, unbound sections of a book, and similar materials) usually consisting of two covers joined together at the back. There is something I'm not getting about how the RDA mind works. If something is a unit of extent of text, how can it be a container for, e.g., paintings? I was driven back to the definition of text to see if maybe somehow it includes non-verbal images, but no, it's Content expressed through a form of notation for language intended to be perceived visually. Though I suppose one picture IS worth a thousand words, so maybe that's how they figure it. I'm also not too pleased with that usually consisting of two covers joined together at the back (which was taken over from the AACR 2 glossary). I've seen a lot of portfolios in my time, and relatively few look like that. Actually, come to think of it, I'm not even sure what it means. Two covers? The RDA definition of cover is The outer protective material attached to a volume, consisting of both sides of the front and back panels and the spine to which they are joined. Kathie Coblentz, Rare Materials Cataloger Collections Strategy/Special Formats Processing The New York Public Library, Stephen A. Schwarzman Building 5th Avenue and 42nd Street, Room 313 New York, NY 10018 kathiecoble...@nypl.org My opinions, not NYPL's -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] 7.17 Colour content
My understanding is that RDA uses Content Type to represent the way in which the major content of a work is realized. Text or still image is one of them. RDA actually uses Illustrative Content to represent illustrations in a text content. That is why it is encoded in $b of 300 fields. But if you look at the explanation for illustrative content. It does not truly say its application context and purpose. *Illustrative content▼http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdaglosstarget=rdagloss-851#rdagloss-851is content designed to illustrate the primary content of a resource. * Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Mitchell, Michael michael.mitch...@brazosport.edu wrote: Would it make sense to consider the illustrations to be representative of the content of the work (rather than the expression or manifestation) since a work and thus its contents is really an idea? Something imagined? So if we have a work about red objects then a picture book of red objects would illustrate the primary content of [that] resource. I'm not sure I follow your problem with illustrations v. still images. Seems to me illustrations are (usually) still and are images. Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [ RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Kathie Coblentz [ kcobl...@nypl.org] Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 8:33 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 7.17 Colour content Aside from the problems with colo(u)r content, I see another problem with some of the examples posted in this thread. As I pointed out in another thread, RDA defines illustrative content as Content designed to illustrate the primary content of a resource. (From the Glossary.) Therefore it is not logical to have in 300 $b chiefly illustrations. Nor is it logical to put Chiefly illustrations in a note. Furthermore, if the primary content of the resource is still images, it is not logical to have illustrations in the 300 field at all. Unless, perhaps, it can be assumed to refer to whatever textual matter has been added to the still image content. I am still looking for an answer to this conundrum. Kathie Coblentz, Rare Materials Cataloger Collections Strategy/Special Formats Processing The New York Public Library, Stephen A. Schwarzman Building 5th Avenue and 42nd Street, Room 313 New York, NY 10018 kathiecoble...@nypl.org My opinions, not NYPL's -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] 7.17 Colour content
Is it 45 pages : color illustrations? Thank you. Joan Wang On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Darlene Taylor darlene.tay...@sait.cawrote: hi. The examples you are showing are mostly from the old cataloging rules,AACR2. They should be: 45 pages : illustrations (colour) 45 pages : illustrations (some colour) 45 pages : illustrations (chiefly colour) Darlene Taylor, Instructor Library Information Technology Program SAIT Polytechnic 1301- 16 Ave. N.W. Calgary, Alberta T2M 0L4 403-284-8072 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [ RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Nelson [ knel...@capilanou.ca] Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 10:36 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] 7.17 Colour content Help help. I have read the RDA ToolKit instructions over and over, and looked at the workflows, and checked online… Can’t see that RDA actually says much about “how”, but online I am seeing a whole lot of versions of how the recording of colour content is to be done. Are we agreed on anything? I have seen: 300 45 p. : illustrations in colour 300 45 p. : coloured illustrations 300 45 p. : illustrations, some coloured 300 45 p. : illustrations, some in colour 300 45 p. : illustrations, chiefly coloured 300 45 p. : chiefly coloured illustrations And many similar, but with the usual parentheses, though not so many include parentheses. Which are correct? And why, please. -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Recording (large print)
There would be many misleading mappings using your criterion. I am not a person who is able to answer the question. But I believe that many people would be happy with taking advantage of the convenience :) Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Arakawa, Steven steven.arak...@yale.eduwrote: *I do think the mapping is misleading. The point of RDA is to avoid scrambling of different elements for the sake of convenience. This was the rationale behind 264 and its various indicators, wasn’t it? Why is it considered necessary to mix up font size with item subunits? Couldn’t font size be reassigned to 300 $b instead? * * * Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metada Services Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu ** ** * * * * *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Joan Wang *Sent:* Thursday, July 11, 2013 5:03 PM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Recording (large print) ** ** I check the mapping of RDA instruction rules with MARC fields in RDA Toolkit. 3.13 Font size is mapped to $a of 300 fields, $n of 340 fields, and 500 fields. So I assume that we can record Large print in either of the three fields depending on cases and needs. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System ** ** On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.edu wrote: I believe in the best of worlds, large print would now only be recorded in an RDA record in 340 $n. That said, in the RDA Appendix with MARC mappings, font size is mapped to both 300 $a and 340 $n. ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Wed, 10 Jul 2013, Arakawa, Steven wrote: In the original question, it isn't clear where (Large print) would be entered in MARC 300. In AACR2 MARC records, it is entered in 300 $a per 2.5B23, but there isn't a corresponding instruction in RDA. In RDA extent (300 $a) is limited to the number of units and subunits (3.4.1.1). Since Large print is not a subunit but a font size, how would including it as part of the extent (300 $a) be justified in RDA? Although the RDA Toolkit has a link from AACR2 2.5B23 to RDA 3.13.1.3, the instruction does not specify where to enter the Large Print information. Some MARC alternatives might be MARC 500 and/or 340. Maybe also 300 $b? Is there a similar impact on AACR2 2.5B22? Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metada Services Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edumailto:steven.arak...@yale.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of M. E. Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2013 4:35 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording (large print) J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.camailto:m...@slc.bc.ca wrote: What is core for RDA, and what is core for patron needs, are two *very* different things! AACR2 had a qualified GMD: text (large print) which worked very well. This is but one example of AACR2's superiority over RDA in terms of meeting patron needs, as opposed to conforming to theory. To be fair, AACR2's GMDs are marked as optional and don't appear at all under 1.0D's first level of description (which is on par with RDA's core cataloging--RDA for the most part follows in AACR2's footsteps). If it's a matter of why 30-some years of GMDs and AACR2 practice never resulted in more elements being added to the must have pile irrespective of levels of description, I can't say. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex http://www.minitex.umn.edu/ -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Photocopy of a thesis in RDA?
J. McRee (Mac) Elrod posted:
It is a fiction that current print theses are manuscripts. They are
now usually printouts from the electronic version which is online at
the institution. Bit I don't think 264 2nd indicator 0 vs. 1 is
worth fighting over. (Coding state university press publications as
state documents IS worth fighting over, and I hope will not be a carry
over to Bibframe from MARC.)
Mac, I could not agree with you any more :)
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 6:36 PM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
Mark asked:
Does the Degree Granting Institution produce the thesis? Or the
student?
The student might have been 264 3 earlier, but physically producing
it is not publication. While the student probably typed that 1948
thesis, it was not a thesis until accepted by the institution. The
official original copy probably exists in the institution's library
archives.
At client demand, we have been putting degree granting institution in
260$b for years. Their argument was they needed it in brief display.
We do 260/264 $c for serials for the same reason. Neither 502 nor 362
are often in brief display. It's good to have rules catch up with us
once again.
It is a fiction that current print theses are manuscripts. They are
now usually printouts from the electronic version which is online at
the institution. Bit I don't think 264 2nd indicator 0 vs. 1 is
worth fighting over. (Coding state university press publications as
state documents IS worth fighting over, and I hope will not be a carry
over to Bibframe from MARC.)
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D.
