Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement
Billie, I think part of Karen's point is that the intellectual analysis and decision-making is mostly the same whether you are determining which name to put in the 1XX and which in the 7XXs or assigning relationship designators. Compared with that intellectual process, the actual keying of the designators is rather modest. I would hope that no one undervalues that intellectual work -- at least they shouldn't. And I would hope that one of the functions of RDA is to provide a more robust set of ways in which you can record the conclusions you draw from that intellectual work and convey the information to the users of your records. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu On 11/9/2011 12:09 PM, Billie Hackney wrote: I apologize for being testy. It's just that anything that catalogers themselves say about the difficulties they've experiences with RDA seem to be passed over and ignored during all of this theoretical discussion on why RDA is so wonderful. Being told that assigning relator terms is easy when it's not is rather frustrating. Billie Hackney Senior Monograph Cataloger Getty Research Institute 1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688 (310) 440-7616 bhack...@getty.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement
Several comments here: First, the JSC recognizes that the list of official designators is incomplete, and that the ones relevant to cartographic resources are probably inadequate. This was also recognized in the report of the US RDA Test Coordinating Committee. The JSC very much wants proposals for additional designators, and the cartographic resources community is definitely one they would like to hear from. Second, there are some relationships that are part of the RDA element structure that do not have designators. Publisher is one of these. This is an element in RDA and (therefore?) does not have a designator in Appendix I. Because an access point for this element cannot be identified by MARC 21 tagging, I have argued to the JSC that the only way to identify that an access point represents a publisher is to use the MARC 21 relator term publisher in subfield $e. This is certainly valid MARC and I would argue that it is valid RDA. [I have also recommended that these element-level relationships be included as explicit designators in the RDA role element set in the Open Metadata Registry. In the long run, this may be more important that how we fudge this in MARC.] John Attig ALA Representative to the JSC jx...@psu.edu On 11/9/2011 1:49 PM, Christopher Winters wrote: I've presided over the creation of more than 2400 RDA records for sheet maps over the last 13 months at the University of Chicago Library. Relationship designators have given us more problems than any other aspect of RDA, and (like the book catalogers here) we stopped using them a couple of months after the test period ended. LC, I notice, did not use them even during the test period. The problems are: [1] As others have pointed out, it's often just not very clear what the creators did. You've got to pretend to know more than you do. This is probably never a very good idea in cataloging work. [2] The official relationship designators do not fit the actual functions of map production very well. There is a particular problem with corporate creators, who are often publishers. But publisher is not one of the official relationship designators, and issuing body doesn't really seem like the right term for corporate publishers. [3] It's common in cartographic materials for the source of the data to be a different person or body from the mapmaker. We pushed the envelope a bit and started using source of data as a relationship designator. I completely agree with those who find the relationship designators so problematic as to doubt their value. Chris Winters Christopher Winters Bibliographer for Anthropology, Geography, and Maps University of Chiago Library *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell [robert_maxw...@byu.edu] *Sent:* Wednesday, November 09, 2011 12:03 PM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement I’ve been assigning relator terms for years under AACR2 in my cataloging so I guess I’m just used to it—yes, it takes a little extra time, but I think the benefits to our users of spelling out the relationship of the person/corporate body/family to the resource far outweigh the extra thought and entry time. I personally (and yes, I am a practicing cataloger) find the extra time and effort to be negligible. N.B. I’m glad the relationship indicators are getting renewed emphasis under RDA, but this isn’t a new issue with RDA. Relationship indicators were allowed under AACR2 and previous codes (see AACR2 21.0D) and have been widely and fairly consistently used during all that time in many cataloging communities, including the rare materials cataloging community, in spite of LC’s decision at implementation of AACR2 not to use them in most cases. Bob Robert L. Maxwell Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian Genre/Form Authorities Librarian 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 *Billie Hackney *Sent:* Wednesday, November 09, 2011 10:53 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement Determining that there is a contributor and providing a fast access point is much easier and quicker than figuring out all of the ways that a person or organization contributed, looking up the terms in the poorly presented and designed list in the RDA toolkit, and then typing them all in. When we were doing original cataloging
Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement
On 11/9/2011 3:59 PM, Karen Coyle wrote: Quoting John Attig jx...@psu.edu: Second, there are some relationships that are part of the RDA element structure that do not have designators. Publisher is one of these. This is an element in RDA and (therefore?) does not have a designator in Appendix I. I noticed this a while back. I assumed it was intentional because publisher is represented with a transcribed text, not a Group2 entity. you could actually have both, with the RDA Manifestation element being for the transcribed text, and an Expression - to - Group2 relationship if someone wants to treat the publisher as a corporate body (presumably with an authority record). It would be nice to have both options. Actually, the publisher relationship is an element in Chapter 21, Persons, Families and Corporate Bodies Associated with a Manifestation. Other relationships in that chapter are Producer of an Unpublished Resource, Distributor, Manufacturer. These are relationships which can be recorded as either identifiers or authorized access points; they are quite distinct from the Publisher's Name [etc.] elements in Chapter 2. Although there are cases in which RDA (and FRBR) treats an element as only a descriptive element or only a relationship, in this case, RDA supports both. And I agree that we need both options more generally in RDA. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu
[RDA-L] Agenda for the JSC meeting in Glasgow
I'm attempting to get organized for the JSC meeting in Glasgow. The agenda for the meeting has been posted on the JSC website, but it does not contain links to the documents. So I have created a version that does. It is posted at: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/tas/jca/JSCagenda2011.html Each proposal is linked to the page on the JSC website that lists the proposal and all the responses. As I have done at the previous two JSC meetings, I am hoping to post a daily blog describing the discussions and decisions of the day. The blog is available at: http://www.personal.psu.edu/jxa16/blogs/resource_description_and_access_ala_rep_notes/ You can subscribe to an RSS feed if you wish. John Attig ALA Representative to the JSC jx...@psu.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Subject headings at what level?
This matter is currently under discussion by the Joint Steering Committee; please do not consider what follows to be an official statement of the position of either the JSC or ALA. Part of it is factual; part of it is speculation on my part. First, the subject analysis portion of RDA covers the subject entities and relationships defined in FRBR: a) Chapters for each of the group 3 entities (Concept, Object, Event, and Place) b) A chapter on the HasSubject/IsSubjectOf relationship between the FRBR entities and Work c) Chapters on relationships between instances of the subject entities: concept-to-concept, concept-to-object, etc. Second, these subject entities and relationships are included in RDA because they are included in the Functional Requirements models, of which RDA is an implementation. They were not included in the initial release of RDA because they were not included in AACR2 and because, at the time of drafting RDA, the FRBR Review Group was still preparing and reviewing the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data. Subject headings and classification were indeed out of scope for AACR2, which is why you don't find any mention of those concepts. It is too early to say exactly what the instructions on subject attributes and relationships in RDA will say. My own sense is that the instructions will have to be very general -- as the FR models are very general; that they will leave the details of syntax and semantics to the standards of the subject heading or classification system being applied; and that they will concentrate on some generally-applicable relationships, showing how the subject entities are to be integrated with the other entities in the model. It is highly unlikely that the instructions will be adequate for the application of any particular system of subject headings or classification; catalogers will continue to follow the rules for the system they are using. With the FR models -- at the moment -- there is only one subject relationship, the HasSubject relationship between a work and any of the other entities (which include the group 1 and 2 entities, as well as the group 3 entities). The model thus does not support either subject relationships for particular expressions, manifestations, or items or the genre/form relationships (IsExemplarOf?). The FR model needs to be extended to cover this and other relationships, which I hope the FRBR Review Group will undertake soon. As several people have pointed out, these relationships exist and are important, and the model will be deficient so long as they are not covered. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu On 10/6/2011 12:50 AM, Karen Coyle wrote: Can anyone articulate what the scope might be of the subject analysis portion of RDA? Will it define how subject headings are created? Or how they are represented in an RDA record? I have to admit that the treatment of subjects in FRBR is very vague to me, and FRSAD is even more abstract, so I can't figure out how it fits in with the descriptive cataloging aspects of RDA and FRBR. The terms subject heading and classification don't even appear in AACR2 (at least, not in the index nor the glossary). call me confused kc Quoting Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.edu: The yet to appear subject analysis portion of RDA must give consideration to genre. __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) I've been reiterating this too as well at every opportunity! Adam Schiff Chair, SAC Subcommittee on Genre/Form Implementation ** * 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 * **
Re: [RDA-L] RDA media terms
Karen pointed out to me that the Content/Media/Carrier Type elements are not covered by the document that I referenced. I was making this too hard. The mappings are actually part of the MARC 21 documentation. On any of the format pages for 336/337/338, there is a link to Term and Code List for RDA Content [etc.] Types. There are also links from the RDA in MARC summary page: http://www.loc.gov/marc/RDAinMARC29.html The list for Content Type is at http://www.loc.gov/standards/valuelist/rdacontent.html The list for Media Type is at http://www.loc.gov/standards/valuelist/rdamedia.html The list for Carrier Type is at http://www.loc.gov/standards/valuelist/rdacarrier.html As usual, we owe all this to the wonderful folks at the Network Development and MARC Standards Office at LC. John On 9/12/2011 4:25 PM, John Attig wrote: On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Karen Coyle li...@kcoyle.net mailto:li...@kcoyle.net wrote: Also, I wonder if there isn't a relationship between the 336/7/8 (or: CCM) and what we can glean from the Leader, 008 and 007? Has that analysis been done? This was included as a set of appendixes to MARC Discussion Paper No. 2008-DP04: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008/2008-dp04.html This was done before the final version of RDA was available, so it needs to be updated. However, the basic information is there. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Browse and search BNB open data
On 8/4/2011 3:33 PM, Karen Coyle wrote: In general I am having a hard time understanding how we will treat these kinds of composite headings in any future data carrier. They seem to be somewhat idiosyncratic, in that what data gets added is up to the cataloger, depends on the context, and probably cannot be generated algorithmically. This whole part about headings (access points in RDA, I believe) has me rather stumped from a design point of view. At the same time, if all of the individual elements are available, and one links manifestations of a single expression, then some system feature may be able to display this distinction to the user without the use of individual cataloger-formed headings. This would also mean that the records can be created without being dependent on a particular context, which should make sharing of data even more accurate. I'm glad that Karen brought this up again. I missed the discussion in which she asked about access points in RDA; by the time I caught up, the discussion had moved on. Access points are treated rather strangely in RDA. The access point is not itself an element, but is a construct made up of other elements, which contains instructions about what and when to include various elements in an access point. [Note: In this, RDA follows the FRBR model, which lacks elements for access points. On the other hand, FRAD treats the access point as an entity in its own right, separate from the person, family, corporate body, work, expression, manifestation, or item that it represents. At some point, RDA may decide to adopt this FRAD structure (assuming that it survives the reconciliation of the FR models).] In our discussions of the question of how to treat access points, the JSC was advised that there were certain structural complexities that we should not attempt to build into the RDA element set, but should rely on the encoding to bring together the various elements into the access point construct. In MARC, we are accustomed to using subfields to encode the specific data elements and fields to wrap them up into an ordered construct. Similarly, in XML, one would expect to use some sort of wrapper to enclose all the elements that make up the access point. In order to do this, I suspect that one needs to treat the access point construct as if it were an element, even if the RDA element set does not treat it as such. Beyond these technical issues, this discussion raises questions about the way in which access points are constructed and used. a) The instructions on what to include in an access point represents our collective experience of what is important for uniquely identifying a given entity. There seems to be some value in gathering all these elements together for indexing and display as an aggregation of identifying information. b) While it is true that the individual elements are sufficient for finding relevant resources and don't need to be aggregated in a precoordinated way in order to work, I would argue that finding, identifying, and selecting relevant resources is sometimes best supported by browsing an alphabetical list of access points that are constructed in a way that reveals the structure of the things being browsed. Examples might be an alphabetical display of hierarchical entities such as corporate bodies, or an organized sequence of headings representing works and expressions. We may not NEED access points, but they can sure be helpful on occasion. c) In order to work, some thought needs to be given to the structure of the data, so that the sequence of access points reveals that structure. Traditionally we have done this by hand-crafting precoordinated access points according to instructions that aim to provide the best result that can be anticipated and applied globally. This may not be the best way of doing things. d) While many of us are skeptical of the ability of algorithms to create such structured access points automatically, it is certainly worth the attempt. If there could be a clear set of objectives for the exercise, algorithms might in fact be possible, bringing together relevant elements and arranging them in a significant order to form the access points. Even better, it might be possible to (i) offer different options for sequencing the elements -- sorting first by language or by format, for example -- and/or (ii) work in real time to formulate the best way of sequencing a given result set. Catalogers tend to resist giving up their hand-crafted headings, but that tends to be because they are not offered attractive alternatives. What I suggested above seems to be such an attractive alternative. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Developments in RDA between 2008 and 2010
That information will be found on the JSC website http://www.rda-jsc.org/ I would start with the outcomes of the JSC meetings: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs.html#outcomes and the minutes of the meetings: http://www.rda-jsc.org/working2.html#min John Attig ALA Representative to the JSC jx...@psu.edu On 7/27/2011 2:01 PM, MCCUTCHEON, SEVIM wrote: I'm seeking information on what milestones/developments occurred with RDA, between the time in 2008 when the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control recommended suspending work on RDA, and the time 2010 when RDA was published. Can someone point me to websites or articles that talk about that time period? Thank you, (Ms.) Sevim McCutcheon Catalog Librarian, Asst. Prof. Kent State University Libraries tel: 330-672-1703 lmccu...@kent.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Proposed new 34X fields
Note that the proposal in question relates to the encoding of the RDA
elements for carrier characteristics in MARC 21.
