Re: [RDA-L] edition statements
That makes the most sense to me. I guess if you want to stick with the language of the subject you’d put “updated first edition” or “first edition, updated”. If you’re going to put in edition twice, it only makes sense to me to put “first edition, updated edition” as is updated edition of the first edition. “Updated edition, First edition” sounds like the 1st edition of the updated edition (of possibly another edition?) to me. Martin Kelleher Metadata Manager University of Liverpool From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Goldfarb, Kathie Sent: 18 October 2013 16:36 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] edition statements From a patron’s point of view, but probably not according to the rules, would be Revised first edition, or First edition, revised. kathie Kathleen Goldfarb Technical Services Librarian College of the Mainland Texas City, TX 77539 409 933 8202 P Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Guy Vernon Frost Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 9:49 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] edition statements You can string them along separating one from the other by a comma 250;__; $a Updated edition, First edition. Sometime after the 2nd qtr OCLC update in 2104 you'll be able to repeat the 250 field. 250:__; $a Updated edition. 250;__; $a First edition. Guy Frost Associate Professor of Library Science Catalog Librarian Odum Library/Valdosta State University Valdosta, Georgia 31698-0150 229.259.5060 gfr...@valdosta.edumailto:gfr...@valdosta.edu FDLP 0125 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA on behalf of Baumgarten, Richard, JCL baumgart...@jocolibrary.orgmailto:baumgart...@jocolibrary.org Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 10:24 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] edition statements I cannot find anywhere in 2.5 about a situation where the title page says updated edition and the verso says First edition. The title was previously published. Do I record both statements or only the statement that I know to be true? Richard Baumgarten Cataloger Johnson County Library P.O. Box 2901 Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66201-1301 (913) 826-4494 baumgart...@jocolibrary.orgmailto:baumgart...@jocolibrary.org
Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)
They are each very different, however.
People think of Mark Twain as a real person, and he is - just with a different
real name. Nobody thinks of Beedle as a real person. Well, OK, maybe some
people do, but I don't think we should encourage that ;-)
Just to illustrate, here's the Wikipedia entries you get for Mark Twain:
Mark Twain
For other uses, see Mark Twain (disambiguation).
Samuel Langhorne Clemens (November 30, 1835 – April 21, 1910), better known by
his pen name Mark Twain was an American author and humorist.
And here's the Wikipedia entry you get for Beedle the Bard:
The Tales of Beedle the Bard
(Redirected from Beedle the Bard)
The Tales of Beedle the Bard is a book of children's stories by British author
J. K. Rowling.
Author J. K. Rowling
The introduction (written by Rowling) to the publications released in December
2008 mentions that the fictional character Beedle the Bard was born in
Yorkshire, lived in the 15th century, and had an exceptionally luxuriant beard
Very different.
Martin
-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: 14 October 2013 18:25
To: Kelleher, Martin
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)
Martin Kelleher wrote:
Thinking about it that way sadly doesn;t make it sound any less
ridiculous.
Entering Rowling under Biddle is no more ridiculous than entering
Clemens under Twain. Mark Twain is a Mississippi River boaters'
call, no more a person than Geronimo Chilton.
While I would favour including in the statement of responsibility
[i.e. Samuel L. Clemens], or [i.e. J. K. Rowling], RDA purists
would not approve. We are dependent on authority cross references.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
If 240 moves to 700 or 730, then we'd be made up, because that's exactly how
we've been managing what it looks like RDA's supposed to be doing for years! In
our catalogue, as in many, if you put the uniform title as an additional title
rather than the main title, it means when you put in that uniform title, you
get a list of everything with it as an added title - which is, in practice,
what the emphasis on 'work' over 'expression' is all about, isn't it? With the
240 putting in uniform title as main title, you only get a list of the same
title repeated, without extrapolation of which version it is beyond the
somewhat limited controlled language of 240. and searching by the title of
the specific version rather confusedly comes up with the top line 240, which is
doubly confusing
It seems there is too little communication between rule theorists and actual
library users.
Or Cataloguers with contact with the same, it often seems.
Martin Kelleher
Metadata Manager
University of Liverpool
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mary Mastraccio
Sent: 04 October 2013 13:42
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
I understood the question to be about making 240 obsolete. Are you suggesting
that 240 be made obsolete but use 246 instead of 700?
Mary L. Mastraccio
Cataloging Authorities Manager
MARCIVE, Inc.
San Antonio, TX 78265
1-800-531-7678
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 1:41 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
Robert Maxwell said:
I realize this isn't the PCC list or the MARC list, but would people be
willing to push for officially switching to Adam's suggested
700 12 $i Contains (work): $a Owens, Jo, $d 1961- $t Add kids, stir
briskly
Many of our clients would not accept this. They do not want a 700 duplicating
the 100 for the same item. They want direct access by the alternate title,
which the 246 provides. Many ILS do not index 7XX$t.
They do not want a second entry for the first part of the title (in either 246
or 700$t); they see it as a duplication. It would be a much simpler solution
to have a $b after the or.
We haven't had a single client who wants 7XX$i. They reject it as making no
sense to patrons, and possibly interfering with indexing, and certainly with
display. They see the $i as being more like a note than an entry.
Our object is to help people find material, not follow some theory about
relationships most do not understand.
SLC can't follow rules or practices which get records sent back to us.
It seems there is too little communication between rule theorists and actual
library users. In small libraries, feedback is direct and instantaneous.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] approzimately in access points
I think it’s more to do with “political correctness” than universality. less surprising, then, that you end up with obscurity rather than clarity as a result!! ;-) Martin Kelleher Metadata Manager University of Liverpool From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: 05 July 2013 14:32 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] approzimately in access points I agree that the heading -approximately 250 borders on incoherence. died circa 250 is much less ambiguous. Do users really not know what ca. or circa means? It's in both Webster's and the OED. --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2013 2:43 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.camailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] approzimately in access points And meanwhile the patron is wandering in the desert supplicating the deity for meaning. On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 11:25 AM, James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.commailto:weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com wrote: On 04/07/2013 18:07, Elizabeth O'Keefe wrote: snip On a somewhat related issue (it was raised in Mac's post), is anyone else bothered by the display when only a death date is known? Smith, John, -1932 /snip I have experienced the same thing. I recently cataloged an item with the subject heading: Agatha, Saint, -approximately 250. I copied and pasted it unthinkingly but when I was editing my record, I couldn't understand what this meant, and it was only when I realized that the earlier heading was: Agatha, Saint, d. ca. 250 and the d. was changed to a hyphen, and the ca. was changed to approximately, did I understand what the heading was supposed to say. But that was only because I know the AACR2 heading. The new heading is incoherent. -- James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.commailto:weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com First Thus http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ First Thus Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus Cooperative Cataloging Rules http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ Cataloging Matters Podcasts http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edumailto:gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] 260 and 264 Fields
...doesn’t 264 1 pretty much replicate 260, however? Personally I would have preferred it if 264 1 could have remained 260, and 264 being for all the other, more ephemeral contributers. Any idea why they didn’t do something like that? My money’s on the fundamentalist lobby working on the same kind of level that requires all records with series entry to have both 490/830, whether they’re the same heading or not ;-) Martin Kelleher Metadata Manager University of Liverpool From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of McDonald, Stephen Sent: 21 June 2013 16:14 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 260 and 264 Fields Because the 264 allows you to have separate fields for production, publication, distribution, manufacture, and copyright, in accordance with RDA, coded so that machine processing can distinguish them. The initial testing of RDA used the 260, and based on the results it was felt that a new repeatable field with indicators was a better solution. Steve McDonald steve.mcdon...@tufts.edumailto:steve.mcdon...@tufts.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mike McReynolds Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 9:44 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] 260 and 264 Fields I've noticed that records with 264 fields and no 260 fields are starting to be imported to our catalog from OCLC. Can anyone explain why the information presented in the 264 field is considered preferable or more informative than the information that has long been contained in the 260 fields? Thank you for your thoughts on this. Mike McReynolds Cataloging / ILL Librarian Shook, Hardy Bacon Kansas City
Re: [RDA-L] 260 and 264 Fields
Well it would mean multiplicity of location for some information between different records depending upon whether they were AACR2 or RDA, but then we’ll surely get that anyway on hybrid catalogues, and by splitting between 260/264 instead. and actually it’s not functionally more different to have everything under various permutations of 264, which represent different things depending on the indicator, which may or may not register on LMS’s.. keeping the a/b/c in 260 would have lead to a far greater consistency, especially if you often delete the e/f/g anyway as too much information/clutter! ;-) Have good weekends everyone! Cheers Martin From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Breeding, Zora Sent: 21 June 2013 17:27 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 260 and 264 Fields I believe one of the reasons for not using 260 for production and 264 for the other aspects is that in pre RDA records, the 260 contains all the information on publication, distribution, manufacture, and copyright. It would be impossible, therefore to have a meaningful separation of these different functions if all the legacy records mushed it all into the field you are now using for production only. Zora Breeding From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 10:21 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 260 and 264 Fields ...doesn’t 264 1 pretty much replicate 260, however? Personally I would have preferred it if 264 1 could have remained 260, and 264 being for all the other, more ephemeral contributers. Any idea why they didn’t do something like that? My money’s on the fundamentalist lobby working on the same kind of level that requires all records with series entry to have both 490/830, whether they’re the same heading or not ;-) Martin Kelleher Metadata Manager University of Liverpool From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of McDonald, Stephen Sent: 21 June 2013 16:14 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 260 and 264 Fields Because the 264 allows you to have separate fields for production, publication, distribution, manufacture, and copyright, in accordance with RDA, coded so that machine processing can distinguish them. The initial testing of RDA used the 260, and based on the results it was felt that a new repeatable field with indicators was a better solution. Steve McDonald steve.mcdon...@tufts.edumailto:steve.mcdon...@tufts.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mike McReynolds Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 9:44 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] 260 and 264 Fields I've noticed that records with 264 fields and no 260 fields are starting to be imported to our catalog from OCLC. Can anyone explain why the information presented in the 264 field is considered preferable or more informative than the information that has long been contained in the 260 fields? Thank you for your thoughts on this. Mike McReynolds Cataloging / ILL Librarian Shook, Hardy Bacon Kansas City