Cataloger -- CMC
Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office)
6725 Goshen Road
Edwardsville, IL 62025
618.656.3216x409
618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Translated from notes and code for original language
A similar case is for accompanying materials. I consider it a whole-part relationship. But they are encoded in $c of 300 fields. I was told that it is a structured description. So Thanks, Joan Wang On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote: 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
Re: [RDA-L] Translated from notes and code for original language
Sorry. Should be $e of 300 fields :) On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote: A similar case is for accompanying materials. I consider it a whole-part relationship. But they are encoded in $c of 300 fields. I was told that it is a structured description. So Thanks, Joan Wang On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote: 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
Re: [RDA-L] 264 question
Use the abbreviations in table B.1http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdaappbtarget=rdab-399#rdab-399for the names of certain countries and for the names of states, provinces, territories, etc., of Australia, Canada, and the United States when the names are recorded: a)/as part of the name of a place located in that state, province, territory, etc. (see 16.2.2.9http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp16target=rda16-469#rda16-469) or other jurisdiction (see 16.2.2.11http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp16target=rda16-559#rda16-559 ) b)as the name or part of the name of a place associated with a person (see 9.8http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp9target=rda9-5028#rda9-5028 –9.11http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp9target=rda9-5120#rda9-5120) family (see 10.5http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp10target=rda10-515#rda10-515), or corporate body (see 11.3http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp11target=rda11-4145#rda11-4145 ). If you go referred chapters of RDA in the rule of Appendix B.11, you will see they all are for authority records. My understanding. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Liptack, Vanessa liptv...@my.dom.eduwrote: I'm confused as to why rda has an appendix for abbreviations including geographic locations.. Anyone know when we use these? I assumed we we once again using them for place of publication? Anyone know please clear my confusion for me. Thanks! Sent from my iPad On Jul 3, 2013, at 11:57 AM, Patricia Sayre-McCoy p...@uchicago.edu wrote: But in this case, there’s nothing to transcribe. The place of publication is cataloger supplied. Pat ** ** Patricia Sayre-McCoy Head, Law Cataloging and Serials D’Angelo Law Library University of Chicago 773-702-9620 p...@uchicago.edu ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] *On Behalf Of *Robert Maxwell *Sent:* Wednesday, July 03, 2013 11:02 AM *To:* RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] 264 question ** ** Appendix B does not apply to “transcribed elements” (see B.4). The Pubication Statement is a transcribed element (see 2.8.1.4). Also B.4 instructs “If supplying all or part of a transcribed element, generally do not abbreviate words.” ** ** Bob ** ** Robert L. Maxwell Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept. 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Patricia Sayre-McCoy *Sent:* Wednesday, July 03, 2013 9:52 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] 264 question ** ** Per Appendix B.1 state names are included in the “approved” abbreviations. And the LC-PCC Policy statement at 1.10.2 says local institutions can establish their own guidelines for many things, including abbreviations.** ** Pat ** ** Patricia Sayre-McCoy Head, Law Cataloging and Serials D’Angelo Law Library University of Chicago 773-702-9620 p...@uchicago.edu ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] *On Behalf Of *Adam Schiff *Sent:* Wednesday, July 03, 2013 10:43 AM *To:* RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] 264 question ** ** Oops, I meant if you are supplying a place, you wouldn’t use a postal abbreviation. *From:* Adam Schiff asch...@u.washington.edu *Sent:* Wednesday, July 03, 2013 8:39 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] 264 question It would not be correct to use “SC” in your place of publication. If you are supplying a date, you wouldn’t use a postal abbreviation. Either [Charleston] or [Charleston, South Carolina]. Adam Schiff *From:* Patricia Mary Gierke gier...@dut.ac.za *Sent:* Wednesday, July 03, 2013 7:21 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] 264 question Hi Mary I agree wholeheartedly – ever SO grateful for this list ! And, if I may say so, I think your final decision is SPOT ON! I believe we are encouraged to SUPPLY a place of publication or probable place whenever possible….which is what you’ve done. And you obviously KNOW that the book is self-published because it is stated somewhere. Bravo! Trish Gierke (Cataloguer) Durban
Re: [RDA-L] 264 question
Sorry, should be for authorized access points (headings). On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote: Use the abbreviations in table B.1http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdaappbtarget=rdab-399#rdab-399for the names of certain countries and for the names of states, provinces, territories, etc., of Australia, Canada, and the United States when the names are recorded: a)/as part of the name of a place located in that state, province, territory, etc. (see 16.2.2.9http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp16target=rda16-469#rda16-469) or other jurisdiction (see 16.2.2.11http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp16target=rda16-559#rda16-559 ) b)as the name or part of the name of a place associated with a person (see 9.8http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp9target=rda9-5028#rda9-5028 –9.11http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp9target=rda9-5120#rda9-5120) family (see 10.5http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp10target=rda10-515#rda10-515), or corporate body (see 11.3http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp11target=rda11-4145#rda11-4145 ). If you go referred chapters of RDA in the rule of Appendix B.11, you will see they all are for authority records. My understanding. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Liptack, Vanessa liptv...@my.dom.eduwrote: I'm confused as to why rda has an appendix for abbreviations including geographic locations.. Anyone know when we use these? I assumed we we once again using them for place of publication? Anyone know please clear my confusion for me. Thanks! Sent from my iPad On Jul 3, 2013, at 11:57 AM, Patricia Sayre-McCoy p...@uchicago.edu wrote: But in this case, there’s nothing to transcribe. The place of publication is cataloger supplied. Pat ** ** Patricia Sayre-McCoy Head, Law Cataloging and Serials D’Angelo Law Library University of Chicago 773-702-9620 p...@uchicago.edu ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.caRDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] *On Behalf Of *Robert Maxwell *Sent:* Wednesday, July 03, 2013 11:02 AM *To:* RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] 264 question ** ** Appendix B does not apply to “transcribed elements” (see B.4). The Pubication Statement is a transcribed element (see 2.8.1.4). Also B.4 instructs “If supplying all or part of a transcribed element, generally do not abbreviate words.” ** ** Bob ** ** Robert L. Maxwell Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept. 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CARDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Patricia Sayre-McCoy *Sent:* Wednesday, July 03, 2013 9:52 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] 264 question ** ** Per Appendix B.1 state names are included in the “approved” abbreviations. And the LC-PCC Policy statement at 1.10.2 says local institutions can establish their own guidelines for many things, including abbreviations. Pat ** ** Patricia Sayre-McCoy Head, Law Cataloging and Serials D’Angelo Law Library University of Chicago 773-702-9620 p...@uchicago.edu ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] *On Behalf Of *Adam Schiff *Sent:* Wednesday, July 03, 2013 10:43 AM *To:* RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] 264 question ** ** Oops, I meant if you are supplying a place, you wouldn’t use a postal abbreviation. *From:* Adam Schiff asch...@u.washington.edu *Sent:* Wednesday, July 03, 2013 8:39 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] 264 question It would not be correct to use “SC” in your place of publication. If you are supplying a date, you wouldn’t use a postal abbreviation. Either [Charleston] or [Charleston, South Carolina]. Adam Schiff *From:* Patricia Mary Gierke gier...@dut.ac.za *Sent:* Wednesday, July 03, 2013 7:21 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] 264 question Hi Mary I agree wholeheartedly – ever SO grateful for this list ! And, if I may say so, I think your final decision is SPOT ON! I believe we are encouraged to SUPPLY a place of publication or probable place whenever possible….which is what you’ve done
Re: [RDA-L] Photocopy of a thesis in RDA?
How can I understand a photocopy of a thesis? I guess that many theses could be photocopies. Do we still consider theses as manuscripts under RDA? If look at the definition in RDA Toolkit, they are not. But if look at OCLC special cataloging guidelines, they are. Happy fourth! Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Shorten, Jay jshor...@ou.edu wrote: I am cataloguing a photocopy of a thesis for which there is no record for the original thesis, so no “linking” is possible. How and where do I indicate the photocopied nature of the item? My attempt is: ** ** 246 _0 1948 [the date of the original thesis] 246 _3 [198-?] [an estimate as to when it was photocopied] ** ** 530 Photocopy of original thesis. ** ** Also my Form fixed-field is *r*, and my 007 is *t $b a *. And if it’s relevant, my 502 for the thesis is: $b Th. D. $c Theological Seminary of the Presbyterian Church $d 1948. ** ** Have I forgot anything? ** ** ** ** ** ** Jay Shorten Cataloger, Monographs and Electronic Resources Associate Professor of Bibliography Catalog Department University Libraries University of Oklahoma ** ** jshor...@ou.edu ** ** -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Translated from notes and code for original language
I initially thought that RDA does not involve encoding. MARC encoding is another thing and technique. But it is hard, at least so far, to completely distinguish RDA, a resource description rule, from MARC encoding. We still can see shades of MARC encoding in RDA rules. For example, the optional addition of the function of distribution and manufacture in the statement. It seems to be carried over from using 260 fields. When we are reading RDA, we need to relate them to a string rather than individual data elements independent of encoding. That is why, I guess, the correct application (I am actually not saying correct understanding) of RDA rules depends on cataloging knowledge and experiences. Such as, Robert or Adam's explanations (volunteer to help) would help a lot. We can image that it could be a hard part for a new cataloger. A new cataloger could be shocked that there are many things beyond rules and sentences he/she is seeing and capturing. But it is really not something new for cataloging. Is that right :) I am learning from the discussion. Thanks to everyone, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 8:15 PM, Robert Maxwell robert_maxw...@byu.eduwrote: 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