The suggestions for additional media types are not about MARC encoding,
but are about the RDA list of Encoding Formats; suggestions for
additions to any of the RDA vocabularies should be proposed through the
appropriate JSC constituency.
John Attig
ALA Representative to the JSC
Penn State University
jx...@psu.edu
On 6/7/2011 10:45 PM, Amanda Xu wrote:
I checked the proposal Proposal No. 2011-08: treatment of Controlled
Lists of Terms for Carrier Characteristics yesterday. It seemed
logical to me. Excellently done!
However, I wish that the proposal, if applicable for describing
detailed carrier types, had contained some examples encoded for
multimedia resources such as images, videos, audios, data, apps, and
other media types intended for browser rendering and major web servers
streaming such as Apache, IIS, etc., as used by the CSS
specifications, HTML 5 [1], as specified by RFC2046 [2] and RFC
2047[3], and as governed by LC [4].
_Consideration could give to the following media types (PS: not
exhaustively and not tested all of them as of June 7, 2011):_
...
Content-Type: audio/wav
Content-Type: audio/x-wave
Content-Type: audio/x-ms-wmv !-- Audio .wmv --
Content-Type: audio/x-ms-wmx !-- Audio .wmx --
Content-Type: audio/x-ms-wma !-- Audio .wma --
Content-Type: audio/mpeg3 !-- Audio .mp3 --
Content-Type: video/mpeg !-- Video .mpeg, .mpg --
Content-Type: video/x-ms-wmx !-- Video .wmx --
**Content-Type: video/mp4 !-- Video .mp4 --
Content-Type: video/quicktime !--Video .mov --
...
_Future media types could be considered as the following:_
...
Content-Type: video/webm !-- 3D-Video in Google Chrome, Firefox [5],
but it's claimed only working as DefaultType if running Apache [6] --
...
*_Notes_*:
1. I. Hickson, HTML5: A Vocabulary and Associated APIs for HTML and
XHML, Editor's Draft 7 June 2011. Retrieved from
http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html
2. N. Feed and N. Borenstein, “RFC 2046: Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions
(MIME) part two: Media types,” Nov. 1996.
3. K. Moore, “RFC 2047: Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME)
part three: Message header extensions for non-ASCII text,” Nov. 1996.
4. Library of Congress, Sustainability of Digital Formats: Planning
for Library of Congress Collections - Format Description Categories.
Retrieved from
http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/fdd/descriptions.shtml.
5. C. Warren, Google Introduces the WebM Video Format,
/Mashable.com/, May 19, 2010. Retrieved from
http://mashable.com/2010/05/19/google-webm-html5/.
6. Jon Skarpeteig, Force video/webm mime type using .htaccess based
on request uri, /Stachoverflow.com/, June 4, 2011. Retrieved from
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6169002/force-video-webm-mime-type-using-htaccess-based-on-request-uri
Cheers,
Amanda
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:40 PM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca
mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
There is a new MARBI proposal to create a series of 34X fields:
Posted to Autocat, RDA-l, and MARC
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2011/2011-08.html
For example:
300 ## $a1 sound disc (20 min.) $c 12 in.
344 ## $a analog $c 33 1/3 rpm $g stereo
This doesn't look too bad, until one realizes that 336-338 comes
between these two, separating even further data which has been united
in 300.
Don't bother me telling me they need not be displayed that way. We
support ILS which can only display in field order, and the order
of the
work form needs to be in field order to prevent having to search about
to see if a field has been created.
A colleague suggests that the secret agenda is to complicate MARC to
the point that it collapses.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca
mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing
HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ http://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Apocrypha - make a proposal!
I'd like to respond to a number of the issues that are raised by Mike's comments below. I cannot speak for all of the members of the Joint Steering Committee, but I can talk about how ALA approaches both this specific issue and the more general issues of RDA revision. On 5/10/2011 9:23 AM, Mike Tribby wrote: Adam Schiff makes a fair point that it would be far more constructive to suggest improvements rather than just airing grievances about particular aspects of RDA. 1. The Joint Steering Committee is open to proposals for revising RDA instructions. The general guidelines on submitting proposals through the various constituency groups still apply, and are stated on the JSC website in Submitting proposals to revise RDA http://www.rda-jsc.org/revision.html 2. ALA's document on How to submit a rule change proposal to CC:DA is about to be updated to reflect RDA. Anyone interested in submitting a revision proposal to CC:DA should contact the Chair of CC:DA for advice. 3. As ALA Representative to the Joint Steering Committee, I do monitor discussions on RDA-L. In this specific case, I have already contacted the representatives from the groups on which CC:DA relies for advice on issues relating to religious works (the American Theological Library Association, the Catholic Library Association, and the Association of Jewish Libraries); at least one representative has already indicated an interest in doing further work on the instructions for parts of biblical works, based on the RDA-L discussions. I anticipate that there will eventually be a proposal from ALA that will address the issues raised. Still, it seems to me that, at least for some listmembers, what appear as complaints are also questions about why RDA has the provisions it has. Were altenate ways of dealing with Apocrypha discussed and discarded? If so, would airing the same alternatives that were already rejected serve a useful purpose (beyond the obvious purpose of calling the decisions reached in creating RDA into question)? 4. All of the instructions in RDA have a historical background. One of the expectations for those submitting a revision proposal is that the proposer has taken that historical background into account. Therefore, Mike's point above is well taken. It is not so much that the JSC refuses to reconsider arguments previously rejected or decisions already made, but that we expect that any new proposal will take that history into account. 5. In most cases, the historical background of particular RDA instructions may be limited to the text of AACR2. In this particular case, however, there was an attempt to reconsider the instructions for naming parts of the Bible. A proposal from the Library of Congress -- 5JSC/LC/8 -- and a whole series of responses and follow-ups, deal with the issue, and the JSC discussions and decisions on these documents are reported in the JSC minutes. All of this documentation is available on the JSC website: http://www.rda-jsc.org/working2.html#lc-8 6. In this case, the JSC decided to take some modest steps to remedy the problem of bias in the authorized access points for biblical works, while also recognizing that significant issues remained unresolved. This means that there is definitely room for further revision proposals in this area. We would hope that any such proposals would take into account all of the discussion that has already taken place in the documents I referred to above. 7. Finally, as Mike notes, the issues in question relate to instructions on formulating authorized access points for biblical works. In such cases, there is a need to balance a desire to respect the various confessional traditions relating to the canon of sacred scriptures with the need for consistent practice within a shared authority file. We would like to do both, but that is not always possible. John Attig ALA Representative to the Joint Steering Committee jx...@psu.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Dr. Snoopy
On 4/27/2011 11:40 AM, Laurence Creider wrote: The point of my comment yesterday was that there was no proof that Dr. Snoopy was in fact a different person from Snoopy. The existence of a title means nothing. Sometimes I use my Dr. or Professor, sometimes I do not. Let me start with a disclaimer. I am not speaking authoritatively about the intentions of the authors of RDA. I think that this thread raises some issues that are not completely clear in RDA and which require discussion about how to apply the instructions. As the JSC was reviewing the drafts of the section of RDA that dealt with multiple identities or personae, it struck me that a literal reading of RDA would suggest that the simple use of different names (but not different forms of the same name or changes of name) was sufficient evidence of the intent to establish a separate bibliographic identity. If that is true, then Larry's point above is not relevant: you don't need proof that Dr. Snoopy is a different person, you only need evidence of the use of a distinct name -- and a decision that this is a different name rather than a different form of the same name (which I suppose one could argue). The implications of this frighten me somewhat, particularly when I think of the conventions of pseudonymous publication (under initials or phrases) common before the nineteenth century. For such persons, at least the cataloger can take account of current scholarship in attributing works to an author under his/her real name -- and of all the modern publications issued under that real name. This is much more difficult for what we used to call contemporary authors. In practice, we may still need to make such distinctions. It also occurs to me that this example illustrates the different purposes of access points. The access point for Dr. Snoopy is based on the association of this particular name with the particular work in question; in this case, it allows access to this particular identity, distinct from other identities such as Captain Snoopy or Joe Cool or Flashbeagle; a reference structure of related persons should allow navigation among these different access points. The real creator of these works is Charles Schulz and an access point should be provided under his name which will collocate all the works he created. And there is another common element, the *character* Snoopy, for whom a descriptive or subject access point might also be provided, which would bring together all the works in which Snoopy appeared. All of these possible access points do not perform the same function. It seems to me that access by the specific name used for each work (e.g., Dr. Snoopy) does serve a useful function, but that this access point need not serve all of the collocation functions that I described above for other access points. The right tool for the job . . . Again, these are tentative thoughts, not authoritative pronouncements. This is definitely (in my opinion) a gray area in RDA, and one worth further discussion. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Linked files
I have indicated my intention of making such a proposal to the PCC, and they have indicated their willingness to include such a proposal in their consideration of possible changes to NACO practice when/if RDA is implemented. My proposal is basically to turn current practice on its head. Information about each distinct person would be recorded in a separate authority record. The Undifferentiated Personal Name Indicator -- which is currently used to indicate that the authority record contains information about more than one person -- would be used to indicate that the 1XX heading is not unique within the NACO file. This practice would allow unambiguous recording of all the information pertaining to each distinct person, and would provide an authority record control number which could serve as (a) the basis for a URI, and (b) the differentiating characteristic of last resort. I thank Stephen for identifying the rules that would need to be changed in order to implement this proposal. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu On 4/25/2011 3:57 PM, Mary Mastraccio wrote: My guess is there are other rules that I haven't spotted yet, but these three--DCM Z1 008/32, NACO Heading Comparison, and RDA/LCPS--would need to change to correct the current practice. The desire to have the UndifPNA practice/records changed has been expressed repeatedly over the years. It seems to me that someone needs to step forward to officially submit such a proposal. Can PCC, or similar group, be persuaded to promote this change? Mary L. Mastraccio, MLS Cataloging Authorities Librarian MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio Texas 78265 1-800-531-7678 ma...@marcive.com www.marcive.com
Re: [RDA-L] Where to Direct Questions about RDA Examples?