Re: [RDA-L] Authorized Version (6.23.2.9.2)
Personally, I'd consider 'Authorized Version' to be a relative term, and always understood the generic, universally recognizable term for the 1611 translation to be the King James Bible. I presume there's an academic (and presumably C of E) understanding of 'Authorized Version' as being the formal term for the KJB, but I doubt it's more universal than that. Still, would you go for the formal designation, even if it's religion specific? Best wishes Martin Kelleher Metadata Manager University of Liverpool -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Malcolm Jones Sent: 16 May 2013 14:07 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Authorized Version (6.23.2.9.2) In England, the expression Authorised Version, often simply AV. certainly means the version published in 1611, (also known as the King James Bible) irrespective of the religious denomination of the speaker/writer. Others more familiar than I can speak of N. American usage, but I have always understood that the above practice was common throughout the English speaking world. Is not the German issue one of orthography? In German, nouns must have a capital letter, but adjectives may not. Hence it is impossible to translate the English usage without creating the ambiguity, at leat to an anglophone mind. German speakers may tell us whether or not it is an issue there. Rev'd Malcolm Jones St. Richard's Vicarage Hailsham Road Heathfield East Sussex TN21 8AF tel: 01435 862744 mobile: 07799265097 malc...@peri.co.uk www.peri.co.uk -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: 16 May 2013 13:21 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Authorized Version (6.23.2.9.2) RDA 6.23.2.9.2 says: For books of the Catholic or Protestant canon, record the brief citation form of the Authorized Version as a subdivision of the preferred title for the Bible. Is my interpretation correct that Authorized Version here is not meant in a general sense of some standard version, but rather as a reference to a specific English version of the Bible, namely the King James Bible? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_Version I'm asking because I've just noticed that of the Authorized Version has been translated into German as der autorisierten Version (i.e. of the authorized version, in a general descriptive sense, not as a specific title). This makes it sound as if it was some unspecified, somehow authorized version, which doesn't sound right to me. Also, it wouldn't be helpful as it doesn't tell us who is supposed to do the authorizing (the agency?) and according to which criteria. The French, on the other hand, seem to have deliberately - and, I'd say, very reasonably - changed the meaning: Pour les livres du canon catholique ou protestant, enregistrer une forme brève du titre du livre consacré par l'usage en français comme subdivision du titre privilégié de la Bible. So, they explicitly state that the title of the book should follow French usage. I think 6.23.2.9.2 should be adapted to make it really international, e.g. by saying record the title of the book according to a standard version of the Bible in the language and script preferred by the agency. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Policy statement (effective 2013-3-31) [OCLC - RDA and OCLC]
Hi Mary Ann I don’t see any need for apology – looks pretty relevant! So, my new question is, what format records are we going to be receiving from OCLC? Will collection sets be in RDA format from April 1 as well? Cheers Martin From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mary Ann Abner Sent: 24 January 2013 17:17 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Policy statement (effective 2013-3-31) [OCLC - RDA and OCLC] My apologies for sending this to the list. Mary Ann Mary Ann Abner Technical Services Librarian Jessamine County Public Library 600 South Main Street Nicholasville, KY 40356 mab...@jesspublib.orgmailto:mab...@jesspublib.org Phone: (859) 885-3523 ext. 224 Fax: (859) 885-5164 www.jesspublib.orghttp://www.jesspublib.org/ From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mary Ann Abner Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:47 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Policy statement (effective 2013-3-31) [OCLC - RDA and OCLC] More RDA FYI. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mike McReynolds Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:22 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Policy statement (effective 2013-3-31) [OCLC - RDA and OCLC] OCLC has updated their policy on RDA and AACR2 records to coincide with upcoming changes at the Library of Congress. The link to the revised policy is below. http://www.oclc.org/us/en/rda/new-policy.htm Mike McReynolds Cataloging / Interlibrary Loan Librarian Shook, Hardy Bacon Law Library Kansas City
Re: [RDA-L] 533 in RDA
So essentially the 533 becomes a 264? That's probably not so bad - beats an overlong 260, although that's probably the first difference in publisher treatment between AACR2 and RDA I can see good value in. ;-) A simple global update too, I would have thought! Cheers Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of John Hostage Sent: 22 January 2013 22:07 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 533 in RDA Isn't there a massive contradiction here? Isn't putting the original publisher upfront doing the same as the LCRI? -- John Hostage Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services Langdell Hall 194 Cambridge, MA 02138 host...@law.harvard.edu +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax) -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 16:30 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 533 in RDA Michael Cohen said: So when would use use a 533 field in an RDA record? Never. RDA (like AACR2 but subverted by an LCRI) has one describe what one has in hand or on screen, not the original from which it was reproduced, with the reproduction details in 533. We think original publisher is more important for patrons than who did the reproduction. In AACR2 we use publisher in 260$a$b$c and reproducer in 260$e$f$g. In RDA we use publisher in 264 1, and reproducer as distributor in 246 2. Fields 533 and 534 relegate important imprint information to notes.
Re: [RDA-L] When will RDA truly arrive? Will it truly arrive?
I assumed he meant no-one's actually trialled it on live catalogues, which is the impression I had. Cheers Martin -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: 22 January 2013 16:10 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] When will RDA truly arrive? Will it truly arrive? James Weinheimer wrote: The big boys have said they will implement RDA, but it still has never been road-tested. What do you call the US RDA Test that garnered quite a bit of attention--and even used the live LC/NACO Authority File, to boot--if not a road test? Not to mention all of the cataloging done by libraries that continued to use RDA after the test? Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
Re: [RDA-L] When will RDA truly arrive? Will it truly arrive?
...in which case it's being road tested now! Cheers Martin -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Patricia Sayre-McCoy Sent: 22 January 2013 16:22 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] When will RDA truly arrive? Will it truly arrive? But many libraries have tried in on live catalogues--anyone who is doing RDA now and many libraries who are accepting RDA copy cataloging. Pat Patricia Sayre-McCoy Head, Law Cataloging and Serials D'Angelo Law Library University of Chicago 773-702-9620 p...@uchicago.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 10:19 AM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] When will RDA truly arrive? Will it truly arrive? I assumed he meant no-one's actually trialled it on live catalogues, which is the impression I had. Cheers Martin -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: 22 January 2013 16:10 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] When will RDA truly arrive? Will it truly arrive? James Weinheimer wrote: The big boys have said they will implement RDA, but it still has never been road-tested. What do you call the US RDA Test that garnered quite a bit of attention--and even used the live LC/NACO Authority File, to boot--if not a road test? Not to mention all of the cataloging done by libraries that continued to use RDA after the test? Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designators for commentators and corporate bodies Was: Relationship designators (with typo corrections; thanks
I'd go for the greater granularity, personally. Writer of foreword sounds loads better than the characteristically wordy writer of added commentary, which would, as Steven says, also be misleading. Although even better would be just foreword - although inconsistent in relationship, it's briefer and is all you need. I'm sure if you see a heading with it after the name few would mistake them as BEING the foreword. Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Arakawa, Steven Sent: 08 December 2012 19:40 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designators for commentators and corporate bodies Was: Relationship designators (with typo corrections; thanks Appendix I definition: writer of added commentary: A person, family, or corporate body contributing to an expression of a work by providing an interpretation or critical explanation of the original work. I do not think of authors of introductions as writers of added commentary; these seem to be separate functions based on the examples in 6.27.1.6. The MARC code list for relators has Commentator for written text and, with perhaps too much granularity, Author of afterword, colophon, etc. and Author of introduction, etc. The function of introductions in my experience is often closer to a blurb or a My friend x is as funny today as when we were at Harvard. A commentary seems to me to be a generally scholarly or pseudo-scholarly explication of the original text. Not that I have a better suggestion. On a related note, what would be the best relationship designator for a corporate body functioning as a creator when applying RDA 19.2.1.1.1 a. works of an administrative nature -- b. works that reflect the collective thought or c. report the collective activity of the body? My reading of enacting jurisdiction as a designator term would be that it should not be applied to the annual report of a government department--the designation seems to apply to a limited set of legal applications, such as constitutions. Sponsoring body also seems to be intended for a narrow set of conditions and in any case is in the category of other corporate bodies associated with the work rather than creator. Author seems too broad. 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 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 5:01 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designators (with typo corrections; thanks writer of added commentary ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Fri, 7 Dec 2012, Goldfarb, Kathie wrote: I have been reading the discussions that there are too many relationship designators, differences between types of editors, etc. However, reading through this list - is there a relationship designator for the person who wrote the foreword? The book in hand is: Thorton Wilder, a life ... foreword by Edward Albee. If I use Edward Albee as an added entry, what relationship designator should I use? Or none? With RDA is it expected that all name added entries have the relationship to the book spelled out? I am using some of the books I am cataloging today to 'practice' some of the RDA changes. Thanks kathie Kathleen Goldfarb Technical Services Librarian College of the Mainland Texas City, TX 77539 409 933 8202 ? Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email.