Re: [RDA-L] Translated from notes and code for original language
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 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 -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Translated from notes and code for original language
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 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 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 -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germanywww.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing
This is a catch-up email. I try to understand Deborah's summary. I read both LC-PCC PS for 2.10.6http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=lcpschp2target=lcps2-1702#lcps2-1702 and 2.8.6.6. They actually have the same information for a item lacking a publication date contains a copyright and a date of manufacture and the years differ. The policy does say supply a date of publication that corresponds to the copyright date in square brackets. A manufacture date may also be recorded as part of a manufacture statement, or recorded as part of a note on issue, part, or iteration used as the basis for identification of a resource. So for the Example 1, the inferred publication date should be [2013]. The printing date 2012 may be recorded in a manufacture statement, or a 588 description based note. Example 1 Verso of book reads: Copyright © 2013 First printing, August 2012 ISBN 9780321832740 Deborah mentioned *C.1*. But the upper category *C.* does say that If an item lacking a publication date contains *only a date of manufacture*. The Example 1 is not an applicable case, since it contains both copyright and manufacture date. I hope that my understanding is correct. Any correction would be appreciated. Thanks to everyone. Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Deborah Fritz debo...@marcofquality.comwrote: My thanks to the folks who sent in feedback on how they would handle my two date examples. As I suspected, there was considerable variation on how the dates would be entered for these resources—here is a summary, with some paraphrasing, and extrapolating, so hopefully I have interpreted all the replies correctly: ** ** Example 1 Verso of book reads: ** ** Copyright © 2013 First printing, August 2012 ISBN 9780321832740 ** ** Use © to supply PubD = 2 264_1 … $c[2013] ** ** Use © to supply PubD, add © = 1 264_1 … $c[2013] 264_4 $c©2013 Use 1st Prt to supply PubD, add © = 4 264_1 … $c[2012] 264_4 $c©2013 ** ** Use 1st Prt to supply PubD, add PrtD, add © = 1 264_1 … $c[2012] 264_3 … $c2012. 264_4 $c©2013 ** ** Enter 1st Prt as PubD = 2 264_1 … $c2012. -- Here is my take on the 1st example: LC-PCC PS for 2.10.6http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=lcpschp2target=lcps2-1702#lcps2-1702 B) says: “If an item lacking a publication date contains a copyright date and a date of manufacture and the years differ, supply a date of publication that corresponds to the copyright date, in square brackets, if it seems reasonable to assume that date is a likely publication date” ** ** C.1) says: “Supply a date of publication that corresponds to the manufacture date, in square brackets, if it seems reasonable to assume that date is a likely publication date. For books, this means that the item is assumed to be the first printing of the edition. Also record the manufacture date as part of a manufacture statement if determined useful by the cataloger.” ** ** Email correspondence with LC clarified that since, for books, the first printing of the edition is assumed to be a likely publication date, if the item lacking a publication date contains a copyright date and a date of manufacture and the years differ, supply a date of publication that corresponds to the first printing date, in square brackets, since it is not reasonable to assume that the copyright date is a likely publication date, since it is logical to assume that the first printing date is the more likely publication date (the resource cannot be published until it is printed, once it is printed, it is likely to be immediately published, and publishers have been known to put later copyright dates on resources) ** ** I did ask LC to make this a bit more obvious in the LC PCC PS, but I’m not sure I convinced them that this would be necessary. ** ** So, based on this, I would use 1st Prt to supply PubD, add PrtD, add © ** and** I would also add the note to explain why I used the printing date rather than the © date (to help copy catalogers, not patrons): 264_1 … $c[2012] 264_3 … $c2012. 264_4 $c©2013 500 $aFirst printing, 2013. ** ** -- Example 2 Verso of book reads: ** ** Copyright © 2007 First printed in paperback 2008 ISBN 977-0-300-14333-1 (pbk) ISBN 978-0-300-12078-3 (alk. Paper) ** ** Share hardcover record, but otherwise use 1st Prt to supply PubD = 3 264_1 … $c[2008] ** ** Share hardcover record, but otherwise use 1st Prt to supply PubD, add © = 4 264_1 … $c[2008] 264_4 $c©2007 ** ** Share hardcover record, but otherwise use 1st Prt to supply PubD, add
Re: [RDA-L] SOR from copyright statement
I agree with Deborah. I would verify the illustrator from other sources,
and bracket the statement.
Thanks,
Joan Wang
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Deborah Fritz debo...@marcofquality.comwrote:
The data entry instruction for the SOR element is:
2.4.2.3 Record statements of responsibility relating to title proper by
applying the basic instructions at 2.4.1.
And, 2.4.1.4 Transcribe a statement of responsibility as it appears on the
source of information
Remember that a Statement of Responsibility is a *statement* from the
resource about responsibility. A copyright statement, is a copyright
statement, it is not a statement of responsibility for anything except
holding copyright. This is not an RDA-thing; this has always been the case.
But, if further research indicates that the holder of the copyright is
responsible for anything to do with the resource, you can certainly add a
relationship (in a 1XX or 7XX responsibility field) for that holder,
explaining the relationship with a relationship designator, and, if you
choose, an explanatory note, as Mac suggests.
You could even supply a non-transcribed statement of responsibility in the
Statement of Responsibility element (245$c), indicating that the statement
comes from outside the resource by using the square brackets for the
statement (2.4.2.2 -- 2.2.4 -- LC-PCC PS for 2.2.4) ; but you would want
to do further research to determine that indicating this responsibility is
valid, and not simply assume that the holder of the copyright is actually
responsible for the copyrighted material.
Hope this helps,
Deborah
- - - - - - - -
Deborah Fritz
TMQ, Inc.
debo...@marcofquality.com
www.marcofquality.com
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 1:21 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] SOR from copyright statement
Kevin posted:
Interior illustrations copyright c2012 by Sebastian Ciaffaglione
The simplest solution might be to use this as a quoted note with -- Title
page verso to justify an added entry.
I would like to use interior illustrations ... by Sebastian
Ciaffaglione in the 245 $c ...
Fine by me, following a semicolon, since RDA allows use of data without
brackets from anywhere in the item. Some might wonder about the use of
ellipses in the statement of responsibility, since they are omitted before
[and # others].
You could use ellipses in the quoted note.
Whether you do statement of responsibility or the note, I would prefer
transcribed data to supplied information such as 'illustrations by],
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D.
Cataloger -- CMC
Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office)
6725 Goshen Road
Edwardsville, IL 62025
618.656.3216x409
618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] RE : [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?
A tiny question is about the capitalization. Is it upper-case like [Place of publication not identified] and [Publisher not identified], or lower-case? Thanks for your help. Joan Wang On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Paradis Daniel daniel.para...@banq.qc.cawrote: According to LC's training material, a date such as not after 2013 would be coded as follows: 008/06: q 008/07-10: 008/11-14: 2013 I assume that in the case of a not before date, code would appear in positions 11-14 instead. Daniel Paradis 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 3721 Télécopieur : 514 873-7296 daniel.para...@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. -- *De:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access de la part de Robert Maxwell *Date:* jeu. 2013-06-13 21:09 *À:* RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca *Objet :* Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required? Julie, In addition to what Adam said, in current practice we are required to include subfields $a, $b, and $c in 264 _1 even if we’ve included “core if” elements later on, so your first example should read: 264 #1 $a Syracuse, New York : $b [publisher not identified], $c [date of publication not identified] 264 #4 $c ©2009 But as Adam noted, it’s better to try to supply a date (as in your second example, which is fine). And actually, if you think about it, we probably never need to record “date of publication not identified” for a published item even if we have no evidence whatsoever about the date of publication, because we do know one thing: it was published before it got to us for cataloging, so you can always record, if nothing else, … $c [not after June 13, 2013] (I know, I know, there’s the case where a publisher claims to have published something in 2014 and we receive it in 2013, proving that things sometimes get “published” after we get them, but let’s deal with that problem only if the publisher has explicitly put a future publication date on the piece—this has been extensively discussed before in this forum, I believe.) Actually, I now have a question for the collective wisdom of the list. How do you code the MARC fixed date fields if you have a “not before” or a “not after” date of publication? I don’t see any explanation of this situation in the documentation for 008/06 – 008/14. I could possibly see using “q” and the date + for a “not before” date, but what about a “not after” date? Bob Robert L. Maxwell Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept. 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Julie Moore *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 6:27 PM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required? If all that you have is the copyright date, then it should look like this, right? 264 #1 $a Syracuse, New York : $b [publisher not identified] 264 #4 $c ©2009 Is it OK or incorrect to add the copyright date in the 264 bracketed as an inferred date? So it would look like this: 264 #1 $a Syracuse, New York : $b [publisher not identified], $c [2009] 264 #4 $c ©2009 Thanks for your guidance! Best wishes, Julie On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.edu wrote: I think many catalogers feel that since the copyright date is present on the resource, they should record it even if they've given an inferred publication date in 264 _1 $c. And some libraries have made it a local core element. If it is present, I always record it. Adam Schiff ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Julie Moore wrote: Follow up question ... why is it that I see the majority of RDA records with multiple 264s having the 264 _1 (publication) and 264 _4? Is this because the only date
Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?