On 4/26/2011 5:06 PM, Mike Tribby wrote: But I believe the original question was where to send questions about RDA examples that the person posting the question believes need changing. Proposal to revise RDA should be directed to the appropriate RDA author body. These are listed on the RDA website at: http://www.rda-jsc.org/revision.html Within the United States, proposals for revision may be directed to any member of the Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access, listed at: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/tas/jca/ccda/roster.html -- or to the ALA Representative to the JSC (see below). The JSC is willing to fast-track changes to examples that do not properly illustrate the instructions or contain some other error. Please send those to me, and I will forward them immediately. The example cited, however -- as Adam has shown -- does illustrate the instructions. Therefore, a proposal to change those instructions would need to be made, presenting a convincing case that the assumptions and decisions behind those instructions are invalid. The JSC is willing to consider such proposals and to change the instructions if we agree that a convincing case has been made. John Attig ALA Representative to the JSC jx...@psu.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????
Karen was using the outdated full draft of RDA. The entries in the RDA Registry were also taken from that draft, and will need to be revised in the light of subsequent changes. In the published version, the element is called Colour Content; the British spelling is used because the editorial policy of RDA is the use that spelling when recognized as a legitimate variant in Webster's Third. There is no standard vocabulary for this element prescribed in RDA. Legitimate or not, the reason was that the constituencies were unable to agree on the spelling to use in recording color/colour content. The instructions simply says to record the presence of colour using an appropriate term. This allows either spelling to be used. I completely agree with Karen's point about encoding this in a language-neutral way and allowing users/applications to provide appropriate display labels. I would only point out that colour content is not limited to illustrations; the resource itself (e.g., a motion picture) may have colour content. Two additional points: 1) The term color or colour is used to indicate the presence of color/colour in the resource; the term colored or coloured is used to indicate that color/colour has been ADDED to the resource, i.e., hand coloured. 2) The granularity of the elements for carrier description in MARC was addressed by MARC Discussion Paper 2011-DP04, which suggested ways in which specific MARC coding for each RDA element could be achieved. We hope to see a proposal on the MARBI agenda at ALA Annual this year. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu On 3/2/2011 10:58 AM, Karen Coyle wrote: Quoting Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu: Which is why in an ideal world, if we care about whether the illustrations are colored or not (and I suspect the time is LONG gone when our patrons or we actually DO), there would be a data element in the record which marked, in a machine interpretable way, whether there are illustrations (checkmark HERE), and whether they are colored/coloured (checkmark THERE). Which could then be translated to the appropriate spelling or even language for the given audience. The data elements for colour are among those in RDA that have standard lists. Those lists are: colour colour of moving image colour of still image colour of three-dimensional form As an example, colour has 3 values: chiefly coloured some coloured coloured All of these have identifiers that could be used in data entry (e.g. with a check box) and all could have different labels that could be used in display. http://metadataregistry.org/rdabrowse.htm In fact, I recently took a look at RDA/MARC comparisons, and RDA has 29 separate data elements that map to MARC 300 $b (and whose detail is thus lost when coded in MARC). Of these, 21 are covered by controlled lists. That aspect is lost when the data is typed into a MARC subfield.
Re: [RDA-L] Dates in rda records
RDA 2.8.6.6 allows the cataloger to supply a date of publication: For a resource in a published form, if the date of publication is not identified in the resource, supply the date or approximate date of publication. RDA 2.11.1.3 (Recording copyright dates) places no limitations on the ability to record copyright dates; however, the copyright date is a core element only if neither the date of publication nor the date of distribution is identified. In the example you cite, a date of publication has been recorded (even if it is an approximate one); therefore the copyright date would be optional. Bob Maxwell just posted a reply that give more information about the core element requirements here. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu On 2/24/2011 5:28 PM, Gene Fieg wrote: After reading chapter 2 (again) it seems that the copyright date is used when the publication date is absent. However, when I look at OCLC *682881065, I see [2010], c2010. The publication date is nowhere in the book (the preface is signed 2010). So why not, according to RDA, only use the copyright date? -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu mailto:gf...@cst.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Linked data
In very general terms, the term heading in AACR is the equivalent of access point in RDA. However, the concept of access point is not properly a function of the communications format (or of the cataloging rules). My rephrasing of Kevin's point -- and it is one of my pet peeves as well -- would be that most systems/applications treat the linking-entry fields (760-787) as access points by *indexing* them -- and this is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing! By indexing these fields, we make it possible to retrieve the record in which the fields appear; that is how all indexed access points work. The linking-entry fields, on the contrary, should point outward from the record in which they appear to the linked record which is cited in the linking-entry field. By indexing the linking-entry fields, the best result that can be hoped for is that the record referred to will ALSO be retrieved along with the referring record -- and there are many, many, many reasons why this often doesn't work and only the referring record is retrieved. Even if both records are retrieved, it is unlikely to be clear to users which record is the point of the link. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu On 2/3/2011 12:41 PM, Karen Coyle wrote: Quoting Kevin M. Randall k...@northwestern.edu: Fields 760-787 have strictly speaking never been dual function fields, because they are not defined in the MARC format as access points This got me excited and I popped into the online MARC documentation to look at how it defines access points but I can't find that. I could find a definition of headings, but that only covers X00-X30 (thus no titles). Is there a definition of access points that I missed? Or are you working from other knowledge, Kevin? If so, I'd like to hear more about this distinction, because it is an important one and to me it hasn't been clear in practice (from a systems developer point of view). If it isn't made explicit in our current standards we should try to make it clearer in any future ones. kc (regardless of whatever functionality may be provided in any specific system). They are descriptive fields which may include coded data in subfield $w intended to *refer out* to related records. If access points are desired for the names/titles appearing in those fields, 700-730 fields are to be used. (Sorry, the increasingly common misunderstanding on this point is one of my pet peeves...) Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Bibliographic Services Dept. Northwestern University Library 1970 Campus Drive Evanston, IL 60208-2300 email: k...@northwestern.edu phone: (847) 491-2939 fax: (847) 491-4345 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Ed Jones Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 11:08 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Linked data The transcribed fields correspond to ISBD areas 1-4 and 6 (245, 250, 362 [for serials; other fields for some other formats], 260, and 4XX. Note fields may also contain transcribed data in some cases, but note fields typically consist of a single subfield and are already consolidated in this sense. Dual function fields that serve both as notes and as access points (e.g., 246, 760-785) might benefit from having these functions disentangled. For example, http://lccn.loc.gov/81642892, http://marc21.info/element/246, Issues for 2000- have also acronym title: CCQ. http://lccn.loc.gov/81642892, http://marc21.info/element/740, CCQ I would be hesitant to combine data from all transcribed fields into a single field, if only because different applications might want the freedom to display different subsets of this data. Ed
Re: [RDA-L] Linked data
On 2/3/2011 1:58 PM, Karen Coyle wrote: Where does controlled access point fit in? Are there defined access points in RDA that are not authority controlled? (I guess titles proper aren't). The title proper is not a controlled access point; I'm not sure that it is defined as an access point at all. I think that the concept of authorized access point is limited to things that (in today's record structures) can be encoded both in the bib record and in an authority record -- it is the latter that authorizes the former, so to speak. RDA does not use the term controlled access point. If I were going to use that term, I'm not sure whether I would equate it with authorized access point or with controlled vocabulary. If the latter, then there are lots of terms in controlled vocabularies for which we do not (yet?) have authority records. We seem to have these categories in the rules: - descriptive information (mainly text) - authoritative/controlled access points - other access points (titles) - ?? Linking information? Mostly, these are not categories that have any reference in RDA. These are categories that are based either on earlier rules, on MARC encoding, or both. In RDA terms, there are two categories: attributes/elements/properties and relationships. In RDA, we have descriptive information (and yes it is mostly textual) that are recorded in elements that identify each of the FRBR entities. We also have access points (both authorized and variant) that are constructed by combining relevant elements into a unique text string; the authorized access point is one of the ways in which relationships can be recorded (an identifier is another way). The linking information is a type of relationship. There is nothing special about the linking relationships in RDA, but in MARC there is distinctive encoding in the linking-entry fields. Oddly enough, I don't think that there are specific instructions about constructing access points for titles as such, only for constructing access points for works, expressions, etc. (which may in fact turn out to be titles if the name of the creator is not included in the access point for the work, etc.). I believe that RDA recognizes (without stating it explicitly) that an application may provide access based on ANY element; but RDA only includes instructions on constructing access points for the FRBR entities. MARC, to my mind, is a confusing element in the analysis of RDA data. It was designed before RDA or the models it is based on were created. RDA (and FRBR, etc.) takes a very different approach to data categorization than does MARC. Personally, I think the RDA/FRBR categories are a step forward towards rational data, but that is only an opinion. MARC adds the fixed field data, all of which are data of some sort, and the linking fields. Regarding the fixed fields, many MARC fixed-length data elements are coded equivalents of RDA elements and may be used as alternatives. Beyond that -- as Tom Delsey documented in his analysis of MARC -- there are a variety of administrative tasks, entities, and elements that MARC has to support that fall completely outside the scope of RDA. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Form