Re: [RDA-L] [ACAT] Main entry in RDA
Hi Has anyone got a handy page of example MARC records displaying the execution FRBR concept? I've been looking around but I can't find anything too definitive Cheers Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Brenndorfer, Thomas Sent: 25 October 2012 23:27 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] [ACAT] Main entry in RDA Good point, and the LC-PCC PS on 2.4.1.5 is to generally not omit names in a statement of responsibility. Far from any limitation to transcribing just the first named person, the example in RDA 2.4.1.5 transcribing many more than one person will be the required form: Roger Colbourne, Suzanne Bassett, Tony Billing, Helen McCormick, John McLennan, Andrew Nelson and Hugh Robertson (if the optional omission in not used: Roger Colbourne [and six others]). Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of M. E. Sent: October 25, 2012 6:08 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] [ACAT] Main entry in RDA J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote: In RDA it is required to transcribe and trace only one. To be accurate, RDA requires transcribing the *first* statement of responsibility, not the first name therein. ... / written by X ; illustrated by Y ; edited by Z. Written by X is the bare minimum (RDA's core) for the 245 $c (RDA's SOR Relating to Title Proper element). RDA's general instruction is to write out all names contained within an SOR, with the option of invoking RDA's rule of three variation for those playing the same role. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
Well, there does seem to be a large amount of discontent, if not widespread rejection of the 330s replacing the GMD. And I see a few others were using similarly user friendly (DVD, book on CD) terms to us, perhaps similarly hoping as we were that this would be the direction things would go in. But is there anything we can actually do about it? Or would that be another 10 year+ revisionary process?? Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer Sent: 24 October 2012 07:58 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA On 23/10/2012 23:25, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote: snip Contradicted by the RDA examples that are compared side-by-side with MARC: http://www.rdatoolkit.org/examples/MARC For display and for data input, assuming these RDA examples will be comparable to actual display and input mechanisms, the RDA method appears much simpler. There are no punctuation rules to worry about separating elements. There are clear demarcations between transcribed elements and recorded elements. There is some added redundancy (such as with authorized access point for the work and Creator having the same Person involved), but these serve to illuminate what entities are being presented and how data elements logically flow together, which can facilitate better workforms and machine processing. Overall, much simpler. /snip Punctuation was always the easiest part of the records for me. I never worried about punctuation and when there did happen to be some detail I couldn't remember, it was very easy to look it up. Punctuation has meaning only to catalogers. I still say that cataloging punctuation could disappear tomorrow and nobody would even notice--except catalogers. I'll leave it up to each person to decide for themselves if RDA is simpler. Certainly from all I have seen, the examples from the RDA Toolkit, discussions on this list and others, it seems to this cataloger at least, that RDA will be far more complicated. Whether it is true that data elements logically (or illogically) flow together as opposed to AACR2's very practical emphasis on workflow, plus adding the relationship designators to authors, and the relationship of all of that data to the WEMI, it becomes much more difficult to conclude that RDA is actually simpler. Added complications would not be a problem if it were clearly seen to be creating something that will be much more useful to the users of our records. That has yet to be demonstrated. There is also the proviso that libraries will have the actual resources (that is, enough trained catalogers) to implement all of it in a decent manner, also called sustainability. Unfortunately, there is no indication that RDA can provide any of that. -- James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.commailto:weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com First Thus http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ Cooperative Cataloging Rules http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ Cataloging Matters Podcasts http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
Hi Richard Well, can’t help but think that this looks like the Cataloguing worlds equivalent of burying under bureaucracy. I was hoping for a populist revolution via the RDA list! Ah, well, I guess I’ll go for it. And maybe if a few others do the same, who knows? Maybe things can change at the 11th hour Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: 24 October 2012 10:18 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Martin There is a revision process for RDA: http://www.rda-jsc.org/revision.html If you wanted to submit a proposal yourself, you would need to discuss doing it through CILIP, as the relevant member body of JSC. That's the way RDA gets revised. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.ukmailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 24 October 2012 10:02 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Well, there does seem to be a large amount of discontent, if not widespread rejection of the 330s replacing the GMD. And I see a few others were using similarly user friendly (DVD, book on CD) terms to us, perhaps similarly hoping as we were that this would be the direction things would go in. But is there anything we can actually do about it? Or would that be another 10 year+ revisionary process?? Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
Well no – AACR2 has spent about 10 years being revised, ending up with something I know I’m not especially happy with, and I’m under the general impression has a lukewarm reception at the best of times... so maybe that’s part of the problem! Martin From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: 24 October 2012 11:35 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA I don't think AACR2 used to be revised through populist revolutions either ... From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 24 October 2012 10:37 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Hi Richard Well, can’t help but think that this looks like the Cataloguing worlds equivalent of burying under bureaucracy. I was hoping for a populist revolution via the RDA list! Ah, well, I guess I’ll go for it. And maybe if a few others do the same, who knows? Maybe things can change at the 11th hour Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: 24 October 2012 10:18 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Martin There is a revision process for RDA: http://www.rda-jsc.org/revision.html If you wanted to submit a proposal yourself, you would need to discuss doing it through CILIP, as the relevant member body of JSC. That's the way RDA gets revised. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.ukmailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 24 October 2012 10:02 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Well, there does seem to be a large amount of discontent, if not widespread rejection of the 330s replacing the GMD. And I see a few others were using similarly user friendly (DVD, book on CD) terms to us, perhaps similarly hoping as we were that this would be the direction things would go in. But is there anything we can actually do about it? Or would that be another 10 year+ revisionary process?? Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
Hi Tom Actually, I guess I’m not that bothered about whether it’s in the title field or not and come to think of it, I’m not even that keen on keeping the old terminologies, and I’ve mentioned a few times what I was hoping RDA might go for – audio CD electronic book electronic journal DVD video And other well known compound terms. But having 3 fields which you then want your system to translate into various results for various uses – why not cut to the chase, do it the other way around, and get your system to identify single, simple terms in whatever ways you need it to? More work for the cataloguer, and probably more work for the system librarian, doing it RDA, surely? And if you didn’t want it in the 245, you’d want it higher than 330, and preferably not dispersed between multiple fields, I think. I wonder whether relying primarily on icons would be better or worse? My gut reaction would be that iconography is more readily dismissed or ignored, not least because it relegates essential information outside of the core informational format (the text record) Cheers Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Meehan, Thomas Sent: 24 October 2012 12:02 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Hello, I would like to quickly say that I think that the abandonment of the GMD and the adoption of a more logically designed system is one of the better bits of RDA (I am not an unalloyed fan of RDA, but I do think it is moving in the right direction, too slowly if anything). Briefly my thoughts, with apologies if any or all of this has already been said: · GMD is not a part of the title so should never be included in with the data elements for the title. · GMD basically uses vague library jargon. “Electronic resource” has already been discussed already as being largely meaningless except in specific contexts. “Music” is another example: it could mean sheet music, CDs, LPs, or an mp3 download depending on who you asked. · GMDs are already being circumvented/ignored, both for search and display: o For searching, our old catalogue uses a combination of 008 and record format to power our ebook search. Our discovery interface (Primo) can identify electronic material without reference to GMDs. o In terms of display, Primo uses icons and its own system of categories to happily distinguish between different formats and (generally at least) present them in a reader-friendly way. We have only used GMDs where we can’t get rid of them. I notice that the University of Liverpool catalogue also uses icons and non-GMD terms for Book, Music, and Film. o Indeed, the issue is not now confined to traditional catalogue records as data from various sources becomes combined and mixed together. To me, the more granular the better to enable a better fit with data from other sources. · I think this is something best done by a computer which can take the three elements and work out what they mean in real terms for the user, especially in combination with format information. Being freer from having to input display values also has lots of other possibilities: tailoring the display for different audiences (e.g. icons for children vs technical description for professors), or even different languages. Even if we do have to keep the GMD, can it pleased be removed far away from the title! Cheers, Tom --- Thomas Meehan Head of Current Cataloguing Library Services University College London Gower Street London WC1E 6BT t.mee...@ucl.ac.ukmailto:t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 24 October 2012 10:37 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Hi Richard Well, can’t help but think that this looks like the Cataloguing worlds equivalent of burying under bureaucracy. I was hoping for a populist revolution via the RDA list! Ah, well, I guess I’ll go for it. And maybe if a few others do the same, who knows? Maybe things can change at the 11th hour Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: 24 October 2012 10:18 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Martin There is a revision process for RDA: http://www.rda-jsc.org/revision.html If you wanted to submit a proposal yourself, you would need to discuss doing it through CILIP, as the relevant member
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
So, the library in question has already decided that 1) the GMD does not work for them -- they had to replace standard GMD terms for specific terms of their own construction, and 2) that they are willing to invest in the effort to modify their records from the standard in order to meet their perception of their clients' needs. More or less correct - and 1) is a common issue, otherwise RDA would never have attempted to rectify the issue. However 2) changing 1 statement is easier than fiddling with 3 seperate fields, and we were hoping RDA would advance in some way which would save doing either. Try buying a television set on Best Buy's website to see this in action I Put in Dracula DVD on Best buy (54 entries) then I tried Dracula video! 1 entry: $14.99 Special Offers: •Free Shipping Castlevania: The Dracula X Chronicles — PRE-OWNED SKU: 1481313 Platform: PSP Rating: T=TeenRelease Date: 9/29/2010 ;-) Cheers Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Myers, John F. Sent: 24 October 2012 14:44 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA So, the library in question has already decided that 1) the GMD does not work for them -- they had to replace standard GMD terms for specific terms of their own construction, and 2) that they are willing to invest in the effort to modify their records from the standard in order to meet their perception of their clients' needs. So the defense of the GMD is not with the AACR2's GMD per se, but with the utility of MARC21's 245$h in providing an embedded flag that both disambiguates otherwise matching titles resulting in: separate hits on a list; and early clarification as to the distinguishing characteristic between two otherwise matching title. This is not an insignificant issue, particularly in current catalogs and current cataloger mindsets. However, as our commercial counterparts have readily shown, it is quite easy to develop a faceting structure in an online catalog that allows patron and cataloger alike to winnow a large set of items down to those meeting specific categories of interest (and combinations thereof) such as brand, price, popularity, etc. (Try buying a television set on Best Buy's website to see this in action.) Deployment of such facets within library catalogs, using the new RDA terms and their corresponding MARC21 336/337/338 fields, could improve access by leveraging the computer to work on record selection, rather than requiring users to scan for the GMD -- the library could offer the facet of VIDEO to capture all video forms in the Media Type, and offer the facets DVD and VHS to capture specific carriers in the Carrier Type. Note that the labels of the facets do not need to match the terminology in RDA: there just has to be mapping between catalog label and RDA term to connect the interface to the records. And on a perhaps more contrarian bent, if one is already doing additional work to modify AACR2 records with respect to the GMD, what is the added burden to continue such work in an RDA environment? John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian Schaffer Library, Union College Schenectady NY 12308 mye...@union.edu 518-388-6623 -Original Message- Kathleen Lamantia wrote: Yes, sorry, of course these are not AACR2 terms, but we do use them and have for years. In fact, they were carefully chosen before I got here. They convey exactly what is needed to staff. As I said in my earlier post, III's field 30 MAT TYPE generates icons which are for patrons using the public display. The 245|h[gmd] is more for staff who see the Millennium interface while performing searches. However, the 245 also appears in the OPAC as an added piece of information for patrons. On 10/23/2012 2:36 PM, Kathleen Lamantia wrote: Our current gmds are very clear and succinct: dvd, compact disc, comic book; book on cd, etc. Why make people try to figure out a combination of 3 terms when one simple clear statement is already in place and tells them what they need? People in this case being staff who are trying to get items to patrons.
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
Transcribed information in transcribed fields only? I can't see the point of
it either, if it makes the nature of that which you're examining more
obscure.
Hear hear to reviving GMDs!
A missed opportunity in RDA was the potential rejigging of GMD into something
more user friendly - instead, we end up with just the opposite, it's removal
and replacement with a clutter of significantly less user-friendly codified
record cloggers (the 330s).