There are something about core elements. The publication statement is core. If there is no publication statement, distribution is going to be core. if there is neither publication nor distribution, manufacture is going to be core. Production is for unpublished materials. Copyright date is a core for Library of Congress. Hopefully it helps. Thanks, Joan Wang On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Julie Moore julie.renee.mo...@gmail.comwrote: (My apologies for the cross-posting) Dear All, In trying to move beyond the inexplicable inconsistent period issue ... Now we have with the 264 the possibilities of: 2nd indicator entity functions of: 0 = Production 1 = Publication 2 = Distribution 3 = Manufacture Statements 4 = Copyright notice date Are we required to provide all if we have all? If not, which ones are required? I have noticed that in most cases, there is only a 1 (Publication) and a 4 (copyright date). I would be grateful for some clarification on this. Best wishes, Julie Moore -- Julie Renee Moore Head of Cataloging California State University, Fresno julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com 559-278-5813 “Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from themselves.” ... James Matthew Barrie -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
[RDA-L] Language of expression
I have a question about MARC encoding of multiple languages in a single expression. RDA instructs us to record language of expression as a separate element, as part of an access point, or as both. RDA 6.11.1.4 says recording each of the languages if a single expression of a work involves more than one language. It has an example: a motion picture with some dialogue in English, some dialogue in German, and some dialogue in Russian. My question is: how the three languages are encoded in $l in an authorized access point for an expression? Are they encoded in an order like $l English, German, Russian, or encoded in separate fields? Many thanks for your help in advance. Joan Wang -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Language of expression
I recall my message. I sent it to a wrong email address. Sorry about that. On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote: I have a question about MARC encoding of multiple languages in a single expression. RDA instructs us to record language of expression as a separate element, as part of an access point, or as both. RDA 6.11.1.4 says recording each of the languages if a single expression of a work involves more than one language. It has an example: a motion picture with some dialogue in English, some dialogue in German, and some dialogue in Russian. My question is: how the three languages are encoded in $l in an authorized access point for an expression? Are they encoded in an order like $l English, German, Russian, or encoded in separate fields? Many thanks for your help in advance. Joan Wang -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Language of expression
Thanks, Adam RDA 6.27.3 does refer to 6.11 for constructing authorized access point representing an expression. But Library of Congress Policy limits an addition of an expression attribute to four types of materials, which does not include motion pictures. Thanks again, Joan Wang On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.eduwrote: Joan, In the Defiance example in 6.11.1.4 the recording of the language of expression would, in a bibliographic record, be done only in 041. There aren't three different expressions of the film in English, German, Russian, there is only a single expression which has dialogue in 3 languages. So there wouldn't be separate expression access points for these three languages. In its original theatrically released form, the film has just a single expression, and so you only use a work access point for it. Just as you don't add an expression element to a work access point for the original expression in a single language, you wouldn't add any expression elements to the work access point for a film that is expressed in multiple languages. It's only dubbed versions (translations) that we would include expression access points in a bibliographic record. ^^** 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/**~aschiffhttp://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~** On Thu, 6 Jun 2013, Joan Wang wrote: Many thanks for your reply, Adam I actually found the example under RDA 6.11.1.4. If following the rule, record each of the languages (in authorized access points) for a motion picture with some dialogue in English, some dialogue in German, and some dialogue in Russian. There is also another example of an atlas involving seven languages. What you are saying is under Library of Congress Policy Appendix 1? English German Russian Resource described: Defiance / Paramount Vantage presents a Grosvenor Park/Bedford Falls production ; an Edward Zwick film ; executive producer, Marshall Herskovitz ; produced by Edward Zwick, Pieter Jan Brugge ; director of photography, Eduardo Serra ; screenplay by Clayton Frohman Edward Zwick ; directed by Edward Zwick. *A motion picture with some dialogue in English, some dialogue in German, and some dialogue in Russian.* Thanks again, Joan Wang On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Adam Schiff asch...@u.washington.edu** wrote: For a film in which there are multiple languages spoken in a single expression, you would not use an expression access point at all. You would just use the access point for the work, but you would record the languages in 008 and 041 and 546 only. The example in RDA is Defiance: 041 0_ eng $a ger $a rus 130 0 Defiance (Motion picture : 2008) 245 10 Defiance / $c Paramount Vantage presents a Grosvenor Park/Bedford Falls production ; an Edward Zwick film ; executive producer, Marshall Herskovitz ; produced by Edward Zwick, Pieter Jan Brugge ; director of photography, Eduardo Serra ; screenplay by Clayton Frohman Edward Zwick ; directed by Edward Zwick. 546 In English, German, and Russian. Now if the DVD you had of this film also had dubbed versions or subtitled versions, you could make additional access points for those expressions included on your manifestation: 041 1_ eng $a ger $a rus $a fre $a spa $j eng $j fre $j spa $h eng $h ger $h rus 546 In English, German, and Russian; dubbed French or dubbed Spanish dialogue with optional English, French, or Spanish subtitles. 730 02 $I Contains (expression): $a Defiance (Motion picture : 2008). $l French. 730 02 $I Contains (expression): $a Defiance (Motion picture : 2008). $l Spanish. There isn't a good way or best practice yet to formulate and distinguish a dubbed expression from a subtitled expression, although I suppose you could do something like this if you felt the next to differentiate to that level: 730 02 $I Contains (expression): $a Defiance (Motion picture : 2008). $l French. $s (Dubbed) 730 02 $I Contains (expression): $a Defiance (Motion picture : 2008). $l Spanish. $s (Dubbed) 730 02 $I Contains (expression): $a Defiance (Motion picture : 2008). $l English. $s (Subtitled) 730 02 $I Contains (expression): $a Defiance (Motion picture : 2008). $l French. $s (Subtitled) 730 02 $I Contains (expression): $a Defiance (Motion picture : 2008). $l Spanish. $s (Subtitled) --Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries From: Joan Wang Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 9:50 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Language of expression Many thanks. Trina. Yes, what I am talking about are authorized access points for expressions. Language is a part of them. I just realized that more than one expression
Re: [RDA-L] Language of expression
Many thanks. Trina. Yes, what I am talking about are authorized access points for expressions. Language is a part of them. I just realized that more than one expression contained in a manifestation should go primary relationships between Group 1 entities. It may not be covered by RDA 6.11. A motion picture contains subtitles should not be considered multiple expressions? I kind of agree with you. I looked at Library of Congress Policy Appendix 1 (for motion pictures, television programs, radio programs). It does say following RDA 6.11.1.4 to construct authorized access points for a subtitled motion picture released under the same or a different title. So if a motion picture has subtitles in more than one language, it is a single expression involving multiple languages. For more than one language in a single expression, encoding them in one $l may not be correct. I suspect that too. If following RDA 6.11.1.4, we would encode each of them in separate fields. So we would see, for example, multiple 730 fields (each has $l). Hope somebody else would like to confirm it. Thanks for your time. Joan Wang On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Trina Pundurs tpund...@library.berkeley.edu wrote: Hi Joan, I'll wade in here, with the caveat that I'm several years removed from my last regular experience cataloging AV materials. On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote: Hi, all I have a question about language of expression. RDA actually has two separate sections for one language and more than one language in an expression (not a manifestation). For one language, if my understanding is correct, we record it only if it is a translation or a different language edition. I assume you are referring here to recording language of expression *as part of the authorized access point.* Of course we are always supposed to record language of expression, in MARC 008/35-37 and, if necessary, 041. For more than one language, RDA 6.11.1.4 says “If a single expression of a work involves more than one language, record each of the languages”. According to listed examples, if a motion picture has some dialogs in English, some dialogue in German, and some dialogue in Russian, it is a single expression. But if a motion picture has two dubbed versions (or sub-titles) such as French and Spanish, in addition to its original English language, is it a manifestation containing multiple expressions? If a compilation contains the original text and one or more translation, it definitely has multiple expressions. I think in the case of a motion picture, it is important to distinguish between the language of any audio track (dubbed or otherwise) and the language of subtitles. The audio track is intrinsic to the resource, whereas subtitles are supplementary (i.e., the average user could make use of the resource as intended even without the subtitles). If you agree with this, then you are asking two separate questions: 1. how to record language when there are multiple dubbed (or one undubbed, plus at least one dubbed) versions in the same resource; and 2. how to record languages when subtitles are available in multiple languages in the same resource. To answer the second question: The language of subtitles for a motion picture is covered by 7.12, Language of the Content. This typically would be recorded in MARC 546. (Note that this element is not core.) To answer the first question: Each of the dubbed versions is a separate expression, so this resource would be a work that contains multiple expressions. In that case you would proceed as you indicated below: Multiple authorized access points (in the case of a motion picture, it would more likely be 730s than 700s), with one language added in $l for each version (except, of course, for the original language if it is one of the versions included in the resource). I'm afraid I can't point to an instruction number; perhaps someone else could help out here. For more than one language in multiple expressions, I was taught to record them in separate fields such as multiple 700 fields but omit $h for the original language. I believe that Library of Congress Policy says the same thing. Apparently multiple expressions are not under the big umbrella of RDA 6.11.1.4. Is it under 6.11.1.3? Hope somebody would like to help :-) Just wanted to make one comment about the following: AFAIK this has never been correct in RDA. Can you find the training materials that indicated this should be done? For more than one language in a single expression, I was taught in a training session to record multiple languages in one $l, such as $l English, German, Russian. But I do not think that it could be supported by RDA 6.11.1.4. I am not able to see words like “in an order”. Library of Congress Policy? Or is it a MARC encoding thing? Thanks for your time. Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System -- Zhonghong