On 12/15/2010 10:32 AM, Karen Coyle wrote: Quoting Schutt, Misha msch...@ci.burbank.ca.us: But it's not the same thing. What appears in the 260 is a transcription from the item, so it's a slight misnomer to call 260$b the publisher--rather, it's what we (used to?) call the publisher STATEMENT. Unless there is an actual proviso somewhere else in RDA (not having read it yet) that sidesteps this issue, perhaps this attribute should be renamed to transcription of publisher statement. Which means that we do not include data representing the publisher in our records. None of the transcribed attributes can be considered data that could be used in any kind of linking or data processing. If we think that an identified publisher is something that we might want to use in any way, then we need to add it to our data. Not necessarily true -- just not the Publisher's Name element. It is possible to include a authorized access point for the publisher as a corporate body (RDA 11.13.1) with the relationship publisher (RDA 21.3). In RDA -- as in previous cataloging rules -- we try not to mix transcribed data and controlled data in the same element -- but that does not mean that the rules do not make provision for both types of data. Any place in our records where we do not provide controlled or controllable data we are cutting off any possibility of making use of that for anything but display. Even allowing users to search on it (which some keyword searches do) is somewhat unfair to users because we know that the great variability of display forms means that what they retrieve is not what they think they have retrieved. (Users do not know that publisher is a transcribed data element, I'm sure. They think it is the publisher in the same way that the author is the author.) Unless the form of the publisher's name on the item is an important identifying feature -- which it is occasionally. Again, different tools for different tasks. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Form
On 12/15/2010 2:19 PM, Karen Coyle wrote: John, were you meaning the list of roles when you said relationship? Is relationship the proper term? If you are referring to Appendix I, the RDA term is relationship designators -- although MARC continues to refer to them as roles. Relationship designators also applies to Appendix J and (someday) Appendix K. I was making a distinction between those roles (using the term loosely and comprehensively) that are defined as relationships designators in Appendix I and the more general roles that are defined as relationships in Section 6 of RDA. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Roles/relationships (was Form)
On 12/15/2010 2:40 PM, Greta de Groat wrote: So, it's newly proposed and not yet in the text of RDA Appendix I? Is there a way of searching this list of relationships? No, these are not treated as relationship designators in RDA, but -- because they are treated as relationships in Section 6, and since MARC does not have the granularity to specify these relationships, it seems (to me) appropriate to treat them as relationship designators in the RDA Vocabulary -- but there is no intention to add them to Appendix I. I agree that this distinction is very confusing, so I think I need to lay it out in more detail -- which I will do below. I'm wondering if there is a term relating the name of a conference with the proceedings. That's still an important enough relationship to be represented in the preferred access point, but we haven't been able to discover in the text of RDA nor in the MARC relator terms/codese a relationship designator that is appropriate for this relationship. Sponsoring body in RDA doesn't sound right, and Originator in the MARC terms is ambiguous and very clunky. Technically -- and the justification for main entry under the conference name -- the conference is the Creator of the conference; I'm not aware of any more specific term in Appendix I that would apply. - Original Message - From: Diane I. Hillmannd...@cornell.edu To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 10:31:37 AM Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Form 'Publisher (Manifestation)' appears in the RDA Vocabs as one of the Role properties: http://metadataregistry.org/schemaprop/show/id/1561.html Diane Section 6 of RDA defines a number of elements for relationships between a resource and related persons, families, or corporate bodies. These relationships are treated as elements in RDA. More specific relationships are treated by assigning relationship designators. If we were encoding in an RDA structure, the following sort of element-value matrix would be created: CREATORShakespeare, William, 1564-1616, author. CREATORMozart, Wolfgang Amadeus, 1756-1791, composer. PUBLISHER Yale University Press. Note that (a) the name of the general relationships is always present as the ELEMENT, even when there is a more specific relationship designator used; and (b) in the last case, there is no more specific relationship that is applicable; publisher is as specific as it gets. Unfortunately, MARC does not have equivalents for most of these elements; they all get stuffed into generic fields for name access points: 700 1# $a Shakespeare, William, $d 1564-1616, $e author. 700 1# $a Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus, $d 1756-1791, $e composer. 710 2# $a Yale University Press, $e publisher. Note that (a) when there is a specific relationship designator given, the element-level relationship (CREATOR) disappears; it can be deduced, since both author and composer in Appendix I are subordinate to Creator, but it is not explicit; (b) the ONLY way you can designate the publisher relationship is to give the relationship designator publisher even though it is not included in Appendix I. Should we make MARC more granular to deal with this? Maybe. Do we need a more granular encoding scheme? Definitely. While we continue to shoe-horn RDA data into the currently-available MARC fields, should we treat the element-level relationships as designators, as I did in the 710 example above? I believe we should. And finally, Karen is quite correct that access points for publishers are the exception rather than the rule in current practice. Should we change that practice? Karen's example of what can be done if we can provide properly-constructed and controlled metadata presents a strong argument that we should. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Form
On 12/14/2010 10:04 AM, Karen Coyle wrote: Quoting John Attig jx...@psu.edu: There are many things that can act in more than one way in a FRBR model. One of these is Place, which is a group 3 entity, but is also an attribute of several other entities: Place of publication, Place associated with a person or corporate body, etc. The FRBR working group made a conscious decision NOT to model all of these as relationships to the Place entity. John, It may seem logical that Place of publication and the group 3 entity Place are related, but that is not the case in the FRBR E-R model. The fact that the word or even the concept of Place is used elsewhere in FRBR does *not* create a relationship in an E-R model, and no formal relationship is defined between those attributes and the Place entity. In fact, the FRBR entity Place can only be used as a subject as it is currently defined. Things cannot act in more than one way unless they are formally defined in more than one way. E-R modeling does not allow for other interpretations. If that is not the intention of the creators of FRBR, they should allow others with greater knowledge of data modeling to re-design the FRBR model such that it meets the needs of the community. Place could be defined as a general entity that can be used in various contexts. However, in my experience any attempts to create a workable model that varies from the letter of FRBR has met great resistance. If the model is broken it needs to be fixed. I plead guilty to imprecision. I should have said that there are many things in the FRBR model that *might have been defined* in more than one way. I did indicate that the FRBR working group made a conscious decision among those possibilities in the case of Place. I would not argue that they were wrong or that the model is broken, simply that certain choices had been made, but that different choices might have been made. In the case of Place of Publication -- which is an element whose content is transcribed from the sources of information -- it would not be appropriate to replace this with a relationship to the Place element -- which is (I would think) intended to be a term from a controlled vocabulary. The consistency of form that such a relationship would promote might be useful, but only at the expense of the value of the transcribed data for identification of the manifestation. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Form
On 12/13/2010 2:20 PM, Casey A Mullin wrote: Thomas raises a salient point here. The notion of Form/genre is not addressed well in FRBR, FRSAD or RDA. In RDA, Form of work currently only maps to places in MARC where it would be used in an access point, or in the corresponding 380 field; this, to my mind, reflects the idea of using Form of work as an element for identification, rather than as facet to be treated robustly in subject-like authority data structures. To be sure, various levels of granularity/robustness are required by different knowledge domains (e.g. literature, film, cartographic resources, music, etc.) But the fact that the authors of FRSAD decided to completely side-step the issue is worrisome. John's observation of the various other RDA elements that address isness of other FRBR entities is apt; however, these attributes are of fairly low granularity and as such do not seem appropriate for domain-specific form/genre access. This kind of form/genre access has historically been commingled with true aboutness subject access. Efforts to decouple these have been/are being taken up by the various LC Form/genre projects, with a view to deploying terms in a more faceted, post-coordinated way. In the case of the music project, we have found that many of the isness terms currently used do not apply at the Work level (e.g. arrangements, vocal scores), and some are difficult to categorize by FRBR entity at all. Such borderline cases will have to be addressed in a Scenario 1 environment, where the form/genre term must be encoded in the proper record. For the current Scenario 3 environment, moving form/genre terms into post-coordinated 655 fields will effect a significant improvement in access, if not a complete long-term solution. Regardless of such efforts, it remains that this facet of access is not accounted for sufficiently in RDA. In fact, given the conspicuous absence of form/genre as an entity unto itself in any of the FR models, there is not even a placeholder chapter for it. Thus, we are compelled to continue providing this kind of access outside of the aegis of RDA. Is this the desired outcome? Should form/genre be included in a content standard that strives to be holistic enough to encompass matters of subject access? If so, the current outline of RDA simply does not support it. There are many things that can act in more than one way in a FRBR model. One of these is Place, which is a group 3 entity, but is also an attribute of several other entities: Place of publication, Place associated with a person or corporate body, etc. The FRBR working group made a conscious decision NOT to model all of these as relationships to the Place entity. The case with Form/Genre is similar. There are a number of attributes that relate to the form of the entity. However, a form/genre entity currently lies outside the scope of the Functional Requirements model. It was omitted from both FRBR and FRAD and was not included in the scope of the proposed FRSAR model. There is, however, an excellent analysis by Tom Delsey, which I regularly commend to people's attention. In a presentation in 2005, Tom considered Modelling subject access : refining and extending the FRBR and FRAR conceptual models. Slide 18 is a redrawing of the FRBR entity-relationship diagram to show Tom's proposed new entities and relationships. Prominent among them is Form/Genre which he defines in a is example of relationship with the Work entity [although I would argue that the relationship could be to any of the group 1 entities]. There are other new entities and relationships, including a coverage relationships between Work and two entities that Tom calls Time and State. This is a fascinating exercise in data modelling and reminds us that work on the Functional Requirements models is not a finished exercise, but that significant extensions still need to be undertaken. Again, I recommend this presentation to anyone who is thinking about going beyond the current state of the models. John
Re: [RDA-L] Form
On 12/10/2010 5:34 PM, Adam L. Schiff wrote: Perhaps the most straightforward way to rephrase what Thomas Brenndorfer said is that Form of work is a work attribute. You could have form of expression, form of manifestation, and form of item attributes as well. In fact, it could be argued that all of these potential elements are in fact included in RDA (under different names). The Content Type element is in fact the form of expression. The Media Type and Carrier Type elements are in fact form of manifestation. And Item-specific carrier characteristics (3.21) covers form of item. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Confusion between Field of activity and Profession or occupation
On 12/6/2010 2:07 PM, Wagstaff, D John wrote: Just a thought, but why is it necessary to make this distinction at all? Isn't it just the sort of thing that can get cataloguers a bad name? In our comments on the full draft of RDA, ALA commented that we felt the distinction was difficult to make and the results not helpful. The JSC noted that the distinction is made in FRAD and preferred to err with the model we purport to be following [principled-based!], while proposing to the FRBR Review Group that the two elements be merged. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu
Re: [RDA-L] More granulalrity if imprint year coding?