The original GMD terms ARE unwieldy. What we've done for years is combine
carrier and content in fairly well known terms, such as:
DVD video
DVD audio
DVD-ROM
Audio CD
Video CD
CD-ROM
Videocassette
Audiocassette
Shocking, I know, but I suspect it helps people to figure out what we've got
more than the 330s will..
Too late now?
Martin Kelleher
Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian
University of Liverpool
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: 23 October 2012 01:35
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
Michael Bernhard said:
Has anyone suggested that RDA be revised to provide for a GMD (in
addition to the new 33x fields)?
This would be counter to RDA's effort to have only transcribed information in
transcribed fields. The same reasoning was behind the abandonment of [sic]
or supplying missing letters in brackets. I think the reasoning behind no
additions was to make it easier to use captured data without change. Use
without even standardizing punctuation is allowed.
We fail to see what captured data they have in mind. We find ONIX information
often not accurate, and more difficult to adapt than to just start from
scratch, or cut and paste from PDFs.
It was very difficult to get the option of adding missing jurisdictions in
260$a as opposed to a note, but I think that was accepted.
Abandoning the GMD is counter to the findings of a survey done by Jean Riddle
Weihs, as well contrary to common sense. Granted GMDs could have been improved
by making the content/carrier distinction, perhaps even compound GMDs, but with
shorter and more patron friendly terms
than RDA's 33X. The GMD in conjunction with a more exact SMD worked
quite well in our experience. Only systems able to provide understandable
icons will escape the inconvenience of the missing GMD.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
Well, it would still be nonstandard, plus probably isn't set up in most systems to act like GMDs. Assuming the cataloguers at our institution decide on such a direction, we'll probably just keep using $h unless the systems stop accepting them. Given the widespread support for GMD, it may be supported for some time to come, hopefully until the RDA powers-that-be come up with a more effective alternative Failing that, I guess we could use the same terminologies in one of the 330 fields, or perhaps a local field, and either suppress from display or delete the remainder. If we're talking revising RDA, I'd prefer to re-instate the GMDs (with revised terminology) and abolish the 330s - I think that would be quite a popular revision! Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Elizabeth O'Keefe Sent: 23 October 2012 13:03 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA How about using the $k subfield instead? Here is the current MARC definition of this subfield in the 245: $k - Form Term that is descriptive of the form of the described materials, determined by an examination of their physical character, subject of their intellectual content, or the order of information within them (e.g., daybooks, diaries, directories, journals, memoranda, etc.). 245 10$aFour years at Yale :$kdiaries,$f1903 Sept. 16-1907 Oct. 5. 245 00$aPL 17 Hearing Files$kCase Files$f1974$pDistrict 6$hmicrofilm (jacketted in fiche). 245 14$aThe charity ball :$ba comedy in four acts :$ktypescript,$f1889 /$cby David Belasco and Henry C. DeMille. Those who feel the 336-338 triad combinations are insufficient to convey the nature of a resource (we have this issue with three-dimensional objects and with manuscripts) might find the $k subfield in the 245 more hospitable to this type of information. Of course, this would necessitate changes to RDA, but the revision process is ongoing. Liz O'Keefe Elizabeth O'Keefe Director of Collection Information Systems The Morgan Library Museum 225 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016-3405 TEL: 212 590-0380 FAX: 212-768-5680 NET: eoke...@themorgan.org Visit CORSAIR, the Library’s comprehensive collections catalog, now on the web at http://corsair.themorgan.org Kelleher, Martin mart...@liverpool.ac.uk 10/23/2012 5:05 AM Transcribed information in transcribed fields only? I can't see the point of it either, if it makes the nature of that which you're examining more obscure. Hear hear to reviving GMDs! A missed opportunity in RDA was the potential rejigging of GMD into something more user friendly - instead, we end up with just the opposite, it's removal and replacement with a clutter of significantly less user-friendly codified record cloggers (the 330s). The original GMD terms ARE unwieldy. What we've done for years is combine carrier and content in fairly well known terms, such as: DVD video DVD audio DVD-ROM Audio CD Video CD CD-ROM Videocassette Audiocassette Shocking, I know, but I suspect it helps people to figure out what we've got more than the 330s will.. Too late now? Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod Sent: 23 October 2012 01:35 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Michael Bernhard said: Has anyone suggested that RDA be revised to provide for a GMD (in addition to the new 33x fields)? This would be counter to RDA's effort to have only transcribed information in transcribed fields. The same reasoning was behind the abandonment of [sic] or supplying missing letters in brackets. I think the reasoning behind no additions was to make it easier to use captured data without change. Use without even standardizing punctuation is allowed. We fail to see what captured data they have in mind. We find ONIX information often not accurate, and more difficult to adapt than to just start from scratch, or cut and paste from PDFs. It was very difficult to get the option of adding missing jurisdictions in 260$a as opposed to a note, but I think that was accepted. Abandoning the GMD is counter to the findings of a survey done by Jean Riddle Weihs, as well contrary to common sense. Granted GMDs could have been improved by making the content/carrier distinction, perhaps even compound GMDs, but with shorter and more patron friendly terms than RDA's 33X. The GMD in conjunction with a more exact SMD worked quite well in our experience. Only
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
It's just a shame it fails to successfully impart this information in an effective and concise fashion, as could have perhaps been managed with more commonly employed terminology. :-( Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Myers, John F. Sent: 23 October 2012 14:58 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA But a system that unambiguously encodes the nature of these three facets -- content, medium, and carrier -- is the long overdue fulfillment of an important need, and a necessary transition from the fuzzy categories represented by the GMD. John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian Schaffer Library, Union College Schenectady NY 12308 mye...@union.edu 518-388-6623 -Original Message- Michael Bernhard wrote: Has anyone suggested that RDA be revised to provide for a GMD (in addition to the new 33x fields)? Or are the new rules already so set in stone that such a change could not be considered? It seems that many of you in these conversations (and many others whose views you report) see a definite need for the continued application of the GMD. (I apologize for not being aware of the thinking that led to the abandonment of the GMD.)
Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA
Odd we didn't get many fl.s, then - so did NACO used to have neither 'active' or 'fl.'? Seems to be on the MARC21 pagesI'm pretty sure they used to be filtered out according to 1 protocol or another, or perhaps it was just an unpopular practice.. I'm not sure whether 'active' is a better term or not - assuming you continue to limit to a single date, it'll look like whoever is being 'dated' was only active for a year (perhaps in torpor the rest of the time?), whereas flourished has more of a meaning of initialising. Activated? I suppose at least 'active' is a relatively short, uncluttering word! Martin -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: 23 July 2012 11:53 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA Yes, fl. was allowed in AACR2. You'll find it in the examples in AACR2 22.17A, and in many headings across the LC/NAF. Although the examples in RDA 9.19.1.5 spell it out as Flourished, NACO practice follows the LCPS for 9.19.1.1, and prefers Active. I suppose one can be active, without necessarily flourishing. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 23 July 2012 10:07 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA I have never heard (or at least registered) the term common era before, and if I ever saw the term CE, I'd probably think it was something to do with either EU product standards or perhaps the Church of England. mind you, I still expect RDA to regulate what I eat, rather than how I catalogue. Anyway, as a replacement term I'm sure it's Doubleplusgood! Oh hang on is that what I meant? What's that other opinion. can't quite think of the term. express.. ;-) Anyway, Fl. wasn't allowed under AARC2 was it? I thought that was one of the more reasonable (re)introductions of RDA, albeit characteristically spelled out in the closest English term, in case it doesn't clutter the record enough as an abbreviation? ;-) Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool ** Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library’s new interactive Annual Report and Accounts 2010/11 : http://www.bl.uk/annualreport2010-11http://www.bl.uk/knowledge Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled * The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the mailto:postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. * Think before you print
Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA
Strange, then... I've been labouring under the illusion we were dissenters all this time, whereas actually we were entirely conformist! Well, I'm not sure what we'll go for in the end - although I think locally we'll probably prefer fl./flourished/active over adding occupations, not least because of the issue of polymathy, but these things are yet to be deterimined Cheers! Martin -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: 23 July 2012 13:42 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA A quick search on our local copy of the LC/NAF reveals 28332 personal name headings containing the characters fl. That will include some name-titles. The LCRI limited its use, except exceptionally, to spans of dates and to pre-20th century persons. Neither RDA nor the LCPS has either of those limitations. So in theory you could break a conflict with active 1989 when a sole publication was known, though a qualifier for the person's occupation would almost always be more helpful. Which is why the LCPS for 9.19.1.1 advises the use of judgement in selecting the best qualifier, rather than rigidly following the RDA order of precedence in 9.19.14-9.19.1.6. Regards Richard -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 23 July 2012 12:43 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA Odd we didn't get many fl.s, then - so did NACO used to have neither 'active' or 'fl.'? Seems to be on the MARC21 pagesI'm pretty sure they used to be filtered out according to 1 protocol or another, or perhaps it was just an unpopular practice.. I'm not sure whether 'active' is a better term or not - assuming you continue to limit to a single date, it'll look like whoever is being 'dated' was only active for a year (perhaps in torpor the rest of the time?), whereas flourished has more of a meaning of initialising. Activated? I suppose at least 'active' is a relatively short, uncluttering word! Martin -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: 23 July 2012 11:53 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA Yes, fl. was allowed in AACR2. You'll find it in the examples in AACR2 22.17A, and in many headings across the LC/NAF. Although the examples in RDA 9.19.1.5 spell it out as Flourished, NACO practice follows the LCPS for 9.19.1.1, and prefers Active. I suppose one can be active, without necessarily flourishing. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 23 July 2012 10:07 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA I have never heard (or at least registered) the term common era before, and if I ever saw the term CE, I'd probably think it was something to do with either EU product standards or perhaps the Church of England. mind you, I still expect RDA to regulate what I eat, rather than how I catalogue. Anyway, as a replacement term I'm sure it's Doubleplusgood! Oh hang on is that what I meant? What's that other opinion. can't quite think of the term. express.. ;-) Anyway, Fl. wasn't allowed under AARC2 was it? I thought that was one of the more reasonable (re)introductions of RDA, albeit characteristically spelled out in the closest English term, in case it doesn't clutter the record enough as an abbreviation? ;-) Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool ** Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library's new interactive Annual Report and Accounts 2010/11 : http://www.bl.uk/annualreport2010-11http://www.bl.uk/knowledge Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled * The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient
Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA
Hi Richard Nope! Well not uniformly, not by a long chalk. We use fairly nonstandard headings (although not as nonstandard as I thought, apparently), and internally maintained authorities, although bulk loads of ebooks mean we go for NAF headings where consistency can be maintained with our own standards where possible. I guess we may go more or less standard according to how fully we apply RDA The BL isn't entirely NACO though, is it? There always seem to be inconsistencies between the BL, LoC and OCLC anyway, as far as I can tell, but maybe I've not checked up on it so much recently. Cheers! Martin -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: 23 July 2012 15:31 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA The thing with occupations, is that while you ACO, can only add one to an access point to make it unique (and the far-sighted among us regard access points as ephemeral, apparently), you can record as many as you like as discrete data elements in the 374 MARC field. So RDA authority records become much more useful as devices for machines to identify and match authors across different databases, even if you are blessed with a discovery layer that renders them invisible to users. Does the University of Liverpool not use the LC/NAF? Regards Richard -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 23 July 2012 15:14 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA Strange, then... I've been labouring under the illusion we were dissenters all this time, whereas actually we were entirely conformist! Well, I'm not sure what we'll go for in the end - although I think locally we'll probably prefer fl./flourished/active over adding occupations, not least because of the issue of polymathy, but these things are yet to be deterimined Cheers! Martin -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: 23 July 2012 13:42 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA A quick search on our local copy of the LC/NAF reveals 28332 personal name headings containing the characters fl. That will include some name-titles. The LCRI limited its use, except exceptionally, to spans of dates and to pre-20th century persons. Neither RDA nor the LCPS has either of those limitations. So in theory you could break a conflict with active 1989 when a sole publication was known, though a qualifier for the person's occupation would almost always be more helpful. Which is why the LCPS for 9.19.1.1 advises the use of judgement in selecting the best qualifier, rather than rigidly following the RDA order of precedence in 9.19.14-9.19.1.6. Regards Richard -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 23 July 2012 12:43 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA Odd we didn't get many fl.s, then - so did NACO used to have neither 'active' or 'fl.'? Seems to be on the MARC21 pagesI'm pretty sure they used to be filtered out according to 1 protocol or another, or perhaps it was just an unpopular practice.. I'm not sure whether 'active' is a better term or not - assuming you continue to limit to a single date, it'll look like whoever is being 'dated' was only active for a year (perhaps in torpor the rest of the time?), whereas flourished has more of a meaning of initialising. Activated? I suppose at least 'active' is a relatively short, uncluttering word! Martin -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: 23 July 2012 11:53 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA Yes, fl. was allowed in AACR2. You'll find it in the examples in AACR2 22.17A, and in many headings across the LC/NAF. Although the examples in RDA 9.19.1.5 spell it out as Flourished, NACO practice follows the LCPS for 9.19.1.1, and prefers Active. I suppose one can be active, without necessarily flourishing. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk -Original Message- From: Resource
[RDA-L] FW: RDA
Hi all Here are the findings of the little survey I ran. There were some issues regarding LMS compatibility, but in general most respondents seemed to be taking on most of RDA, although those planning on implementing the whole of the rules were in the minority. The greatest sticking point is clearly the loss of the apparently very popular GMD, which is also one of our greatest concerns and most likely point of dissent, with issues over excess of detail in the 260 being primary amongst other issues. The average date of planned implementation is generally early next year, around March. Results for us I’d guess are that, emboldened by popular consensus here, we may well retain use of the GMD and abandon the 330 fields, which are universally unpopular amongst our team. May well declutter the 260 as well. I’m surprised there wasn’t further concern over excess of information in author authority headings, where I think we’ll be likely to be removing occupational info as unnecessarily cluttering. These are my early predictions, our team will doubtless make final decisions according to consensus over the next few months. The survey also reassures me that we don’t need to push ourselves to changeover too quickly, so we’ll have time to prepare at our own casual pace for a changeover sometime early next year. Here are the results in full. There were 8 replies, which I’ve translated into percentages, just to get a clearer picture of results: 1. How much of RDA are you (planning on) implementing? Most=50 All=37.5 Awaiting developments with LMS before deciding=12.5 2. When did you/will you implement RDA? Early 2013=62.5 Already implemented=12.5 2014=12.5 Awaiting developments with LMS=12.5 3. Are there any aspects of AACR2 you are planning on retaining? Keeping / considering keeping GMD over 330 fields = 62.5 None – full RDA implementation=37.5 Retain older standards for some aspects of 260=37.5 May reject DESC $i=25 Reject 040 $e=12.5 Full author detail in 245 /|c, contributing authors remain less emphasized than main authors=12.5 Thanks to everyone who responded! Best wishes Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool From: Joseph, Angelina [mailto:angelina.jos...@marquette.edu] Sent: 02 July 2012 16:30 To: Kelleher, Martin Subject: RDA Martin: Please post your survey result on the list as it is OK with Barbara Tillet at JSC. -- angelina Angelina Joseph Cataloging Librarian Ray Kay Eckstein Law Library Marquette University Milwaukee, WI 53201 Ph: 414-288-5553 Fax: 414-288-5914 email: angelina.jos...@marquette.edumailto:angelina.jos...@marquette.edu
[RDA-L] How RDA is everything going to be?
Hi all Now that the BL are apparently implementing RDA, we're considering what we're actually going to do at the University of Liverpool. This will partly be dependent on the extent of take up in the industry as a whole, so I was wondering if I could conduct an informal poll - all responses gratefully accepted! 1. How much of RDA are you (planning on) implementing? 1. When did you/will you implement RDA? 3. Are there any aspects of AACR2 you are planning on retaining? (Make answers as super-brief or lengthy as you wish, and obviously put none/never/as little as possible or whatever reply is relevant if such is the case!) If anyone knows of any similar survey I may have missed, I'd be grateful if you could let me know about it! Thanks Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpoo
Re: [RDA-L] How RDA is everything going to be?
Hi Barbara
Actually, that was what I was essentially after - please send responses to
mart...@liverpool.ac.uk.
Cheers!
Martin
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Tillett, Barbara
Sent: 02 July 2012 12:11
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] How RDA is everything going to be?
Mr. Kelleher: Please do your survey off the list to your own email address
(your email address is not included when the information is sent via the
listserv).
I'm sure the participants in this list would like to know the outcomes of your
informal survey, and you are very welcome to announce your survey on this list,
but this listserv is not the place for conducting your survey.
I will be glad to send you the information for the Library of Congress when you
tell me your email address - where to send my response.
Thanks - Barbara Tillett, JSC Chair
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 5:43 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] How RDA is everything going to be?
Hi all
Now that the BL are apparently implementing RDA, we're considering what we're
actually going to do at the University of Liverpool. This will partly be
dependent on the extent of take up in the industry as a whole, so I was
wondering if I could conduct an informal poll - all responses gratefully
accepted!
1. How much of RDA are you (planning on) implementing?
1. When did you/will you implement RDA?
3. Are there any aspects of AACR2 you are planning on retaining?
(Make answers as super-brief or lengthy as you wish, and obviously put
none/never/as little as possible or whatever reply is relevant if such is the
case!)
If anyone knows of any similar survey I may have missed, I'd be grateful if you
could let me know about it!
Thanks
Martin Kelleher
Electroniut this listserv is not the place for conducting your survey.
I will be glad to send you the information for the Library of Congress when you
tell me your email address - where to send my response.
Thanks - Barbara Tillett, JSC Chair
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 5:43 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:rd...@listserv.lac-BAC.GC0;
head
meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html; charset=Windows-1252
meta name=Generator content=Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)
style!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria Math;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:Balloon Text Char;
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:Balloon Text Char;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:Balloon Text;
font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--/style!--[if gte mso 9]xml
o:shapedefaults v:ext=edit spidmax=1026 /
/xml![endif]--!--[if gte mso 9]xml
o:shapelayout v:ext=edit
o:idmap v:ext=edit data=1 /
/o:shapelayout/xml![endif]--
/head
body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple
div class=WordSection1
p class=MsoNormalspan style=color:#1F497DHi
Barbarao:p/o:p/span/p
p class=MsoNormalspan style=color:#1F497Do:pnbsp;/o:p/span/p
p class=MsoNormalspan style=color:#1F497DActually, that was what I was
essentially after - please send responses to
mart...@liverpool.ac.uk.o:p/o:p/span/p
p class=MsoNormalspan style=color:#1F497Do:pnbsp;/o:p/span/p
p class=MsoNormalspan style=color:#1F497DCheers!o:p/o:p
Re: [RDA-L] Showing birth and death dates
I very much agree fl. probably isn't very standard, but it is a very handy way of distinguishing author. Spelling it out, along with a number of other planned expansions, are not going to do any catalogue favours in terms of accessibility, because you're just going to end up with a lot of clutter. Same with p., ill. Etc. The risk of readers not knowing what the abbreviations refer to (or figuring it out using that wonderful invention, common sense) is worth taking against having records full of excessive explanatory termage, I believe. Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mike Tribby Sent: 30 January 2012 15:11 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Showing birth and death dates Some AACR2-isms, like [s.l.], seem pretty clearly to be outside of the norm for an English-speaking person who is not a cataloger or a pedant (but perhaps I repeat myself, here ;)). But others, like circa or flourished seem less clear-cut. (They both show up in Webster's, for example.) And when we start replacing circa with approximately and flourished 1532-1593 with approximately 1532-approximately 1593, aren't we encroaching on IFLA's principle 2.7, Economy? Not to mention our apparent assumption that the same patrons who are befuddled by vi, 666 p. : col. ill. ; 28 cm. are not befuddled by the cm part with or without a period making it an abbreviation. Regardless of how we render the cm and whether or not we accept that it has been endowed by its sponsoring organization as not an abbreviation, it _functions_ as an abbreviation in a cataloging record and saying that it is less confusing to patrons for some unknown reason is, I think, wishful thinking at best. By far the mors frequent question I field about the contents of the 300 field is along the lines of Centimeters? Why centimeters? Y'know the USPS two-letter codes for states of the United States are officially not abbreviations either: why not avail ourselves of them? It's not like their defining agency is any more or less a bibliographic agency than the one that rules metric names and non-abbreviations. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] general interest in RDA
All very progressivist, But, it's always a worry that we're genetically engineering a Dodo. Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Weinheimer Jim Sent: 11 February 2011 14:14 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] general interest in RDA Barbara, I agree with what you say almost completely. Libraries must update their world views to include what the general public actually uses by adapting to the new information environment, or as I described it in my talk at the RDA@yourlibrary conference, these are matters of Darwinian survival.