Re: [RDA-L] Language of expression
Many thanks for your reply, Adam I actually found the example under RDA 6.11.1.4. If following the rule, record each of the languages (in authorized access points) for a motion picture with some dialogue in English, some dialogue in German, and some dialogue in Russian. There is also another example of an atlas involving seven languages. What you are saying is under Library of Congress Policy Appendix 1? English German Russian Resource described: Defiance / Paramount Vantage presents a Grosvenor Park/Bedford Falls production ; an Edward Zwick film ; executive producer, Marshall Herskovitz ; produced by Edward Zwick, Pieter Jan Brugge ; director of photography, Eduardo Serra ; screenplay by Clayton Frohman Edward Zwick ; directed by Edward Zwick. *A motion picture with some dialogue in English, some dialogue in German, and some dialogue in Russian.* Thanks again, Joan Wang On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Adam Schiff asch...@u.washington.eduwrote: For a film in which there are multiple languages spoken in a single expression, you would not use an expression access point at all. You would just use the access point for the work, but you would record the languages in 008 and 041 and 546 only. The example in RDA is Defiance: 041 0_ eng $a ger $a rus 130 0 Defiance (Motion picture : 2008) 245 10 Defiance / $c Paramount Vantage presents a Grosvenor Park/Bedford Falls production ; an Edward Zwick film ; executive producer, Marshall Herskovitz ; produced by Edward Zwick, Pieter Jan Brugge ; director of photography, Eduardo Serra ; screenplay by Clayton Frohman Edward Zwick ; directed by Edward Zwick. 546 In English, German, and Russian. Now if the DVD you had of this film also had dubbed versions or subtitled versions, you could make additional access points for those expressions included on your manifestation: 041 1_ eng $a ger $a rus $a fre $a spa $j eng $j fre $j spa $h eng $h ger $h rus 546 In English, German, and Russian; dubbed French or dubbed Spanish dialogue with optional English, French, or Spanish subtitles. 730 02 $I Contains (expression): $a Defiance (Motion picture : 2008). $l French. 730 02 $I Contains (expression): $a Defiance (Motion picture : 2008). $l Spanish. There isn't a good way or best practice yet to formulate and distinguish a dubbed expression from a subtitled expression, although I suppose you could do something like this if you felt the next to differentiate to that level: 730 02 $I Contains (expression): $a Defiance (Motion picture : 2008). $l French. $s (Dubbed) 730 02 $I Contains (expression): $a Defiance (Motion picture : 2008). $l Spanish. $s (Dubbed) 730 02 $I Contains (expression): $a Defiance (Motion picture : 2008). $l English. $s (Subtitled) 730 02 $I Contains (expression): $a Defiance (Motion picture : 2008). $l French. $s (Subtitled) 730 02 $I Contains (expression): $a Defiance (Motion picture : 2008). $l Spanish. $s (Subtitled) --Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries From: Joan Wang Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 9:50 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Language of expression Many thanks. Trina. Yes, what I am talking about are authorized access points for expressions. Language is a part of them. I just realized that more than one expression contained in a manifestation should go primary relationships between Group 1 entities. It may not be covered by RDA 6.11. A motion picture contains subtitles should not be considered multiple expressions? I kind of agree with you. I looked at Library of Congress Policy Appendix 1 (for motion pictures, television programs, radio programs). It does say following RDA 6.11.1.4 to construct authorized access points for a subtitled motion picture released under the same or a different title. So if a motion picture has subtitles in more than one language, it is a single expression involving multiple languages. For more than one language in a single expression, encoding them in one $l may not be correct. I suspect that too. If following RDA 6.11.1.4, we would encode each of them in separate fields. So we would see, for example, multiple 730 fields (each has $l). Hope somebody else would like to confirm it. Thanks for your time. Joan Wang On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Trina Pundurs tpund...@library.berkeley.edu** wrote: Hi Joan, I'll wade in here, with the caveat that I'm several years removed from my last regular experience cataloging AV materials. On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.org wrote: Hi, all I have a question about language of expression. RDA actually has two separate sections for one language and more than one language in an expression (not a manifestation). For one language, if my understanding is correct, we record it only if it is a translation or a different language edition. I assume you are referring here to recording language
[RDA-L] Language of expression
Hi, all I have a question about language of expression. RDA actually has two separate sections for one language and more than one language in an expression (not a manifestation). For one language, if my understanding is correct, we record it only if it is a translation or a different language edition. For more than one language, RDA 6.11.1.4 says “If a single expression of a work involves more than one language, record each of the languages”. According to listed examples, if a motion picture has some dialogs in English, some dialogue in German, and some dialogue in Russian, it is a single expression. But if a motion picture has two dubbed versions (or sub-titles) such as French and Spanish, in addition to its original English language, is it a manifestation containing multiple expressions? If a compilation contains the original text and one or more translation, it definitely has multiple expressions. For more than one language in a single expression, I was taught in a training session to record multiple languages in one $l, such as $l English, German, Russian. But I do not think that it could be supported by RDA 6.11.1.4. I am not able to see words like “in an order”. Library of Congress Policy? Or is it a MARC encoding thing? For more than one language in multiple expressions, I was taught to record them in separate fields such as multiple 700 fields but omit $h for the original language. I believe that Library of Congress Policy says the same thing. Apparently multiple expressions are not under the big umbrella of RDA 6.11.1.4. Is it under 6.11.1.3? Hope somebody would like to help :-) Thanks for your time. Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
[RDA-L]
Hi, All I hope that somebody would like to help me understand authorized access points for expressions. We can say that authorized access points for expressions are not separate access points. They are actually expression elements such as content type, date, and language, added to authorized access points for creators or preferred titles for works. So they would be a part of 7xx, 130, 240, 243, 730, or 830 (?) fields. But they would not appear in 1xx fields. Is that right? I found the following two examples from the website of Library of Congress MARC 21 format. 130 0#$aGone with the wind (Motion picture).$hSound recording. 700 1#$aE., Sheila$q(Escovedo),$d1959- $tDawn, the beginning.$hSound recording. Under RDA, subfield h Sound recording would be changed to Spoken word, is that right? Thanks for your help in advance. Regards, Joan Wang -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
[RDA-L] Authorized access points for expressions
(Forgot to put subject in the earlier email I sent. Sorry about that) Hi, All I hope that somebody would like to help me understand authorized access points for expressions. We can say that authorized access points for expressions are not separate access points. They are actually expression elements such as content type, date, and language, added to authorized access points for creators or preferred titles for works. So they would be a part of 7xx, 130, 240, 243, 730, or 830 (?) fields. But they would not appear in 1xx fields. Is that right? I found the following two examples from the website of Library of Congress MARC 21 format. 130 0#$aGone with the wind (Motion picture).$hSound recording. 700 1#$aE., Sheila$q(Escovedo),$d1959- $tDawn, the beginning.$hSound recording. Under RDA, subfield h Sound recording would be changed to Spoken word, is that right? Thanks for your help in advance. Regards, Joan Wang -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Authorized access points for expressions
130 0#$aGone with the wind (Motion picture).$hSound recording. I think that for this, should use Performed music in $h? On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote: (Forgot to put subject in the earlier email I sent. Sorry about that) Hi, All I hope that somebody would like to help me understand authorized access points for expressions. We can say that authorized access points for expressions are not separate access points. They are actually expression elements such as content type, date, and language, added to authorized access points for creators or preferred titles for works. So they would be a part of 7xx, 130, 240, 243, 730, or 830 (?) fields. But they would not appear in 1xx fields. Is that right? I found the following two examples from the website of Library of Congress MARC 21 format. 130 0#$aGone with the wind (Motion picture).$hSound recording. 700 1#$aE., Sheila$q(Escovedo),$d1959- $tDawn, the beginning.$hSound recording. Under RDA, subfield h Sound recording would be changed to Spoken word, is that right? Thanks for your help in advance. Regards, Joan Wang -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
[RDA-L] authorized access point for collaborative works
Hi, All I have a question about authorized access point representing the work (main entry) for collaborative works. RDA 6.27.1.3 does tell us if there is only one principal creator, the principal would be selected as the main entry. If there is more than one principal creator (or in doubt), the first-named would be selected as the main entry. I hope that my understanding is correct. RDA 6.27.1.3 provides an alternative: construct the authorized access points for all creators named instead of the principal. The specific rule is as follows: a ) the authorized access points for all creators named either in resources embodying the work or in reference sources; include them in the order in which they are named in those sources b) the preferred title for the work It has an example: EXAMPLE Gumbley, Warren, 1962– ; Johns, Dilys; Law, Garry. Management of wetland archaeological sites in New Zealand Resource described: Management of wetland archaeological sites in New Zealand / Warren Gumbley, Dilys Johns, and Garry Law My question is: how it works in MARC encoding? Any clarification would be appreciated. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] authorized access point for collaborative works