On 11/24/2010 3:42 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: I think the RDA folks should take another run at MARBI and try to get more subfields. Yes, we're running out of subfields in Marc. But data recorded without sufficient granularity to reliably and unambiguously pull it out again by machine processing... might as well not be recorded. I believe that there are plans to do this -- and not just with regard to the 260 field. On the other hand, at some point, we have to recognize that encoding RDA data in MARC 21 is both self-defeating and masochistic! John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Parallel Title Proper RDA 2.3.3
The Parallel Title Proper is not a core element. Therefore, I would say that the recording of some or all of them is an application decision that needs to be made. This application decision can be made through a national decision, an institutional decision, or by individual catalogers. In this case, there is an LC Policy Statement that says that the Parallel Title Proper is core for LC. Other institutions may choose to follow this decision or make their own. I assume that the LC decisions means that *all* parallel titles proper are to be recorded. Generally speaking, RDA does not offer explicit options to limit the number of instances of an element to be recorded; if the element is a core element, then it is assumed that they will all be recorded. Beyond the core elements, I would assume that anything is optional -- or at least subject to an application decision at some level. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu On 10/11/2010 11:44 AM, Arakawa, Steven wrote: Is there no cataloger option to limit the number of parallel titles proper to transcribe? Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu
Re: [RDA-L] FRAD user tasks in RDA
Yes, it was intentional. All of the FRBR user tasks and the other two FRAD user tasks are truly user tasks, written from the point of view of the user of the data. These two FRAD tasks -- contextualize and justify are written from the cataloger's point of view; when writing the objectives and principles for RDA, Tom Delsey noted this discrepancy and proposed to use clarify and understand in the RDA documentation. The JSC has suggested that the FRBR Review Group look at this when they undertake to reconcile FRBR and FRAD ... which we hope they will do shortly. John Attig ALA Representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA At 05:12 PM 6/29/2010, Ed Jones wrote: I notice that RDA 0.0 uses clarify and understand rather than the contextualize and justify used in the FRAD text. Is this intentional? If so, will FRAD be amended to conform to the RDA terminology? Ed Jones Assistant Director, Assessment and Metadata Services National University Library 9393 Lightwave Avenue San Diego, California 92123-1447 +1 858 541 7920 (voice) +1 858 541 7997 (fax) http://national.academia.edu/EdJones
Re: [RDA-L] RDA websites
The Joint Steering Committee recommended that the complete examples not be included as a formal Appendix to the text of RDA. Instead, complete examples will be mounted as a document on the JSC website. The intention is that this document will be made available this summer, to coincide with the release of the RDA Toolkit. Additional examples will be included, as they are approved by the JSC. John Attig ALA Rep to the JSC At 05:21 PM 5/3/2010, Dr. Robert Ellett wrote: One of the issues that concerns me is the disappearance of Appendix M (the examples) from the RDA Toolkit. Will they be added back later?
Re: [RDA-L] RDA websites
At 05:07 PM 5/3/2010, Deborah Fritz wrote: I asked one of the ALA Publishing reps, at one of the RDA meetings at ALA Midwinter, about tracking official changes to RDA, and was told that this was on the list of enhancements, and would be addressed once the initial product was released. Of equal concern to me is somehow keeping track of and making public all the change *requests* before they are officially decided and released. It seems like it would be very useful for us to know whether someone has already asked about something that we think needs changing, and whether it is either in the works, or decided for or against (with reasons why in either case) Proposals to change the content of RDA will continue to be considered and decided upon by the Joint Steering Committee (or some such body). For the past several years, the JSC has been posting all proposals, responses, and decisions on its website at www.rda-jsc.org -- and will continue to do so as it begins to consider proposals to revise RDA. There must be some kind of software out there that would help in tracking these open issues, but I guess the harder question is who would do this? At this time, it is unclear whether the RDA Toolkit itself will be able to offer a means of tracking change requests and proposals. That was certainly the intention of the Committee of Principals and the Co-Publishers; once the RDA Toolkit has been released, we expect that this will again become a development issue. On the other hand, as noted above, the JSC will continue to post proposals, whether this is done on the JSC website or as part of the RDA Toolkit itself. We are committed to making the maintenance of RDA a public process. John Attig ALA Rep to the JSC
Re: [RDA-L] Signatory to a treaty
At 10:45 PM 4/13/2010, Karen Coyle wrote: Can anyone explain, or point me to an explanation, for how Signatory to a treaty, etc. became defined as an attribute of a Work, rather than a corporate body with a relationship to a work? It's the only potential Group 2 entity that has ended up in Group 1 space, so I assume there is something particular about it. The RDA element Signatory to a treaty, etc. is an attribute of the work. It is particularly important when formulating access points (both preferred and variant) for a treaty. For historical reasons, access points for bilateral treaties are formulated using the names of the signatories, a form term Treaties, etc. and the date of the treaty signing: Australia. Treaties, etc. United States, 2007 September 5 (As Ed Jones noted, access points serve as textual identifiers for the work and combine different elements together into a construct in order to accomplish this. In addition, the headings for treaties are designed to produce a structured set of results when sorted alphabetically -- in this case, a list of all the treaties of which Australia is a party, sub-arranged by the other party to the treaty and the date of signing. There would be a variant access point under United States. Treaties, etc. Australia, 2007 September 5 that would be part of a similar alphabetical list of treaties under the other party.) The complete examples for RDA (see Appendix M of the draft for constituency review: http://www.rdaonline.org/constituencyreview/Phase1AppM_11_10_08.pdf includes as Work 4 the authority record for the treaty above. Signatory to a treaty, etc. is therefore one of several identifying elements necessary to distinguish between different treaties (works). This is independent of the role of the signatories as creators of the work. Note in the authority record example, that Australia and United States are also identified as creators -- and presumably, in a linked data environment, this would be encoded as a relationship to the corporate bodies. The way in which RDA elements are combined into precoordinated access points is one of the features of RDA that does not fit terribly well into the linked-data environment that we are anticipating, but it is a critical component to how we currently control and provide access to the entities in question -- particularly in the case of works and expressions. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Signatory to a treaty
At 02:46 PM 4/14/2010, Karen Coyle wrote: Quoting John Attig jx...@psu.edu: Signatory to a treaty, etc. is therefore one of several identifying elements necessary to distinguish between different treaties (works). This is independent of the role of the signatories as creators of the work. Note in the authority record example, that Australia and United States are also identified as creators -- and presumably, in a linked data environment, this would be encoded as a relationship to the corporate bodies. So is it expected that signatory to a treaty will be represented by an entity or a string? For example, would you expect a signatory to a treaty to be retrieved by non-preferred (or earlier/later) forms of the name? I hesitate to venture into the question of how to retrieve by variant data; this is a problem that (it seems to me) to exist in any set of hierarchical data where it is assumed that the variant terminology that is defined at a higher level in the hierarchy (or, in this case, simply in a different place in the data) will be inherited by all the subordinate levels in the hierarchy. I am also reluctant to try to anticipate how the sort of string-based retrieval that we currently employ might work out in a linked-data environment. That said, I would think that the variant terminology would come into play through the linked entity for the Creator, rather than through the signatory attribute that is there as part of the access point. Also, if a system could precoordinate the string using an entity and relationship (thus having it appear as it must in RDA displays and indexes) would that be acceptable? I suspect so. The one caveat is that the text strings used to name the entity might not be the same as the text strings used in the signatory attribute. I don't believe that is the case here, but it is at least possible (if unfortunate). I would also note another example of the entity vs. attribute problem. There are a large number of elements (attributes of many different entities) for places of various sorts; there is also a Place entity. The place attributes could have been structured as relationships to the Place entity; in this case, the reason that they were not lies in the FRBR model, which deliberately and explicitly chose to treat them as attributes. This -- along with the other anomalies that you are identifying -- are candidates for changes in the underlying models. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Signatory to a treaty
At 05:07 PM 4/14/2010, Karen Coyle wrote: Quoting John Attig jx...@psu.edu: I would also note another example of the entity vs. attribute problem. There are a large number of elements (attributes of many different entities) for places of various sorts; there is also a Place entity. Yes, I gave this one a mental sticky note long ago, and do think that it is worth revisiting. A controlled concept of place can be useful beyond the FRBR subject entity, such as place of publication, and the place of birth for persons. I think that this approach has potential. However, it needs to be noted that we do not always use the official controlled form of place name in all such instances (even leaving aside the cases of transcribed data). A conspicuous example is the indirect (hierarchical) form of geographic subdivision used in LC subject headings. Even in descriptive cataloging, we sometimes use shortened forms of name when including them as qualifiers in headings for other entities. It is clear that cataloging practices have a way to go before we can really take advantage of linked-data. John
Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)
At 11:12 AM 3/8/2010, Bernhard Eversberg wrote: If, in current practice, a multipart is described in just one record with a long 505 for the parts, then what is the item? Specifically, if the parts have their own titles and can be cited and looked upon as manifestations of a work. Take Lord of the Rings and Shakespeare's Plays. I don't believe that FRBR deals explicitly with multiparts; in FRBR terms, the entire multivolume set would constitute one item belonging to the manifestation of the expression of the work representing the set as a whole. Alternatively, each volume would be an item belonging to the manifestation of the expression of the work embodied in that volume. It seems to me that FRBR lets you model the situation either way -- or both. John Attig Penn State University jx...@psu.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)
At 01:42 PM 3/5/2010, Karen Coyle wrote: I made the mistake of using a term without identifying it, sorry. In semantic web terms, this is a statement: Herman Melville -- is author of -- Moby Dick While library records today have that same information, it doesn't make sense outside of the record so you can't share it or link to it in other contexts. We have separate fields for the author and the book, and the connection between them is that they are in the same record. But take them out of the record and the connection is lost. In the semantic web view, each statement makes a connection between two things, and you can string the statements together to make a web of statements. Two comments: 1. You stress the independence of the statements, which I agree does give them value in a semantic web context. However, for many of us, the more important question is how we aggregate these individual statements into something that is meaningful in a context of bibliographic discovery. The single statement doesn't accomplish all that much until it is aggregated with -- or linked to -- other statements relating to the resource that enables one to find, identify and select that resource. 2. A reminder (one that I'm sure you would be insisting upon in other circumstances): You represent the Person and Work entities in your examples by text strings that are in fact particular *names* for the entities in question, not the entities themselves. I would argue that the statement above has a limited truth value if taken literally (i.e., if confined to the text strings it contains), but a more universal truth value if the text strings are taken as tokens for the entity itself. Presumably the systems that we design will treat entities and their names distinctly: [Person A] -- is author of -- [Work X] [Person A] -- has name -- Herman Melville -- and may have other names [Work X] -- has name -- Moby Dick -- and may have other names One of the things that makes me nervous about the semantic web world of individual statements is that the truth value of these statements is not assured. That is an unavoidable problem with statements on the web, and I'm not sure there is a solution to it. However, I would suggest that the context in which these statements are embedded is one of the factors that enables one to assign a truth value to them. John Attig Penn State University jx...@psu.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Systems v Cataloging was: RDA and granularity
At 10:45 AM 2/1/2010, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: Not monolithic, but broken into logical components. The element vocabulary is a logical component that needs to exist, and can then be used by multiple choices of record formats and multiple choices of how to display things or what to do with them. The existence of a coherent element vocabulary is exactly what makes that 'decoupling' vs 'monolithic' possible, and is the point at which the record creation process and the software for manipulating or displaying records can 'shake hands'. So what we have been discussing is the coherence of the RDA and MARC element vocabularies. Do you have a functional definition of what makes an element vocabulary coherent? John Attig Penn State Univ. jx...@psu.edu