Re: [RDA-L] general interest in RDA
I have to say, I almost initiated going through RDA to integrate it into our procedures, only to be discouraged by finding out it was still in a far-too-tentative-sounding test run phase. it has been accepted by LoC now, at least, hasn’t it? Still, we’re waiting to see it properly finalised before attempted to integrate it. Best wishes Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Diane Krall Sent: 10 February 2011 15:22 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] general interest in RDA Mike Tribby said: At this point any librarian interested in cataloging or the functioning of their catalog *should* at least know about RDA, but so far many don't seem to have that knowledge or any interest. I have to agree, based on 2 personal experiences. The head of Tech Services at my library has been asking what our ILS vendor's plans are for RDA, but they seem to be totally unaware of it. Also, in speaking with MLS students from Indiana Univ. as part of a cataloging assignment, I asked them if their instructor had taught them anything about RDA, thinking that surely they have at least shown them a comparison between an AACR2 and an RDA record for the same title Their response ran something like this: Well, she mentioned that something else was in the works, but it's not been implemented (read: written in stone) yet, so they aren't even talking about it. This was Fall 2010. Diane Krall Hamilton East Public Library RDA--well, there's a moving target CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message from Hamilton East Public Library (including all attachments) is for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, copying or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
Re: [RDA-L] Amazon to MARC
I have to say, I'd expect Amazon to have more relevant/publisher/edition specific records than anything from IMDb. Does this site cover the multiplicity of Amazons (i.e. Amazom.co.uk, Amazon.de) etc., do you know, or just Amazon.com? Best wishes Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Galen Charlton Sent: 17 January 2011 20:03 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Amazon to MARC Hi, On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 2:46 PM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote: I would be more interested in a system which harvests MARC records from IMDb. There is a much larger oercentage of records for motion pictures acquired as DVDs by libraies lacking MARC records, to be found on IMDb, than library books lacking MARC records to be found on Amazon. Though a great many commercially available DVDs can be found on Amazon, no? That said, I agree that a similar service built on IMDb would be very useful. Regards, Galen -- Galen Charlton gmcha...@gmail.com
Re: [RDA-L] Combining book e-book bibs and RDA prep
We found that the opposite of all this was true: Having multiple formats
attached to the same records only confused our readers, leading many to assume
there was only 1 format, and to fail to notice (often) one of the other. In
other words FRBR has failed to be justified by experience in our library, at
least in this respect.
Proximity to the physical site of the library, and nature of users also has
temendous influence on requirement of format, and, increasingly it does matter
to them what format's they use. Distance users do not want to know about print
materials, particularly, for example.
Amazon, Play et al. don't stick multiple formats on the same records either,
and for once I agree with them.
In a world of unstable (and enormous) e-book collections, the manual monitoring
of individual records, and work required for integration with print
collections, do not appear to me to be justifiable by our experience. So we
will almost certainly not be following the new orthodoxy in this fashion (if it
is ever really established! Have LoC accepted it all yet? It still all looks a
bit vague to me)
Best wishes
Martin Kelleher
Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian
University of Liverpool
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Ed Jones
Sent: 13 November 2010 17:04
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Combining book e-book bibs and RDA prep
What one does locally is of course one's own business. From the
time-constrained remote user's point of view, an argument could be made for
doing the opposite, i.e. attaching holdings for the physical item to the
bibliographic record for the electronic form. This would allow one to take
advantage of codes in the MARC leader (record label) and 008 to restrict a
search to resources instantly available to the user.
Ed Jones
National University (San Diego, Calif.)
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Wardroper, Lawrence
[lawrence.wardro...@cas-satj.gc.ca]
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 7:08 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Combining book e-book bibs and RDA prep
I am no expert on RDA but, have been wanting to do something like that for some
time.
Yes, it is work but, seems more in tune with the reality of what people want: I
want this work (?), I will decide later if I want print, fiche, braille, PDF
via the web... you fill in the blank. I don't care but, to me, they are all
copies of the same thing. and a user would / could be most interested in the
content first, format second.
All in all, it means getting off the 'Biblio'graphic orientation that we have
had for a long time. Which I think is part of what RDA is all about.
Lawrence Wardroper
Service de la bibliothèque | Library Services Service administratif des
tribunaux judiciaires | Courts Administration Service 90, rue Sparks, Ottawa ON
K1A 0H9 lawrence.wardro...@cas-satj.gc.ca Téléphone | Telephone 613-996-8735
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 7:09 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Combining book e-book bibs and RDA prep
Megan Curran said:
Currently in our catalog (SirsiDynix Horizon) we have e-book records =
separate from the records of the same title in print, although in the =
print record we include a 856 that has the URL to the e-book version. =
Currently our e-book records do not have item records attached. We are
= considering changing our records so that the bib record for the print
book = will have item records representing both the print and
electronic forms, = with no e-book bib record.
This would seem a backward step to me, and contrary to both AACR2 and RDA,
which would have you catalogue the electronic resource, not its original.
The need for a GMD in AACR2 electronic resource records, and different 3XX
fields in RDA, as well as differing fixed fields (even if you use multiple
terms in 3XX) would be a compromise. We do not yet have expression level
records. Were I you I would use separate records with 530/776 in each.
Although the provider neutral standard does not require 530, we find patrons
understand 530 better than 776.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Combining book e-book bibs and RDA prep
Ooops, just realised that So in that case, and fairly unusually, I'm supporting RDA against dissent! Still finding this all confusing in a way OK, if I get this right, all RDA really does is re-emphasize the practice for using uniform titles over and above individual title, making it difficult to represent format in title at all by removing the option Am I right? Cheers, Martin Kelleher -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Peter Schouten Sent: 15 November 2010 10:21 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Combining book e-book bibs and RDA prep In other words FRBR has failed to be justified by experience in our library, at least in this respect. Multiple formats means different Expression in FRBR, so different manifestations/records. FRBR does not prescribe attaching multiple formats to the same record. Peter Schouten -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] Namens Kelleher, Martin Verzonden: maandag 15 november 2010 11:10 Aan: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Onderwerp: Re: [RDA-L] Combining book e-book bibs and RDA prep We found that the opposite of all this was true: Having multiple formats attached to the same records only confused our readers, leading many to assume there was only 1 format, and to fail to notice (often) one of the other. In other words FRBR has failed to be justified by experience in our library, at least in this respect. Proximity to the physical site of the library, and nature of users also has temendous influence on requirement of format, and, increasingly it does matter to them what format's they use. Distance users do not want to know about print materials, particularly, for example. Amazon, Play et al. don't stick multiple formats on the same records either, and for once I agree with them. In a world of unstable (and enormous) e-book collections, the manual monitoring of individual records, and work required for integration with print collections, do not appear to me to be justifiable by our experience. So we will almost certainly not be following the new orthodoxy in this fashion (if it is ever really established! Have LoC accepted it all yet? It still all looks a bit vague to me) Best wishes Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Ed Jones Sent: 13 November 2010 17:04 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Combining book e-book bibs and RDA prep What one does locally is of course one's own business. From the time-constrained remote user's point of view, an argument could be made for doing the opposite, i.e. attaching holdings for the physical item to the bibliographic record for the electronic form. This would allow one to take advantage of codes in the MARC leader (record label) and 008 to restrict a search to resources instantly available to the user. Ed Jones National University (San Diego, Calif.) From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Wardroper, Lawrence [lawrence.wardro...@cas-satj.gc.ca] Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 7:08 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Combining book e-book bibs and RDA prep I am no expert on RDA but, have been wanting to do something like that for some time. Yes, it is work but, seems more in tune with the reality of what people want: I want this work (?), I will decide later if I want print, fiche, braille, PDF via the web... you fill in the blank. I don't care but, to me, they are all copies of the same thing. and a user would / could be most interested in the content first, format second. All in all, it means getting off the 'Biblio'graphic orientation that we have had for a long time. Which I think is part of what RDA is all about. Lawrence Wardroper Service de la bibliothèque | Library Services Service administratif des tribunaux judiciaires | Courts Administration Service 90, rue Sparks, Ottawa ON K1A 0H9 lawrence.wardro...@cas-satj.gc.ca Téléphone | Telephone 613-996-8735 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 7:09 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Combining book e-book bibs and RDA prep Megan Curran said: Currently in our catalog (SirsiDynix Horizon) we have e-book records = separate from the records of the same title in print, although in the = print record we include a 856 that has the URL
Re: [RDA-L] Combining book e-book bibs and RDA prep
I think you understand what I'm asking, if I understand your reply! Yes, I think my revised understanding is essentially correct. I was just briefly confused, I'm afraid, because I thought the thread I joined represented RDA practice, which it looks like they don't. As for the tripartite replacements for GMD, I've disparaged them before, so rather than repeat myself, I think I'll leave them alone now Thank you! Best wishes Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Peter Schouten Sent: 15 November 2010 10:46 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Combining book e-book bibs and RDA prep I don't know if I understand what you are asking, if I don't, I'm sorry for pointing out the obvious below :) Bibliographic descriptions can be grouped by the uniform Work title, but for identification purposes the title proper of the manifestations are as accurately transcribed or harvested as possible. Each manifestation record will have a media type, carrier type and content type, which can be displayed in text or as an image, so the user can quickly identify the resource for the format the description represents. Regards, Peter Schouten Ingressus BV -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] Namens Kelleher, Martin Verzonden: maandag 15 november 2010 11:28 Aan: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Onderwerp: Re: [RDA-L] Combining book e-book bibs and RDA prep Ooops, just realised that So in that case, and fairly unusually, I'm supporting RDA against dissent! Still finding this all confusing in a way OK, if I get this right, all RDA really does is re-emphasize the practice for using uniform titles over and above individual title, making it difficult to represent format in title at all by removing the option Am I right? Cheers, Martin Kelleher -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Peter Schouten Sent: 15 November 2010 10:21 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Combining book e-book bibs and RDA prep In other words FRBR has failed to be justified by experience in our library, at least in this respect. Multiple formats means different Expression in FRBR, so different manifestations/records. FRBR does not prescribe attaching multiple formats to the same record. Peter Schouten -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] Namens Kelleher, Martin Verzonden: maandag 15 november 2010 11:10 Aan: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Onderwerp: Re: [RDA-L] Combining book e-book bibs and RDA prep We found that the opposite of all this was true: Having multiple formats attached to the same records only confused our readers, leading many to assume there was only 1 format, and to fail to notice (often) one of the other. In other words FRBR has failed to be justified by experience in our library, at least in this respect. Proximity to the physical site of the library, and nature of users also has temendous influence on requirement of format, and, increasingly it does matter to them what format's they use. Distance users do not want to know about print materials, particularly, for example. Amazon, Play et al. don't stick multiple formats on the same records either, and for once I agree with them. In a world of unstable (and enormous) e-book collections, the manual monitoring of individual records, and work required for integration with print collections, do not appear to me to be justifiable by our experience. So we will almost certainly not be following the new orthodoxy in this fashion (if it is ever really established! Have LoC accepted it all yet? It still all looks a bit vague to me) Best wishes Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Ed Jones Sent: 13 November 2010 17:04 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Combining book e-book bibs and RDA prep What one does locally is of course one's own business. From the time-constrained remote user's point of view, an argument could be made for doing the opposite, i.e. attaching holdings for the physical item to the bibliographic record for the electronic form. This would allow one to take advantage of codes in the MARC leader (record label) and 008 to restrict a search to resources instantly available to the user. Ed Jones National University (San Diego