Tony Thanks for your reply. Your example is taking the first-named as the main entry and also encoding the other two. So the alternative means encoding all creators instead of only the principal? I thought that we would do the same thing when we encode the principal or the first-named as the main entry. And encoding how many creators is a core element issue. It is not an issue about the choice of main entry (authorized access point representing the work). That is why I was curious with the difference of the alternative. If they are in separate fields, is there an order requirement? And Library of Congress policy says Do not apply ??? Thanks, Joan Wang On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Tony Fang fangx...@umn.edu wrote: Joan, If it is truly a collaborative work by the three named authors, then, it will look like this: 100 1_ Gumbley, Warren, 1962– $e author. 245 10 Management of wetland archaeological sites in New Zealand / $c Warren Gumbley, Dilys Johns, and Garry La. 700 1_ Johns, Dilys, $e author. 700 1_ La., Garry, $e author. Also check out LC's training video module 4: relationships. http://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/RDA%20training%20materials/LC%20RDA%20Training/LC%20RDA%20course%20table.html On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote: Hi, All I have a question about authorized access point representing the work (main entry) for collaborative works. RDA 6.27.1.3 does tell us if there is only one principal creator, the principal would be selected as the main entry. If there is more than one principal creator (or in doubt), the first-named would be selected as the main entry. I hope that my understanding is correct. RDA 6.27.1.3 provides an alternative: construct the authorized access points for all creators named instead of the principal. The specific rule is as follows: a ) the authorized access points for all creators named either in resources embodying the work or in reference sources; include them in the order in which they are named in those sources b) the preferred title for the work It has an example: EXAMPLE Gumbley, Warren, 1962– ; Johns, Dilys; Law, Garry. Management of wetland archaeological sites in New Zealand Resource described: Management of wetland archaeological sites in New Zealand / Warren Gumbley, Dilys Johns, and Garry Law My question is: how it works in MARC encoding? Any clarification would be appreciated. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Tony Fang Media Monographs Original Cataloger Metadata Intellectual Access 160 Wilson Library, University of Minnesota Libraries Phone: (612) 626-8344 -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] authorized access point for collaborative works
Robert, Thanks. That is what I thought. I do not think that it would work in MARC. But it raises a totally different idea (right?). Thanks again, Joan Wang On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Robert Maxwell robert_maxw...@byu.eduwrote: The RDA alternative implies that all the names would be in one field in MARC, which doesn't work; hence the LC-PCC PS not to apply it. 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 Joan Wang [ jw...@illinoisheartland.org] *Sent:* Tuesday, May 28, 2013 10:28 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] authorized access point for collaborative works Tony Thanks for your reply. Your example is taking the first-named as the main entry and also encoding the other two. So the alternative means encoding all creators instead of only the principal? I thought that we would do the same thing when we encode the principal or the first-named as the main entry. And encoding how many creators is a core element issue. It is not an issue about the choice of main entry (authorized access point representing the work). That is why I was curious with the difference of the alternative. If they are in separate fields, is there an order requirement? And Library of Congress policy says Do not apply ??? Thanks, Joan Wang On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Tony Fang fangx...@umn.edu wrote: Joan, If it is truly a collaborative work by the three named authors, then, it will look like this: 100 1_ Gumbley, Warren, 1962– $e author. 245 10 Management of wetland archaeological sites in New Zealand / $c Warren Gumbley, Dilys Johns, and Garry La. 700 1_ Johns, Dilys, $e author. 700 1_ La., Garry, $e author. Also check out LC's training video module 4: relationships. http://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/RDA%20training%20materials/LC%20RDA%20Training/LC%20RDA%20course%20table.html On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote: Hi, All I have a question about authorized access point representing the work (main entry) for collaborative works. RDA 6.27.1.3 does tell us if there is only one principal creator, the principal would be selected as the main entry. If there is more than one principal creator (or in doubt), the first-named would be selected as the main entry. I hope that my understanding is correct. RDA 6.27.1.3 provides an alternative: construct the authorized access points for all creators named instead of the principal. The specific rule is as follows: a ) the authorized access points for all creators named either in resources embodying the work or in reference sources; include them in the order in which they are named in those sources b) the preferred title for the work It has an example: EXAMPLE Gumbley, Warren, 1962– ; Johns, Dilys; Law, Garry. Management of wetland archaeological sites in New Zealand Resource described: Management of wetland archaeological sites in New Zealand / Warren Gumbley, Dilys Johns, and Garry Law My question is: how it works in MARC encoding? Any clarification would be appreciated. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Tony Fang Media Monographs Original Cataloger Metadata Intellectual Access 160 Wilson Library, University of Minnesota Libraries Phone: (612) 626-8344 -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Question about examples in 2.5.6.3
I look at A.5 about the capitalization of edition statement. It says to capitalize the first word or abbreviation of the first word in a designation edition. It also refers to 2.5.2. It does not indicate 2.5.6 Designation of a Named Revision of an Edition. So I assume that we do not have to capitalize the first word of a designation of a named revision. *Capitalize the first word or abbreviation of the first word in a designation of edition (see 2.5.2http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp2target=rda2-5017#rda2-5017). Capitalize other words in an edition statement by applying the guidelines at A.10http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdaappatarget=rdaa-369#rdaa-369 –A.55http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdaappatarget=rdaa-2383#rdaa-2383, as applicable to the language involved.* I am not sue if Roads in the example is (implicitly) a special word. If it is, the example may need more explanation. Any more clarification would be appreciated. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:47 AM, Michael Chopey cho...@hawaii.edu wrote: I'm confused about the capitalization of the examples in 2.5.6.3 (Recording Designations of a Named Revision of an Edition). This rule and its examples came over from AACR2 mostly untouched (the phrase designation of replaces AACR2's statement relating to ... and that's about it), except that in AACR2, the first word of the statement relating to ... was capitalized, whereas in RDA it is not capitalized in two of the four examples (in another of the four, the first word *is* capitalized; in the other, there's no way to tell because because the designation of edition and the designation of a named revision to it are both ALL-CAPS). To the extent that examples are prescriptive for capitalization, here's what AACR2 prescribed compared to what RDA seems to be prescribing: AACR2 (1.2D1): World's classics ed., New ed., rev., reset, and illustrated. RDA (2.5.6.3): World's classics edition, new edition, revised, reset, and illustrated. AACR2 (1.2D1): 4th ed. ..., Reprinted with corrections. RDA (2.5.6.3): 4th ed., reprinted with corrections. In the one example that is new to RDA and that's not in ALL CAPS, the designation *is* capitalized: RDA (2.5.6.3): 4th ed., Roads revised. Does anyone know whether it's the case, as the first two examples imply, that we no longer capitalize the first word of a designation of a named revision, or is it the case, as the third example implies, that we continue to capitalize the first word? If there were no examples at all in 2.5.6.3, I would capitalize the first word based on the instruction in the rule to Apply the instructions on recording designations of edition (see 2.5.2.3), but the examples are making me wonder now. Any help would be much appreciated. Aloha, Mike Chopey -- Michael A. Chopey Head, Cataloging Dept. Hamilton 008 University of Hawaii at Manoa Libraries Honolulu, HI 96822 phone (808) 956-2753 fax (808) 956-5968 -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Question about examples in 2.5.6.3
If the example *World's classics ed., New ed. rev*. appears under 2.5.1.4 Recording Edition Statement. It really should not include the designations of a named revision. Go too far! Thanks, Joan Wang On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 10:08 AM, John Hostage host...@law.harvard.eduwrote: There is also this example in 2.5.1.4: World's classics ed., New ed. rev. I think the idea is that the Designation of a named revision is a separate element, so from that point of view it should be capitalized like the Edition statement is (A.5). -- John Hostage Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian // 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 Michael Chopey Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 01:48 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Question about examples in 2.5.6.3 I'm confused about the capitalization of the examples in 2.5.6.3 (Recording Designations of a Named Revision of an Edition). This rule and its examples came over from AACR2 mostly untouched (the phrase designation of replaces AACR2's statement relating to ... and that's about it), except that in AACR2, the first word of the statement relating to ... was capitalized, whereas in RDA it is not capitalized in two of the four examples (in another of the four, the first word *is* capitalized; in the other, there's no way to tell because because the designation of edition and the designation of a named revision to it are both ALL-CAPS). To the extent that examples are prescriptive for capitalization, here's what AACR2 prescribed compared to what RDA seems to be prescribing: AACR2 (1.2D1): World's classics ed., New ed., rev., reset, and illustrated. RDA (2.5.6.3): World's classics edition, new edition, revised, reset, and illustrated. AACR2 (1.2D1): 4th ed. ..., Reprinted with corrections. RDA (2.5.6.3): 4th ed., reprinted with corrections. In the one example that is new to RDA and that's not in ALL CAPS, the designation *is* capitalized: RDA (2.5.6.3): 4th ed., Roads revised. Does anyone know whether it's the case, as the first two examples imply, that we no longer capitalize the first word of a designation of a named revision, or is it the case, as the third example implies, that we continue to capitalize the first word? If there were no examples at all in 2.5.6.3, I would capitalize the first word based on the instruction in the rule to Apply the instructions on recording designations of edition (see 2.5.2.3), but the examples are making me wonder now. Any help would be much appreciated. Aloha, Mike Chopey -- Michael A. Chopey Head, Cataloging Dept. Hamilton 008 University of Hawaii at Manoa Libraries Honolulu, HI 96822 phone (808) 956-2753 fax (808) 956-5968 -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Question about preferred title for a compilation