Re: [RDA-L] RDA and granularity
At 08:50 PM 1/28/2010, Karen Coyle wrote: 1) what was the functional design goal that determined what guidance bits were designed as elements? In other words, what was the purpose in defining the elements? Understanding that could help answer questions that come up during implementation. There are several ways of answering this. I'll propose two of them: (1) At least as far as RDA is concerned, the bits designated as elements are those so designated in the standards/models which RDA references -- in particular, FRBR and ISBD. Compatibility with the standards/models may not be a functional goal, but I think it does account for what we see in RDA. You could then ask what was the functional design goal of the ISBD -- but I'm not sure that question would have made sense ca. 1980, when the ISBD elements were defined. (2) As I suggested, in one of my messages, one of the functional design goals was to avoid undue complexity. Defining a sub-element of an element sub-type seemed to be a bridge too far -- particularly at a point when it was not clear whether RDF would be able to express either sub-elements or element sub-types. 2) in the development of systems that may carry RDA data, what is the mechanism for resolving issues like the one I brought up, where the system needs and the defined RDA elements are not the same? Does one extend RDA? How? And if there is a conflict that can't be resolved with extension, is there any way that system needs can be fed back to the RDA process? I'm not sure that this is a very sophisticated answer, but I do tend to see MARC as an extension of RDA when it is more granular than RDA -- and RDA as an extension of MARC when it is more granular -- which is more often the case. I pulled out 245 $n and $p as cases to address, but there are different factors relating to some of the other subfields. Subfields $f, $g, $k and $s were defined to support the description of archival materials; this was in the late 1980s, and thus predated DACS, but at least some of the same conventions are carried forward in DACS. At the moment, RDA does not specifically incorporate DACS conventions for naming archival collections, but I would not rule that out in the future. So, here we seem to have a set of MARC elements that are (temporarily?) out of scope for RDA. Doesn't a situation like this also raise issues that systems will need to resolve? John
Re: [RDA-L] RDA and granularity
At 01:05 PM 1/28/2010, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: If $n and $p are important distinctions, shouldn't they in fact _be_ referenced by RDA? And, really, shouldn't they have been referenced by AACR2 all along too? They *are* referenced in RDA (and AACR2), which provides instructions for recording them. But they are not formally defined separate elements. In order to make them separate elements, we would have had to define them as sub-elements of Title proper, which is an element sub-type of the element Title. We were discouraged from descending to that level of complexity. If the distinction between $n and $p is important, shouldn't it be mentioned as two distinct data elements in that guidance? If the guidance should be independent from the record format you end up storing the record in the distinction between $n and $p isn't really something that should be specific to MARC, should it? Again, they are mentioned in the guidance, but not as elements -- for the reasons given above. The guidance is not *independent* of the record format in which the data is encoded -- choice of an encoding format is a necessary precondition to recording the data -- but the guidance tries not to assume what encoding format you will choose. It seems to me that the MARC decision to support subfields $n and $p as data elements was appropriate in terms of the instructions in AACR2, and continues to be valid for RDA. John Attig Penn State Univ. jx...@psu.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Urls in access fields
At 12:46 AM 7/15/2009, Karen Coyle wrote: I also think that we need to move away from the idea that there is one preferred access point for anyone or any thing. Instead, we should consider that in any particular context there is a preferred access point, but that may vary by circumstance. The obvious context is the language of the catalog -- it would be terrible to create a new authority record for each language, each with a preferred access point. Instead, an authority record should be able to have the preferred access points for any number of languages, and let systems select the one they need at that moment. This would allow us to create multi-lingual catalogs, and to do what the VIAF is now trying to do, which is to align different preferred forms. The authority record should represent the author, not just one preferred form of the author's name. Maybe that's where we are getting confused... I'm not convinced that we can or should move away from the concept of a preferred access point. I would argue instead that we need to understand that any access point is preferred in a particular context and that there may be many different contexts in which preferences may be appropriate. And that it is important that each preferred access point clearly identify the context in which it is to be preferred. On a different point, I think that the VIAF (as I understand it) is very close to what I was describing. I don't think they are aggregating authority records -- which in this case are clearly records controlling a particular form of a person's name -- into records for a person. What I believe is happening is that they are creating webs or networks of authority records created by different agencies that relate to the same person and which may contain different forms of the name. In terms of what I was describing, what the VIAF lacks is a general description of the person at the center of the web of names; it seems to me if we were creating such entity descriptions it would make the work of clustering in resources such as the VIAF easier and more accurate. John
Re: [RDA-L] Outcomes of JSC March meeting
At 01:21 PM 4/2/2009, J. McRee Elrod wrote: John Attig's Blog on the March meeting of JSC is a live link from the recently posted Outcomes, and is far more informative. The Blog is very well written - better than RDA itself in fact. Perhaps John should be given a free hand with the text. John appreciates the kind words, but recognizes that a narrative description of decisions is very different from the formal statement of instructions. He doesn't feel at all qualified to rewrite what he believes is a rigorous and carefully-written text. -Priority matters were dealt with. How was what is priority determined? There were several priority categories. The highest priority was given to comments that had structural implications for RDA: the list of data elements, element sub-types and sub-elements; the names and definitions of elements, etc.; other definitions of terms; and a number of other issues identified by the editor. Beyond that, each JSC member identified comments (typically from their constituencies) that they wanted to be given priority; they also identified comments from other rule-makers (e.g., France and Germany) that should be discussed. -Well organized music cataloguers ability to get their needs addressed remains impressive. Music catalogers, particularly within the U.S. and Canada, were indeed well organized. However, the reason for the extensive discussion of the instructions for musical works and expressions was a wide-ranging proposal from the Library of Congress that called for extensive modification of the current instructions and which we have been discussing for about a year now. Based on a lot of work by everyone involved, the JSC was able to reach agreement on a large number of issues in a short time (the discussion only took about four hours); the list of issues that were NOT resolved, however, is even larger and remains for future work. John Attig ALA Rep to the JSC
Re: [RDA-L] The Person entity [was: Comments from Martha M. Yee ... 1 of 2]
At 12:02 PM 6/4/2008, Karen Coyle wrote: And your definition of person will determine what these relevant data elements are, and what you can do with this data. If you your persons are bibliographic entities then they can't interact with data about real persons (LDAP databases, the copyright renewal database, the social security death index, etc.) unless somewhere a clear connection is made between the bibliographic and the non-bibliographic identities. This is why I am concerned about limiting ourselves just to name forms - it limits what we can do with our data. Perhaps Person is the wrong term for this entity and the name should reflect its nature as a bibliographic concept. Then again, we still have to deal with the actual person as subject case. People do write biographies about the real people behind the bibliographic identities. I don't think this is the same entity as the bibliographic persona yet we are using the same entity for both. This is probably where my dis-ease comes in. I now see what you are trying to say about Person. Yes, Person is a bibliographic entity which may not have a one-to-one relationship with an actual person. And I would note that your exception for subjects is probably not warranted: a bibliographic identity can be the subject of a work, just as much as an actual biological person. However, I would note that in 99.9% of the cases, the bibliographic identity and the biological person are identical. I would hate to torture the model in order to deal with that 0.1% that raise problems. Perhaps what we need is an element (data about data) that signals when the entity represents only the bibliographic identity and should therefore not be assumed to map to person entities in other data sources. John
Re: [RDA-L] Comments from Martha M. Yee on the April 10, 2008 version of the STATEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL CATALOGUING PRINCIPLES 1 of 2
At 07:40 PM 6/2/2008, Karen Coyle wrote: Jonathan Rochkind wrote: This is certainly how I've seen people talk about this sort of thing before, assuming that the person entity _is_ the evolution of the person authority record, and thus considered some form of authority record. I haven't really thought this through far enough, but I'm not sure that the person entity and the authority record are one and the same. There is data about persons that, under current definitions, would not be in an authority record, such as the form of the author name from the title page, or the person's role in relation to the bib item being described. These are specific to that item, not to the person generally. And they may not be controlled. It seems to me that we will have a person entity in our bibliographic record that has this data, and that entity is NOT the authority record, which has data about the person, not the person's particular relationship to the bib item. What I haven't thought through far enough is where this item-specific and person-specific data will be in the relational model. It seems to me that the person entity in FRBR is not universal, but is a person entity for that bibliographic item. That would make it different from the authority record, and would mean that we would still have an authority record that controlled a universal view of the person. I have argued elsewhere that there is an important distinction between an entity record for a person, family, or corporate body -- which represents the person, etc. -- and an authority record for the NAME of the person, etc. FRAD's model of authority data makes it clear that the content of an authority record is one or more ACCESS POINTS for the NAME of the ENTITY; the access point is created by a particular AGENCY applying a particular set of RULES to the NAME by which the ENTITY is known. Thus there may be more than one set of access points applicable to the entity, based on different agencies applying different rules to the same set of factual information. In my model for bibliographic data, the description of the entity contains factual information about the entity including name usage on manifestations of works for which the entity is responsible, as well as other factual information such as affiliation, occupation, dates, etc. This record controls the IDENTITY of the entity but not any particular NAME for the entity. To the extent that we continue to desire to control the text strings that we use as access points for the name of the entity, authority records are still required, presumably linked to the entity record. This model is an extension both of the FRAD model and of the RDA scenario #1 model, both of which conflate the entity and authority records into a single object. To my mind, the very logic of both FRAD and RDA requires that these objects be treated separately in the model. Regarding Karen's second paragraph above, I believe that the person entity is intended to be universal, but the attributes (particularly name usage) do reflect information taken from particular manifestations. In another message, Karen asked whether FRAD dealt with records or databases. I believe that the model was intended to be neutral about record structure -- although there is an appendix (at least in the draft) that shows how different entities and attributes can be combined into an authority record. It seems to me that record structure is one of the constructs that one uses the model to help define. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University
Re: [RDA-L] Comments from Martha M. Yee on the April 10, 2008 version of the STATEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL CATALOGUING PRINCIPLES 1 of 2