Re: [RDA-L] RDA records in the LC catalogue
See inserts. Cheers! Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod Sent: 25 October 2010 19:47 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] RDA records in the LC catalogue In a brief display such as the one above, we would encourage our clients to display 338 and 336 above the data, as opposed to a Type of Material phrase based on a fixed field. That phrase is far less helpful than the old GMD. =I have to say, I find all of this stuff to be a wallowing in unneccesarily complicated terminology, and the relegation of format to such a lower level to be a tremendous mistake. Even with GMD we find users often fail to realise what media is represented, something I doubt will be improved with this relegation. And the continued useage of such antiquated terms such as videodisc for DVDs, a term which I have never seen used outside of library records, flies hypocritically in the face of the casual removal of far more universal abbreviations and continues the trend toward pointless cluttering we should have stopped performing years ago. In the record above, we like the giving of all non cast credits in 508 as opposed to having some in 245/$c. We like Blu Ray in 300 as opposed 538, but would have used it as the SMD. We would use 501 rather than 505 for Special features, since the 505 does not contain the main feature. We like the absense of 710s for commercial production companies. Why a 730 duplicating the 245? We would delete it. =We'd completely agree with all this too. Putting half the credits for films in the 245 never made any sense, and ends up obscuring more important elements (such as the title) The use of computer as media type for an electronic resource is *very* confusing. We would substitute ISBD Area 0's electronic. = again, I completely agree - half this terminology is far more genuinely antiquated than half of the stuff RDA carelessly discards We know cm is considered a symbol, not an abbreviation. But how did in. escape being spelled out? Aren't ed.. v. and p. just as well known as in.? =I'd say so - along with et al., ill., and other far more universal terms than videodisc, which sounds like an antiquated media format from about 1985 ___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Bibliography and index
This is the way I've always understood it Personally I'd prefer to stick to this if possible rather than splitting up what was neatly contained in 1 field than 2. Previous practice always seemed a bit arbitrarily inconsistent though - Bibliography / index go in separate fields, but the 'lesser bibliography' of bibliographic references suddenly shift the index into the bibliographic note! Personally I'd put the both in the 504, and include the 'full-on' bibliographies and indexes in the same note as well. In other words, I'd go for less, rather than more, fields, so if that's what RDA proscribes (or allows), I'm all for it. Best wishes Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Mark Ehlert Sent: 05 September 2010 06:56 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Bibliography and index J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote: RDA 7.16.1.1 (earlier draft) shows the examples: Includes index. Bibliography: pages 859-910. There is no indication of wording to use for footnotes, still Includes bibliographic references? Wording isn't prescribed, nor is any reference(!) made to approaches between recording footnotes and recording bibliographies. Judging from RDA's very general guidelines, such distinctions may be made at the local or community level. Will most of us be willing to give up the handy: 504 $aIncludes bibliograhic references (p. 859-910) and index.? Doubtful. But isn't that an LC practice as opposed to AACR2? Will they continue that practice? Quoting from the LCPS 7.16.1.3 (essentially unchanged from LCRI 2.7B18): BIBLIOGRAPHY NOTE If a publication contains bibliographical citations in any form, generally use the following note: 504 ## $a Includes bibliographical references. If there is a single bibliography, add the foliation/pagination to the note. 504 ## $a Includes bibliographical references (pages 310-325). With respect to bibliographic citations and bibliographies, interpret the phrase bibliographical references to include all kinds of resources, including electronic resources; do not give any special treatment to, or provide special mention of, the latter if using this general bibliographical reference note. INDEXES If the publication contains an index to its own contents, use one of the following notes: 500 ## $a Includes index. 500 ## $a Includes indexes. The bibliography note and the index note may be combined. 504 ## $a Includes bibliographical references and index. Doesn't spelling out pages here depart from practice for citations in the scholarly community? Probably, judging from the few popular style manual instructions I know. This would presumably return Includes index to 500? You mean when also recording the presence of a bibliography? RDA couldn't care less if the bibliography and index notes are in the same field or not, just as long as they fall under the umbrella of 7.16 Supplementary Content. Outside of LC's interpretation, MARC practice, as you know, allows for encoding the combination in a single field: When the presence of an index is also mentioned in a bibliography note, field 504 is used (http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd504.html). -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex Coordinator University of Minnesota Bibliographic Technical 15 Andersen Library Services (BATS) Unit 222 21st Avenue South Phone: 612-624-0805 Minneapolis, MN 55455-0439 http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
Re: [RDA-L] Time and effort
Hi Jim It's these statements which I find most contentious, and certainly don't reflect my experience - switching to keyword searches as default has either failed to register in statistics of use as especially popular (i.e. presumably people switched to title browse searches, despite the default), or resulted in outrage from the users upon introduction in another institution. People like Google searches, but only when they work well. Google itself often does work well, but many google-like databases and search engines don't neccesarily cut the mustard so well. Furthermore, there is a difference between seatching for whatever there is and looking for something in particular: Once it's known what is actually desired, browse searches are inevitably preferable, and often (justifiably) preferred. Google works better than most keyword based search engines on defaulting to a browse like specifity when that is relevant, but even there, you can lose even exact hits in a slew of less relevant hits very easily. And numerous library meta-search engines struggle to match it in their efficiency, unfortunately. But the Google effect, myth or no myth, continues to be used as an excuse to, well, not bother, at the end of the day, based on the dream that keyword is king - whereas a better way of looking at it would probably be it's a particularly popular fruit, even if people get sick of all the pips But still end up buying because it's the only one that's sold in all the shops, or even because they don't know there are so many other fruits.. Cheers! Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Weinheimer Jim Sent: 03 September 2010 08:59 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Time and effort and that the traditional way is not even of primary concern with our patrons today; in fact, even the very concepts of the traditional methods are becoming more and more removed from the experience of younger patrons. My evidence for this is that people genuinely like Google-type searching and databases, and it is *impossible* to do anything like the FRBR tasks in those databases. They prefer these methods to ours. Therefore, to maintain that the public wants and needs the FRBR tasks is illogical and untenable. Once again, I shall state that *I do not know* how people search information and how they use it. I have noticed tremendous changes in my own patterns, and what I have witnessed from people I work with, it is also very different. Since I understand how traditional access methods work, I can also see that these new methods are lacking in many ways (e.g. not even any decent author searches??), and in the hands of people less trained, these new patterns can lead to incredible confusion and frustration.
Re: [RDA-L] Time and effort
Personally, I think all librarians (all the way to the top!) should periodically manage enquiries in some way or other. I think it's the best way to get a personal understanding of the user base, and helps to put all aspects of information work in perspective. Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Weinheimer Jim Sent: 02 September 2010 09:50 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Time and effort Miksa, Shawne wrote: snip Jim unbelievable wrote: But it must be accepted that catalogers are *most definitely NOT* the people to know what people need from information. That can only come from reference librarians and the public, the researchers, scholars, and students, themselves. With all due respect---what planet are you on, Jim? Come back to this one. Where do you get this stuff? Let me welcome you to the 21st century where catalogers are user-centric, born and bred. We start from the point of the user--what are their needs, how do we organize it to help them meet those needs; how do the choices we make as organizers affect their ability to find, identify, select, obtain, navigate.and so on. Let's call it functionality, shall we? Only a reference librarian, and not a cataloging librarian, can know what people need from information? Bulldada. If there is an instance of this then it occurs when a cataloger gets so wrapped up in the 'brilliance' of their own cataloging skills that they can't see the forest for the trees. Done. Outta here. Buh-bye. /snip I will state that in order to find out what the different needs are of different people, you must actually work with those people. A cataloger, whose work is necessarily done away from the public, *cannot do this*, unless he or she also works in reference, but then that is the reference-librarian-half of the multi-tasking librarian doing the work. (And I will state that it is highly difficult to be very good on both duties--one of the reasons why I have suggested that perhaps the current AACR2 cataloging standards may already be too high) Before OPACs, a cataloger may have had practically no contact with the users. Today, the most a *cataloger* can do is read and analyse log files, those lists of searches done, and then try to *logically divine* what people really want and if those searches are correctly done or not. Of course, such conclusions may be far off the mark. Working with the patrons (i.e. reference) is the only reliable way of discovering what they may want. When you say that 21st century catalogers (a group to which I, apparently, do not belong) are user-centric, born and bred, I personally haven't seen it. In fact, the cataloging community's declaration that what people want from information is to find/identify/select/obtain etc. is the most convincing evidence that I can supply. This is *ABSOLUTELY NOT* what people want when searching for information. How in the world can I state that so blatantly? Just by watching people and talking with them, something catalogers cannot do unless they also work as reference librarians. People prefer Google searching to searching library catalogs, I think there can be little dispute on that. And they say that they get better results. People *cannot* do the FRBR-type of searching or retrieval there, since there isn't even an option of searching by author, title, or subject searching, much less WEMI retrieval possibilities. Yet, people like it better and say they get better results. There is an obvious contradiction here, and makes the cataloging community look very backward, indeed. Instead of explaining away all of these contradictions or ignoring them, we need to understand what is going on and figure out new possibilities that will make a genuine difference to our patrons, and thereby to our own work. If catalogers insist that they know it all, woe be to everyone! James Weinheimer j.weinhei...@aur.edu Director of Library and Information Services The American University of Rome via Pietro Roselli, 4 00153 Rome, Italy voice- 011 39 06 58330919 ext. 258 fax-011 39 06 58330992 First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
[RDA-L] Basic info
Hi all Could someone tell me where to look for a very general run down of changes from AACR2 to RDA? I've called a cataloguing meeting in which we're going to be discussing RDA, and I'd like to make sure I'm aware of all the main areas of interest before that, as well as preferably being able to direct others to it to read up beforehand as well. Best wishes Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool
Re: [RDA-L] Basic info
Hi Hugh, Thank you very much! That seems perfect. Cheers, Martin -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Hugh Taylor Sent: 23 April 2010 12:40 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Basic info Martin (and others), JSC website http://www.rda-jsc.org/working2.html#sec-7 Others may have compiled (or attempted to compile) their own lists, of course. Hugh -- Hugh Taylor Head, Collection Development and Description Cambridge University Library West Road, Cambridge CB3 9DR, England email: jr...@cam.ac.uk fax: +44 (0)1223 333160 phone: +44 (0)1223 333069 (with voicemail) or phone: +44 (0)1223 333000 (ask for pager 036) Kelleher, Martin said - in whole or part - on 23/04/2010 12:24: Hi all Could someone tell me where to look for a very general run down of changes from AACR2 to RDA? I've called a cataloguing meeting in which we're going to be discussing RDA, and I'd like to make sure I'm aware of all the main areas of interest before that, as well as preferably being able to direct others to it to read up beforehand as well. Best wishes Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool
Re: [RDA-L] Filing order (Was: Google ...)