two or more but not all works ... in a particular form means your phrase incomplete works in a single form. (6.2.2.10.3 a) ??? by the way, I feel that a good word would be selected works in single form and selected works not in single form. I think the lack of any subsection in 6.2.2 for compilations by more than one ? person/family/corporate body means there are no special rules for those compilations. In other words, we don't use conventional collective titles for those, so we default to whatever title the compilation is known by (maybe the title proper). Seems to be reasonable. Thanks to Arthur, Joan Wang On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Arthur Liu art@gmail.com wrote: Hi Joan, My understanding is: Complete works means all the works by a person, in all forms that the person worked in. (6.2.2.10.1) Complete works in a single form means all the works by a person in a particular form, e.g. all the plays by a person, but not the novels by that person. (6.2.2.10.2) Other compilations of two or more works means incomplete works, or a compilation of two or more works by a person which does not constitute all the works by that person, and does not constitute all the works by that person in a particular form. (6.2.2.10.3) two or more but not all works ... in a particular form means your phrase incomplete works in a single form. (6.2.2.10.3 a) two or more but not all works ... in various forms means your phrase incomplete works not in a single form. (6.2.2.10.3 b) Your phrase complete works not in a single form is simply 6.2.2.10.1. For example, Person A wrote five plays and five novels. A compilation of all ten works would be 6.2.2.10.1. A compilation of all 5 plays (but no novels) would be 6.2.2.10.2 (same for a compilation of all 5 novels only). A compilation of three of the plays only would be 6.2.2.10.3a. A compilation of two of the plays and three of the novels would be 6.2.2.10.3b. I think the lack of any subsection in 6.2.2 for compilations by more than one person/family/corporate body means there are no special rules for those compilations. In other words, we don't use conventional collective titles for those, so we default to whatever title the compilation is known by (maybe the title proper). Arthur Liu Library Technician John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (U.S.) On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote: Hi, All I have a question about preferred title for a compilation. RDA 6.2.2.10 instructs us to record preferred title for a complication of works of one person/family/corporate body. It is organized by three sections: 6.2.2.10 Recording the Preferred Title for a Compilation of Works of *One Person, Family, or Corporate Body* - 6.2.2.10.1 complete works - 6.2.2.10.2 complete works in single form - 6.2.2.10.3 other complications of two or more works. I have a problem to understand 6.2.2.10.3. First of all, do we really need “of two or more works” in the heading? I assume that a compilation is always composed of more than one. If my understanding is correct, the term *compilation* already tells us that. Secondly, what are included in other complications? If following the logic inherent in the organization of 6.2.2.10. I would expect *incomplete works, complete works not in single form, incomplete works in single form, *and *incomplete works not in single form *after the two sections of *complete works* and *complete works in single form*. Actually under 6.2.2.10.3, it does have a condition: Record the preferred title for each of the works in a compilation that consists of: a) two or more *but not all* the works of one person, family, or corporate body, *in a particular form* or b) two or more *but not* all the works of one person, family, or corporate body, *in various forms*. Does a) condition means complete works not in single form and incomplete works not in single form? And b) means incomplete works? I assume that for these other compilations, we can record the preferred title for each of the works, or, use *Selections*, or, identify the parts collectively by recording a conventional collective title as applicable, followed by *Selections, *such as* Novels. Selections*.* *But RDA does not mention an alternative for *Selections*. Or we cannot use *Selections *at all? Also, is there a section for a compilation of works by more than one person/family/corporate body? RDA 6.27.1.4 (Compilations of Works by Different Persons, Families, or Corporate Bodies) does refer to 6.2.2 for constructing preferred title for a compilation of works by different persons, families, or corporate bodies. But I cannot find a relevant section under 6.2.2. I would expect that after 6.2.2.10. Any clarification would be appreciated. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger
Re: [RDA-L] Question about preferred title for a compilation
I think the lack of any subsection in 6.2.2 for compilations by more than one ? person/family/corporate body means there are no special rules for those compilations. In other words, we don't use conventional collective titles for those, so we default to whatever title the compilation is known by (maybe the title proper). I still think that the preferred tile for a work is different from a title proper found in a manifestation. So some instructions or references would be helpful. Thanks, Joan Wang On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote: two or more but not all works ... in a particular form means your phrase incomplete works in a single form. (6.2.2.10.3 a) ??? by the way, I feel that a good word would be selected works in single form and selected works not in single form. I think the lack of any subsection in 6.2.2 for compilations by more than one ? person/family/corporate body means there are no special rules for those compilations. In other words, we don't use conventional collective titles for those, so we default to whatever title the compilation is known by (maybe the title proper). Seems to be reasonable. Thanks to Arthur, Joan Wang On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Arthur Liu art@gmail.com wrote: Hi Joan, My understanding is: Complete works means all the works by a person, in all forms that the person worked in. (6.2.2.10.1) Complete works in a single form means all the works by a person in a particular form, e.g. all the plays by a person, but not the novels by that person. (6.2.2.10.2) Other compilations of two or more works means incomplete works, or a compilation of two or more works by a person which does not constitute all the works by that person, and does not constitute all the works by that person in a particular form. (6.2.2.10.3) two or more but not all works ... in a particular form means your phrase incomplete works in a single form. (6.2.2.10.3 a) two or more but not all works ... in various forms means your phrase incomplete works not in a single form. (6.2.2.10.3 b) Your phrase complete works not in a single form is simply 6.2.2.10.1. For example, Person A wrote five plays and five novels. A compilation of all ten works would be 6.2.2.10.1. A compilation of all 5 plays (but no novels) would be 6.2.2.10.2 (same for a compilation of all 5 novels only). A compilation of three of the plays only would be 6.2.2.10.3a. A compilation of two of the plays and three of the novels would be 6.2.2.10.3b. I think the lack of any subsection in 6.2.2 for compilations by more than one person/family/corporate body means there are no special rules for those compilations. In other words, we don't use conventional collective titles for those, so we default to whatever title the compilation is known by (maybe the title proper). Arthur Liu Library Technician John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (U.S.) On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote: Hi, All I have a question about preferred title for a compilation. RDA 6.2.2.10 instructs us to record preferred title for a complication of works of one person/family/corporate body. It is organized by three sections: 6.2.2.10 Recording the Preferred Title for a Compilation of Works of *One Person, Family, or Corporate Body* - 6.2.2.10.1 complete works - 6.2.2.10.2 complete works in single form - 6.2.2.10.3 other complications of two or more works. I have a problem to understand 6.2.2.10.3. First of all, do we really need “of two or more works” in the heading? I assume that a compilation is always composed of more than one. If my understanding is correct, the term *compilation* already tells us that. Secondly, what are included in other complications? If following the logic inherent in the organization of 6.2.2.10. I would expect *incomplete works, complete works not in single form, incomplete works in single form, *and *incomplete works not in single form *after the two sections of *complete works* and *complete works in single form*. Actually under 6.2.2.10.3, it does have a condition: Record the preferred title for each of the works in a compilation that consists of: a) two or more *but not all* the works of one person, family, or corporate body, *in a particular form* or b) two or more *but not* all the works of one person, family, or corporate body, *in various forms*. Does a) condition means complete works not in single form and incomplete works not in single form? And b) means incomplete works? I assume that for these other compilations, we can record the preferred title for each of the works, or, use *Selections*, or, identify the parts collectively by recording a conventional collective title as applicable, followed by *Selections, *such as* Novels. Selections*.* *But RDA does not mention an alternative for *Selections*. Or we
Re: [RDA-L] Question about preferred title for a compilation
Let me rephrase my question. Thanks to Arthur's help. Does 6.2.2.10.3 other compilations includes selected works in a single form, and selected works not in a single form? If it is, the languages of the rule is too grey :) For both categories, RDA tells us to record the preferred title for each of the works in a compilation. It also has an alternative: identify the parts collectively by recording a conventional collective title as applicable, followed by *Selections*. The example is *Novels. Selections*. I wonder how effective the alternative can be in the application of selected works not in a single form. A simple *Selections *seems to be more reasonable. Thanks for your time. I am also tired with the question :) Have a wonderful weekend! Joan Wang On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote: I think the lack of any subsection in 6.2.2 for compilations by more than one ? person/family/corporate body means there are no special rules for those compilations. In other words, we don't use conventional collective titles for those, so we default to whatever title the compilation is known by (maybe the title proper). I still think that the preferred tile for a work is different from a title proper found in a manifestation. So some instructions or references would be helpful. Thanks, Joan Wang On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote: two or more but not all works ... in a particular form means your phrase incomplete works in a single form. (6.2.2.10.3 a) ??? by the way, I feel that a good word would be selected works in single form and selected works not in single form. I think the lack of any subsection in 6.2.2 for compilations by more than one ? person/family/corporate body means there are no special rules for those compilations. In other words, we don't use conventional collective titles for those, so we default to whatever title the compilation is known by (maybe the title proper). Seems to be reasonable. Thanks to Arthur, Joan Wang On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Arthur Liu art@gmail.com wrote: Hi Joan, My understanding is: Complete works means all the works by a person, in all forms that the person worked in. (6.2.2.10.1) Complete works in a single form means all the works by a person in a particular form, e.g. all the plays by a person, but not the novels by that person. (6.2.2.10.2) Other compilations of two or more works means incomplete works, or a compilation of two or more works by a person which does not constitute all the works by that person, and does not constitute all the works by that person in a particular form. (6.2.2.10.3) two or more but not all works ... in a particular form means your phrase incomplete works in a single form. (6.2.2.10.3 