At 01:41 PM 6/3/2008, Karen Coyle wrote: John Attig wrote: I have argued elsewhere that there is an important distinction between an entity record for a person, family, or corporate body -- which represents the person, etc. -- and an authority record for the NAME of the person, etc. Actually my big concern is that the entity Person may make sense as a subject but we don't have persons as creators, only personal names. That name may be a pseudonym used by two actual human beings, or there could be many names associated with one person. So the Person entity doesn't seem to fit well into our cataloging world view in the creator/agent role. (I think this is just a variation on what John is saying.) I don't think that is what I was saying. For the purposes of the model, the pseudonym would be a person, as would each of the actual persons; we don't make any distinction here. Links between these different persons would be made to indicate the relationship. FRAD's model of authority data makes it clear that the content of an authority record is one or more ACCESS POINTS for the NAME of the ENTITY; the access point is created by a particular AGENCY applying a particular set of RULES to the NAME by which the ENTITY is known. Thus there may be more than one set of access points applicable to the entity, based on different agencies applying different rules to the same set of factual information. In my model for bibliographic data, the description of the entity contains factual information about the entity including name usage on manifestations of works for which the entity is responsible, as well as other factual information such as affiliation, occupation, dates, etc. This record controls the IDENTITY of the entity but not any particular NAME for the entity. To the extent that we continue to desire to control the text strings that we use as access points for the name of the entity, authority records are still required, presumably linked to the entity record. I don't think that having different choices of name across one or more communities means you have to have different records for each name -- I can imagine an record that allows different options for creating name access points (appropriately identified), just as I can imagine one that has the same subject concepts in different languages. And I don't see why those name forms can't be in the same record that controls the identity of the individual, if that's what's convenient for your system design. These options were canvassed in a MARBI discussion paper some years ago. I'm not sure there was a consensus. However, the separate authority records for each choice of name is the basis of the Virtual International Authority File -- and also reflects the reality that these authority records are likely to be created separately within each national community and brought together virtually -- using, I would argue, the person entity record as a clustering point. I am not sure, though, that we want a record that ONLY addresses the name choice issue. And I don't see how we can avoid it . . . unless we with to abandon the need to control the textual form of name. Regarding Karen's second paragraph above, I believe that the person entity is intended to be universal, but the attributes (particularly name usage) do reflect information taken from particular manifestations. Of the person entity? How would you link those to the particular manifestations? Basically, how would you say that for this work, the author was affiliated with Harvard, whereas for another work, the author was affiliated with Stanford? Would that be in the person record or the work record? Typically, we do not attempt to link these. If it is felt to be important that the attributes change for different manifestations, we typically include scope information along with the attribute in the authority record (in my model, this would be in the entity record). It seems to me that there is a practical limit to how much linking is sustainable. In another message, Karen asked whether FRAD dealt with records or databases. I believe that the model was intended to be neutral about record structure -- although there is an appendix (at least in the draft) that shows how different entities and attributes can be combined into an authority record. It seems to me that record structure is one of the constructs that one uses the model to help define. Actually, I think I asked that question about FRBR. And FRBR, too, may be neutral as to record model and database model. The 3 RDA schema levels seem to be more prescriptive about structure, but I'm still not clear if each entity is expected to be a separate record or not. And it is that question that leads me to these other questions about how one connects the group 1 and group 23 entities in a work/expression/etc. record, given that some information will be specific to that group 1 instance. (a) In both FRBR and FRAD, I believe
Re: [RDA-L] JSC Meeting Outcomes April 2008
At 10:58 AM 5/9/2008, Karen Coyle wrote: John, I agree with you that we need both pieces of information, but how can this be part of our data if it isn't included in the cataloging rules? I don't disagree that this should be provided for in RDA. This is what concerns me: that there seems to be an assumption that data will be available that isn't being accounted for in RDA. As you say: Apart from RDA... Where will this data come from if not from the cataloging process? There is no provision in AACR that supports the use of 752 that I describe, and yet catalogers -- at least in some contexts -- do provide the data. I'm not sure that we need to assume that any set of cataloging rules defines the limits of what can be included in our cataloging records. And why should our cataloging rules ignore data that we know we need? The trick is to make a convincing case that we do need this data. Apparently this has not yet been done. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University John Attig wrote: At 09:27 AM 5/9/2008, Karen Coyle wrote: Adam L. Schiff wrote: At present, the instruction in RDA is to take and record what you see. In other words, true transcription of what you find, with no abbreviation. However, if abbreviations are on the resource, then you will record them the way they appear. If the higher jurisdiction of the place is not present, it does not get recorded in the place element. Instead it will be given in a note. Which, of course, makes it useless for any machine processing, such as re-organizing a retrieved set by place of publication or providing a way for a user to Find (FRBR user task) items published in a particular location. It seems that when it comes to Find, the rules have a pre-conceived notion of what users can ask for. And in case you think that this isn't a legitimate search, I had reason to do exactly this search the other day, and was not successful. The way to support this functionality, which I agree should not be dismissed out of hand, is not to change the conventions for recording the place of publication -- whose function is primarily one of identification, based on what appears on the item -- but rather to define a relationship between the resource and the place in which it is published, using the Place entity to provide a consistent form for access, as well as variants. Apart from RDA, I would note that many special collections libraries currently use MARC field 752 to provide structured, controlled access to place names as a means of creating an imprint file for their holdings. The point is the same: we need a controlled access point, not a descriptive data element, in order to provide consistent access to place of publication. John Attig -- --- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet fx.: 510-848-3913 mo.: 510-435-8234
Re: FW: [RDA-L] FW: [RDA-L] New works and new expressions (was Cataloger scenarios added to wiki)
I think that FRBR and RDA are trying to get away from the concept of authorship, which covers a variety of roles. I was trying to be more specific in indicating what roles I thought were involved in the process of realizing a work in an expression. So I guess the answer to your question depends on what you mean by authorship. John At 10:07 AM 3/13/2008, Martha Yee wrote: So is this an argument that for any work that is not a work of single personal authorship, all of the authorship belongs at the expression level, Sara and John? Martha (Martha M. Yee [EMAIL PROTECTED]) -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Layne, Sara Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 9:29 PM To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FW: [RDA-L] New works and new expressions (was Cataloger scenarios added to wiki) With considerable trepidation, I'm going to venture into this discussion ... If all the collaborators belong at the work level, doesn't that mean that a change in *any* of the collaborators would mean that you then have a completely different work? I know this doesn't often happen with films in actual practice, but aren't there edited versions of films from which entire characters have been eliminated? If *all* the actors are attributes of the work, wouldn't this then mean that those edited versions aren't expressions of the original work but rather completely new works? And, I do think that there are examples of collaborative textual works in which later editions of the work don't have exactly the same collaborators (perhaps one has died?), but would still be considered expressions of the same work rather than different works ... Sara Shatford Layne Principal Cataloger UCLA Library Cataloging Metadata Center [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access on behalf of Martha Yee Sent: Wed 3/12/2008 2:24 PM To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] FW: [RDA-L] New works and new expressions (was Cataloger scenarios added to wiki) Sorry about that, Larry; I do agree with Greta that actors (and editors, directors, screenwriters, costume designers, composers of music) all belong at the work level, not the expression level, for moving image works. Moving image works are essentially visual works that are created collaboratively, and all of the collaborators together make up the authors of the work. There are collaborative textual works, as well, and I don't think anyone would argue that those collaborators belong at the expression rather than the work level, would they? Hope that clarifies? Martha -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Laurence Creider Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 1:20 PM To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] New works and new expressions (was Cataloger scenarios added to wiki) Martha, You answered all of my questions except the one at the beginning, and I should have addressed that to Greta de Groat. You did not make the statement about actors being a characteristic of the work rather than the expression. I apologize for the confusion, although I would still like an answer from someone. I certainly agree with what you say about the adaptation in making a visual work from a textual one and about the cases you cite. I wonder, however, if the same arguments could not also be said of a stage production of Shakespeare. Recordings of stage productions are treated by cataloging rules as versions of the play, but the textual component of a play is the very bare bones of the play. Plays, as operas, are frequently performed with cuts of text, but addition of scenery, blocking, inflection, direction, production are analogous to film activities. They don't seem to go over the edge to being a new work, and I am somewhat curious how it is that they do not. The intent of the producers, actors, designers, etc. could be argued to make the difference, but intent might not be as easy to establish as one would think. Is the difference made by the intellectually creative difference made by the cinematographer and director, and editor(s), who shape what we see in perhaps a more fundamental way than the stage director? Or is it the textual adaptation required in moving a text from print or stage to screen? Larry Creider On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Martha Yee wrote: Creider's asks, One question I have for Martha is why a change in actors results in a different work? I would argue that moving images are essentially visual works, not textual ones; in order to change a textual work into a visual work, adaptation is inherently necessary. The situation is complicated by the fact that it is possible to use moving image as a mere recording medium. I don't mind identifying a stage performance of
Re: Cataloger Scenarios added to wiki
Diane et al. Be warned that there are those of us who do not agree with Greta and Kelley and Martha that actors are related to the work rather than the expression. Even if there is only one expression of a work, it is possible to make a distinction between the creation of the work and its realization in an expression. It is arguable that actors, as well as directors, producers, script writers, film editors, costume and set designers, sound engineers, etc. etc. contribute to the realization of the work, not its creation. In the case of motion pictures, the extensive nature of the collaboration involved makes it extremely difficult to identify ANY role as that of creator -- which is probably why the practice of identifying such works solely by their preferred titles, without including the name of a creator, makes sense. The interpretation of FRBR as it applies to motion pictures that has emerged from this discussion is, in my opinion, not a mainstream interpretation of FRBR and should be used with extreme caution as the basis for your work. John Attig At 03:11 PM 3/11/2008, McGrath, Kelley C. wrote: Greta wrote... Scenario 3. And I hate to be a broken record, but in films Actors would be associated with the work, not the expression. They are not going to reshoot the film with different actors. (ok, in case anybody knows about them, i'm ignoring the early talkie films which were simultaneously shot in different language versions with casts that are sometimes the same, sometimes different--they are borderline cases. I would not consider the shot for shot remake of Psycho a borderline case) Diane, Thanks for changing the actors. I would also like to thank you for modeling your moving image scenario on Martha Yee's chapter rather than what has been in the RDA drafts to date. So far the RDA drafts have been rather at odds with the way the other OLAC (Online Audiovisual Catalogers) reviewers and I would have thought of moving image works (leaving aside the potentially messy question of recordings of live performances of previously existing works) and have put not only actors, but directors, cinematographers, and producers at the expression level. This is true even in the fairly recent draft appendix dealing with roles (http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/docs/5lc11.pdf). Or perhaps you know something I don't about future RDA directions? Kelley McGrath
Re: FW: [RDA-L] Cataloger Scenarios added to wiki