a) two or more but not all works ... in various forms means your phrase incomplete works not in a single form. (6.2.2.10.3 b) Your phrase complete works not in a single form is simply 6.2.2.10.1. For example, Person A wrote five plays and five novels. A compilation of all ten works would be 6.2.2.10.1. A compilation of all 5 plays (but no novels) would be 6.2.2.10.2 (same for a compilation of all 5 novels only). A compilation of three of the plays only would be 6.2.2.10.3a. A compilation of two of the plays and three of the novels would be 6.2.2.10.3b. I think the lack of any subsection in 6.2.2 for compilations by more than one person/family/corporate body means there are no special rules for those compilations. In other words, we don't use conventional collective titles for those, so we default to whatever title the compilation is known by (maybe the title proper). Arthur Liu Library Technician John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (U.S.) On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.org wrote: Hi, All I have a question about preferred title for a compilation. RDA 6.2.2.10 instructs us to record preferred title for a complication of works of one person/family/corporate body. It is organized by three sections: 6.2.2.10 Recording the Preferred Title for a Compilation of Works of *One Person, Family, or Corporate Body* - 6.2.2.10.1 complete works - 6.2.2.10.2 complete works in single form - 6.2.2.10.3 other complications of two or more works. I have a problem to understand 6.2.2.10.3. First of all, do we really need “of two or more works” in the heading? I assume that a compilation is always composed of more than one. If my understanding is correct, the term *compilation* already tells us that. Secondly, what are included in other complications? If following the logic inherent in the organization of 6.2.2.10. I would expect *incomplete works, complete works not in single form, incomplete works in single form, *and *incomplete works not in single form *after the two sections of *complete works
Re: [RDA-L] Question about examples in 2.5.6.3
Great! Heidrun. These examples should be reexamined. Thanks, Joan Wang On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote: John Hostage wrote: There is also this example in 2.5.1.4: World's classics ed., New ed. rev. Oddly, this example is almost identical to one in 2.5.6.3 (Recordingdesignations of a named revision of an edition): new edition, revised, reset, and illustrated Designation of edition: World's classics edition Here, the new edition bit is an example for designation of a named revision of an edition (what a phrase!!) and is not capitalized. So I think that the example in 2.5.1.4 could well be another mistake. Perhaps, it was erroneously assumed that World's classics ed., New ed. rev. are two instances of the element designation of edition instead of designation of edition plus designation of a named revision of an edition. I think such a misunderstanding could easily happen, as according to 2.5.2.1 we should take a word such as edition, issue, release, level, state, or update as evidence that it is a designation of edition. Another thing that is odd about the example in 2.5.1.4 are the abbreviations. I very much doubt that it actually said World's classics ed. on the source of information - most probably it was World's classics edition. The corresponding example in 2.5.6.3 doesn't have the abbreviations. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Question about preferred title for a compilation
Hi, Kevin Do you mean if a person appears in 100 field, his/her name is still allowed to appear in 700 field for his/her another work? I thought that we would use 730/740 field (with the second indicator 2) for his/her another work in the same compilation. Or both are optional. Thanks for your help. Joan Wang On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Kevin M Randall k...@northwestern.eduwrote: The 1XX field relates only to the title in the 240 or 245. Fields 730 and 740 should be used for titles that do not have a personal, family, or corporate body name as part of the authorized access point. There is no inherent relationship between a title given in 7XX (or 8XX) and a name given in 1XX. ** ** Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 ** ** Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Joan Wang *Sent:* Friday, May 24, 2013 3:13 PM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Question about preferred title for a compilation*** * ** ** For separate works of one person/family/corporate body, I think that we use 730/740 fields. Thanks, Joan Wang ** ** On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Harden, Jean jean.har...@unt.edu wrote: Recording each separate work’s title is something we do all the time in music cataloging. In MARC, you use the field 700 12 creator’s name. $t title of one work. For each work, you do a new 700 field. When you name all the works this way, RDA (for instance, in 6.2.2.10.3, Alternative) allows you either to stop at that or also to include the conventional collective title, which in MARC would go in the 240. Jean Harden Music Catalog Librarian University of North Texas Denton, TX 76203 jean.har...@unt.edu *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Arthur Liu *Sent:* Friday, May 24, 2013 1:30 PM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Question about preferred title for a compilation*** * Hi Joan, Yes, I think that is correct: 6.2.2.10.3 a) covers selected works in a single form, and 6.2.2.10.3 b) covers selected works in more than one form (meaning, some of the selections are in one form, and some selections are in different form(s)). In the case of selected works in more than one form, I think we use the conventional collective title *Works. *followed by *Selections* (instead of, for example, *Novels. Selections*). LC prefers the alternative of using these conventional collective titles instead of recording each separate title. What I'm unsure of is, if we do record each separate work's title, how does that work in MARC? Thanks and have a great weekend as well! -Arthur On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.org wrote: Let me rephrase my question. Thanks to Arthur's help. Does 6.2.2.10.3 other compilations includes selected works in a single form, and selected works not in a single form? If it is, the languages of the rule is too grey :) For both categories, RDA tells us to record the preferred title for each of the works in a compilation. It also has an alternative: identify the parts collectively by recording a conventional collective title as applicable, followed by *Selections*. The example is *Novels. Selections*. I wonder how effective the alternative can be in the application of selected works not in a single form. A simple *Selections *seems to be more reasonable. Thanks for your time. I am also tired with the question :) Have a wonderful weekend! Joan Wang On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.org wrote: I think the lack of any subsection in 6.2.2 for compilations by more than one ? person/family/corporate body means there are no special rules for those compilations. In other words, we don't use conventional collective titles for those, so we default to whatever title the compilation is known by (maybe the title proper). I still think that the preferred tile for a work is different from a title proper found in a manifestation. So some instructions or references would be helpful. Thanks, Joan Wang On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.org wrote: two or more but not all works ... in a particular form means your phrase incomplete works in a single form. (6.2.2.10.3 a) ??? ** ** by the way, I feel that a good word would be selected works in single form and selected works
Re: [RDA-L] Question about preferred title for a compilation
Thanks, Jean. I was not aware with that. Joan Wang On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Harden, Jean jean.har...@unt.edu wrote: I’m not Kevin, but yes, definitely it is fine to use the same name in 100 and 700 (or 110 and 710). As Kevin said, the 1xx field has no necessary relation to any title other than that in the 240 or 245. A 730 or 740 does not inherently have anything to do with the 1xx. ** ** Jean ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Joan Wang *Sent:* Friday, May 24, 2013 3:36 PM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Question about preferred title for a compilation*** * ** ** Hi, Kevin Do you mean if a person appears in 100 field, his/her name is still allowed to appear in 700 field for his/her another work? I thought that we would use 730/740 field (with the second indicator 2) for his/her another work in the same compilation. Or both are optional. Thanks for your help. Joan Wang ** ** On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Kevin M Randall k...@northwestern.edu wrote: The 1XX field relates only to the title in the 240 or 245. Fields 730 and 740 should be used for titles that do not have a personal, family, or corporate body name as part of the authorized access point. There is no inherent relationship between a title given in 7XX (or 8XX) and a name given in 1XX. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Joan Wang *Sent:* Friday, May 24, 2013 3:13 PM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Question about preferred title for a compilation*** * For separate works of one person/family/corporate body, I think that we use 730/740 fields. Thanks, Joan Wang On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Harden, Jean jean.har...@unt.edu wrote: Recording each separate work’s title is something we do all the time in music cataloging. In MARC, you use the field 700 12 creator’s name. $t title of one work. For each work, you do a new 700 field. When you name all the works this way, RDA (for instance, in 6.2.2.10.3, Alternative) allows you either to stop at that or also to include the conventional collective title, which in MARC would go in the 240. Jean Harden Music Catalog Librarian University of North Texas Denton, TX 76203 jean.har...@unt.edu *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Arthur Liu *Sent:* Friday, May 24, 2013 1:30 PM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Question about preferred title for a compilation*** * Hi Joan, Yes, I think that is correct: 6.2.2.10.3 a) covers selected works in a single form, and 6.2.2.10.3 b) covers selected works in more than one form (meaning, some of the selections are in one form, and some selections are in different form(s)). In the case of selected works in more than one form, I think we use the conventional collective title *Works. *followed by *Selections* (instead of, for example, *Novels. Selections*). LC prefers the alternative of using these conventional collective titles instead of recording each separate title. What I'm unsure of is, if we do record each separate work's title, how does that work in MARC? Thanks and have a great weekend as well! -Arthur On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.org wrote: Let me rephrase my question. Thanks to Arthur's help. Does 6.2.2.10.3 other compilations includes selected works in a single form, and selected works not in a single form? If it is, the languages of the rule is too grey :) For both categories, RDA tells us to record the preferred title for each of the works in a compilation. It also has an alternative: identify the parts collectively by recording a conventional collective title as applicable, followed by *Selections*. The example is *Novels. Selections*. I wonder how effective the alternative can be in the application of selected works not in a single form. A simple *Selections *seems to be more reasonable. Thanks for your time. I am also tired with the question :) Have a wonderful weekend! Joan Wang On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.org wrote: I think the lack of any subsection in 6.2.2 for compilations by more than one