No, I agree with those who have responded to Jonathan Rochkind's suggestion that different film versions of Hamlet are expressions of Shakespeare's play. I believe that they are indeed distinct works. I was addressing the question about how to interpret the distinction between work and expression in cases that clearly involve the same work. Here I agree with Jonathan that you and Greta and Kelley are not interpreting this distinction in the way in which it is defined in FRBR. Since I've been drawn back into this discussion, let me also say that I agree with Adam Schiff that there are cases in which there are clearly identifiable creators of motion pictures; however, I do think that these are exceptional cases. Finally, I would prefer not to participate in this discussion as an expert on RDA. These are my opinions about the proper way to interpret and apply FRBR. As a member of the JSC, I hope that RDA is a proper application of FRBR -- but everyone will have to make their own judgment. John At 02:44 PM 3/12/2008, Martha Yee wrote: Can I infer from your posting, then, John, that RDA will not follow FRBR in considering Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet to be a different work than Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet? Martha % Martha M. Yee Cataloging Supervisor UCLA Film Television Archive 1015 N. Cahuenga Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90038-2616 323-462-4921 x27 323-469-9055 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Email) http://myee.bol.ucla.edu (Web page) % The tendency has always been strong to believe that whatever received a name must be an entity or being, having an independent existence of its own. And if no real entity answering to the name could be found, men did not for that reason suppose that none existed, but imagined that it was something particularly abstruse and mysterious--John Stuart Mill. -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John Attig Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 8:00 AM To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Cataloger Scenarios added to wiki Diane et al. Be warned that there are those of us who do not agree with Greta and Kelley and Martha that actors are related to the work rather than the expression. Even if there is only one expression of a work, it is possible to make a distinction between the creation of the work and its realization in an expression. It is arguable that actors, as well as directors, producers, script writers, film editors, costume and set designers, sound engineers, etc. etc. contribute to the realization of the work, not its creation. In the case of motion pictures, the extensive nature of the collaboration involved makes it extremely difficult to identify ANY role as that of creator -- which is probably why the practice of identifying such works solely by their preferred titles, without including the name of a creator, makes sense. The interpretation of FRBR as it applies to motion pictures that has emerged from this discussion is, in my opinion, not a mainstream interpretation of FRBR and should be used with extreme caution as the basis for your work. John Attig At 03:11 PM 3/11/2008, McGrath, Kelley C. wrote: Greta wrote... Scenario 3. And I hate to be a broken record, but in films Actors would be associated with the work, not the expression. They are not going to reshoot the film with different actors. (ok, in case anybody knows about them, i'm ignoring the early talkie films which were simultaneously shot in different language versions with casts that are sometimes the same, sometimes different--they are borderline cases. I would not consider the shot for shot remake of Psycho a borderline case) Diane, Thanks for changing the actors. I would also like to thank you for modeling your moving image scenario on Martha Yee's chapter rather than what has been in the RDA drafts to date. So far the RDA drafts have been rather at odds with the way the other OLAC (Online Audiovisual Catalogers) reviewers and I would have thought of moving image works (leaving aside the potentially messy question of recordings of live performances of previously existing works) and have put not only actors, but directors, cinematographers, and producers at the expression level. This is true even in the fairly recent draft appendix dealing with roles (http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/docs/5lc11.pdf). Or perhaps you know something I don't about future RDA directions? Kelley McGrath
Re: New works and new expressions (was Cataloger scenarios added to wiki)
I would add that the case of motion pictures is difficult, again because of the many different contributions involved. I can't imagine a case where the ONLY change would be a change of actors. All the contributions and contributors to a remake are different, which is why it seems appropriate to consider them as separate works. I played with a contrasting case: the different companies that present a musical comedy: the London cast, the Broadway cast, the various road companies. Are these all really different works or simply different expressions of a single work? John At 03:35 PM 3/12/2008, Martha Yee wrote: Creider's asks, One question I have for Martha is why a change in actors results in a different work? I would argue that moving images are essentially visual works, not textual ones; in order to change a textual work into a visual work, adaptation is inherently necessary. The situation is complicated by the fact that it is possible to use moving image as a mere recording medium. I don't mind identifying a stage performance of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet as a work by Shakespeare when the stage performance has been recorded by a stationary video camera. When Shakespeare's play is transformed into a moving image (visual) work by the contributions of screenwriters, cinematographers, editors and directors, however, I believe a new related work has been created. Anglo-American practice hitherto has agreed with me, as does FRBR in the Zeffirelli example... Hope that clarifies my position? Martha %% Martha M. Yee Cataloging Supervisor UCLA Film Television Archive 1015 N. Cahuenga Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90038-2616 323-462-4921 x27 323-469-9055 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Email at work) Campus mail: 302 E. Melnitz 132306 1413 Quintero St. Los Angeles, CA 90026-3417 213-250-3018 213-250-3018 (fax) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] (Email at home) http://myee.bol.ucla.edu/http://myee.bol.ucla.edu (Web page) %% You have a dollar. I have a dollar. We swap. Now you have my dollar and I have your dollar. We are not better off. You have an idea. I have an idea. We swap. Now you have two ideas and I have two ideas. Both are richer. When you gave, you have. What I got, you did not lose. Thats cooperationJimmy Durante quoted in Schnozzola, by Gene Fowler, 1951, p. 207-208.
Re: FW: [RDA-L] New works and new expressions (was Cataloger scenarios added to wiki)
But that doesn't mean that you can't distinguish the contributions of those collaborators to the creation of the work from their contributions to the realization of an expression. Let's take a VERY simple example. Shakespeare created a work called As you like it (I won't use Hamlet, because it can be argued that Shakespeare created THREE works called Hamlet); he also wrote an English-language text for that work. The first act created the work, the second realized an expression of that work. In practice, this distinction is meaningless if not perverse, but in the FRBR model it is the essence of the distinction between work and expression. Simply because many people collaborated doesn't necessarily mean that they necessarily collaborated in creating the work. Because performance is involved in virtually all the contributions to a motion picture, I argued that these contributions fit FRBR's definition of expression, not its definition of work; I also argued that it is difficult to identify any categories of contributions to a motion picture that clearly fit the definition of a work (yes, there are individual motion pictures where a creator can be identified, but this conversation is about roles such as actor or director, not about the contribution of individual actors or directors to individual motion pictures). This may not be a particularly useful way to apply the model to motion pictures, but I believe that it is the correct application according to the definitions in FRBR. So long as performance is one of the categories that is wrapped up in the concept of expression, then I think we need to apply FRBR this way. Again, take the above as expressions of my personal opinions -- although I believe that they are generally consistent with the approach taken in RDA. John At 05:24 PM 3/12/2008, Martha Yee wrote: Sorry about that, Larry; I do agree with Greta that actors (and editors, directors, screenwriters, costume designers, composers of music) all belong at the work level, not the expression level, for moving image works. Moving image works are essentially visual works that are created collaboratively, and all of the collaborators together make up the authors of the work. There are collaborative textual works, as well, and I don't think anyone would argue that those collaborators belong at the expression rather than the work level, would they? Hope that clarifies? Martha -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Laurence Creider Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 1:20 PM To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] New works and new expressions (was Cataloger scenarios added to wiki) Martha, You answered all of my questions except the one at the beginning, and I should have addressed that to Greta de Groat. You did not make the statement about actors being a characteristic of the work rather than the expression. I apologize for the confusion, although I would still like an answer from someone. I certainly agree with what you say about the adaptation in making a visual work from a textual one and about the cases you cite. I wonder, however, if the same arguments could not also be said of a stage production of Shakespeare. Recordings of stage productions are treated by cataloging rules as versions of the play, but the textual component of a play is the very bare bones of the play. Plays, as operas, are frequently performed with cuts of text, but addition of scenery, blocking, inflection, direction, production are analogous to film activities. They don't seem to go over the edge to being a new work, and I am somewhat curious how it is that they do not. The intent of the producers, actors, designers, etc. could be argued to make the difference, but intent might not be as easy to establish as one would think. Is the difference made by the intellectually creative difference made by the cinematographer and director, and editor(s), who shape what we see in perhaps a more fundamental way than the stage director? Or is it the textual adaptation required in moving a text from print or stage to screen? Larry Creider On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Martha Yee wrote: Creider's asks, One question I have for Martha is why a change in actors results in a different work? I would argue that moving images are essentially visual works, not textual ones; in order to change a textual work into a visual work, adaptation is inherently necessary. The situation is complicated by the fact that it is possible to use moving image as a mere recording medium. I don't mind identifying a stage performance of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet as a work by Shakespeare when the stage performance has been recorded by a stationary video camera. When Shakespeare's play is transformed into a moving image (visual) work by the contributions of screenwriters, cinematographers, editors and directors, however, I
Outcomes of the October 2007 Joint Steering Committee meeting
Outcomes of the October 2007 meeting of the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA have been mounted on the JSC Web site: http://www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/0710out.html The Outcomes outline a new organization for RDA which has been agreed to by the Joint Steering Committee and the Committee of Principals. Further information on the organization has also been posted on the JSC Web site. New sections of RDA will be issued for review in December 2007. John Attig for the Joint Steering Committee
Re: Application profiles and RDA
At 04:40 PM 10/11/2007, Karen Coyle wrote: There's a wonderful graphic that I found in a presentation that Lorcan Dempsey did that shows a much broader view of users and information. It's slide 5 of this presentation: http://www.slideshare.net/lisld/moving-to-the-network-leveldiscovery-and-disclosure/5 This is indeed a wonderful graphic; however, its reproduction in the presentation at the URL above leaves a lot to be desired. If you page down from the Flash window, there is a section called Slideshow transcript. Under #5 is a URL for the original presentation from which Lorcan borrowed the slide http://www.lib.umn.edu/about/mellon/KM%20JStor%20Presentation.pps (a presentation on behaviors of humanities and social sciences scholars by Kate McCready of the University of Minnesota). You can download the slide show, which is not only larger and clearer but has some nice transitions to help navigate through this very complex image. The image in question begins with slide 17. John Attig Penn State University [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Alternate titles, an example of description broken into bits
Karen, I think you have misunderstood the topic of conversation. An alternative title does actually use the word OR or its linguistic equivalent to connect parts of the title. For example, the title of Shakespeare's play in the earliest editions (and many modern ones) is Twelfth night, or What you will; the title of Voltaire's story is Candide, ou L'optimisme. According to provisions of the ISBD, AACR and (until recently) RDA, that entire string is the title proper. Since few people actually are aware of these facts, it seemed strange to include the alternative title (the part following the or) in the title proper. Hence the decision. The fact that there is no place in RDA for the or is (it seems to me) an example of the same effort that results in the 246 field doing double duty as both transcription of what appears on the source and the access point for the variant title. RDA also makes no distinction between the use of a data element for recording information from the source and for providing access. I suspect that the answer to this particular problem is that the actual transcription of the source (the entire source, I would think) will end up in an annotation, when that actual transcription is needed (as it is for rare materials). And Martha is right -- if the or is to be part of the display supplied from the encoding of the data elements, then we will need to record the language of each element (or at least of any elements that are not accurately reflected in the record-level language coding). John Attig [not writing as:] ALA Representative to the JSC
Re: Question regarding rule 1.6.1.2
I tend to assume that a rule means what it says and that I should make no assumptions about what it doesn't say. It says to capitalize the first word; it doesn't say anything about other words. When a textbook on English grammar tells me to capitalize the first word of the sentence, I don't ask myself whether this means I can't capitalize other words in the sentence. John Attig Cataloging Services Penn State University University Park, PA 16802 [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 11:19 AM 1/6/2006, John Radencich wrote: 1.6.1.2 - Capitalization of other transcribed elements. I'm sure I must be missing something, for as far as I can tell no one has commented on this. The first paragraph says, When transcribing the following elements, capitalize the first word...in the element. Among the list of following elements is publisher, distributor, etc. Am I reading this right, as it seems to be saying that for a publisher with a multiple word name you only capitalize the first word in that name. So, for example, as I interpret the above rule, you would put New york times publishing company (okay, New York times publishing company then). For me the entier name of a publisher is a proper name, requiring caps for all the words. (By the way, place of publication is also on this list, so do we just cap the 1st word of a place if it consists of multiple words?) John Radencich Library-Cataloging Dept. Florida International University Miami, Florida 33199 305-348-3785