Well, we recently put a quick search box on the library homepage (i.e. keyword
only, with no other initial other options), and slightly obscured the link to
the main catalogue options for left-anchored searches, and although there was
an increase in keyword searching, left anchored title searching still trumped
in our statistics, so now there's a possibility of switching the default on the
main library page to left anchored title search instead...
..so left-anchored searching is alive, indexing is afoot... The unilateral
preference amongst actual users of the all singing, all dancing keyword search
may well be the biggest myth of the modern library.
Martin Kelleher
Bibliographic Services/Electronic Resources Librarian
University of Liverpool
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: 04 February 2010 15:51
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Filing order (Was: Google ...)
Bernhard Eversberg said:
Karen Coyle said in that meeting:
... the team tried to figure out when alphabetical sorting was really
required, and the answer turned out to be 'never'.
Does that mean alphabetical index displays of names, titles, subjects
etc. can safely be considered dead?
Experimenting with filing order in a card catalogue established that inverse
date order of cards behind subject guide cards produced patron satisfaction,
and spread circulation across the alphabet (as opposed to authors A-M
circulating more heavily than N-Z). But author and title OPAC browse lists
(replicating card catalogue alphabetical
filing) assists patrons to find known items where their spelling is a tad off.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Preferred access points for Expressions
Just to check it out, just tried Google book search, with a random name - John Gardiner - and the results didn't seem organised any better than if I'd put them in Google itself... So the answer is, Google Booksearch probably doesn't do any job of bringing together what belongs together at all. But I think most of us knew that was going to happen, didn't we? Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@infoserv.nlc-bnc.ca] On Behalf Of Bernhard Eversberg Sent: 19 January 2009 14:01 To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Preferred access points for Expressions Weinheimer Jim wrote: I think we're in agreement, but the main point I want to make is not to confuse An entity needs a name! (with which I agree) with An entity needs a [single] name!' Today, this is no longer necessary and all of the variant names can be found, and displayed, in all kinds of ways. This is also what the VIAF idea wants to achieve or support. It's also important to realize that this is nothing new. Thomas Hyde's catalog of the Bodleian library from the 1600s appeared to work in a similar manner. Although I can't find a copy of his catalog online, his headings were remarkable in that they included all of the variant forms. I remember the heading for Peter Abelard was something like: Abaelardus, Petrus, seu, Abelard, Peter, Abeilard, Pierre, Abelardo, Pietro, [...]. Looking at the multitude of headings existing even for someone like Immanual Kant, that seems plain impracticable to me. I can see something very similar with URIs. The gathering point will be the machine-readable URI, and the display of the heading[s] would be based on various factors. No. 1 would be based on the user's search, but the others could be based on IP address, user preferences, or who knows what else. Of course, the machine could be set to display only one or two lines and if this is not enough to display all the variants, then [more...] can be displayed. Yes, but we cannot expect VIAF URIs to be available for everything anytime soon, and not for works anyhow. This would demand some changes in our policies and procedures however. One example would be that each heading should have a language component, and there would be other changes as well. But it is important to realize that today, all forms can be equal and there is no need for preferred form anymore. Although it can still be a big help. How does, for instance, Google Booksearch do its job of bringing together what belongs together? It has got nothing but textual strings to go by. Therefore, it will miss many references out there that use idiosyncratic forms of names and titles. I think we need more tools for interoperability than pie-in-the-sky URIs which are still very far from being ubiquitous and not likely to be used much in citations and quotations at all. I'm getting the impression, with all due respect, that you have yet to overcome a certain main entry phobia that was rampant some years ago and that was eager to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is still, let me repeat, very helpful and thus a Good Thing to have a clear and consistent name for as many entities as possible. As for RDA as it stands now, it would otherwise have to be rewritten in a major way. B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG
Hmmm - I don't think this is quite alright, somehow. Assessing my own use of databases, I find I do use Google for an initial meta search engine (e.g. amazon girls who grow plump in the night), and then quite often click on entries within the relevant database to see what else they have by the same (in this case) band. Interestingly, in this example, on Amazon, you end up with something which looks like a name authority file! My last example for this was the band Man, who I thought had sorted this out a bit better than they have this time I looked, but if you try it out, you end up with the same wholly useless results you'd expect (and forgive) with google (try Man Welsh connection on the latter, then on Amazon click on the artist), but flabberghasts me (and I'm sure a number of other users) when you go into a local database . Very odd. My favourite example of user frustration over this is the top of most helpful of the customer reviews here: http://www.amazon.com/Best-Youngbloods/dp/B02W4K/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8s=musicqid=1216727758sr=1-4 (clicking on Youngbloods you end up a name authority file as with Caravan - this wasn't here last time I checked, so...) I'm sure the recent email on either this or the UK lis-link list (apologies for not keeping it to forward) over concerns within the publisher industry about improving data quality are as a result of these kinds of problems, which are, I would guess, ultimately the result of organizations relying too heavily on inadequate search engines utilized on substandard information on their databases And the name authority pages Amazon seem to have initiated indicate that. Anyway, ignoring my frustrations in searching for retro rock - as ever, I'm suspicious that quantatitve research in these areas skims over things like this, and qualitive research, such as that which I've mentioned in an earlier mail, has far too great a tendancy in the library industry to be lacking in anything resembling objectivity! Rant over! Time for a break... Best wishes Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer Sent: 22 July 2008 12:20 To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG I don't know how many others see the future this way, but when I think about FRBR and RDA a decade down the road, it's as a structure for linking resource descriptions and, increasingly, resources.  I imagine most people will be searching the open web using keywords (in various increasingly sophisticated and machine-assisted combinations), and FRBR/RDA will kick in only when they've discovered a resource of interest.  At that point, FRBR/RDA will present them with the _context_ of their resource, giving them a structured choice among the expressions/formats in which the resource is available to them (available based on the user's online identity, which will include their rights), and other works related in various ways to the resource of interest that are also available.  In other words, I can see FRBR/RDA thriving, but I don't see library catalogs (other than possibly as linking mechanisms to data about a subset of offline resources). Your scenario may very well prove correct. FRBR will not be so much a finding tool, but a way of displaying to users the different materials (both digital and print) after they make a keyword-type search. That seems to be a somewhat different goal from its original purpose, but that's OK. The FRBR Objectives are: The study has two primary objectives. The first is to provide a clearly defined, structured framework for relating the data that are recorded in bibliographic records to the needs of the users of those records. The second objective is to recommend a basic level of functionality for records created by national bibliographic agencies (http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.pdf) p. 7 [pdf p. 15] From this, it would seem that if user tasks have changed so fundamentally, (or if the user tasks were never *really* to find, identify, select, and obtain: works, expressions, manifestations and items, but are something else) then things should be reconsidered. But even if we accept your scenario, there seems to be a problem. This assumes that the information in a FRBR/RDA record is sacrosanct. I thought one of the purposes of the Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control was to reconsider the utility of our bibliographic data and workflow in a global environment where we can all share metadata. So, instead of looking at FRBR as a statement to the information world of this is what we do, use what you want for interoperability, but we won't change it, I thought we are supposed to be thinking is what we are doing relevant in today's environment?
Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG
Actually, vinyl is probably taking up more space in your average record shop than they were 10 years ago. As second hand items, they're way ahead - they're generally percieved as being much more reliable than CDs! I think the issues are regarding both the lifetime and quality of digital recording formats. Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jerri Swinehart Sent: 22 July 2008 16:17 To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG At 10:27 AM 7/22/2008, Armin Stephan wrote: Am 22 Jul 2008 um 7:54 hat Mike Tribby geschrieben: my age), or for that matter, Armin Stephan's life either. Vinyl sound recordings are supposed to be dead, too, yet audiophile recordings on vinyl are still being created--dare I say because of perceived shortcomings in digital sound reproduction? A wonderful comparison. How many shops do You know which sell yet vinyl sound records? Wasn't there a story recently that Meijers got a shipment of vinyl records? Jerri Swinehart MLIS Library Assistant III Oakland University Kresge Library Technical Services Rochester, MI 48309-4484 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG
I must admit to having very little faith in OCLC reports, after I went to a meeting with OCLC, which featured a lengthy discussion session in which I believe OCLC tried to convince a room full of cataloguers that they didn't need the standard of record OCLC provided, and could accept lower quality records, citing for evidence a report by Karen Calhoun (OCLC's Vice-President), prepared for the Library of Congress, which, on investigation, appeared to be largely based on interviews with a bunch of handpicked interviewees to gather a range of perspectives (hmmm!). Some time, the library industry will learn to conduct proper impartial research, maybe even of their users.. But that's a silly idea, I know! Martin Kelleher Bibliographic Services/Electronic Resources Librarian University of Liverpool -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer Sent: 21 July 2008 10:20 To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 7:04 PM To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG Bernhard Eversberg wrote: On the other hand, there _remain_ also those cases when someone is actually after a book, a paper, an opus or an opera, and preferably the physical object or a complete file (and not just a page or a part or a snippet). We are used to regard these cases as the predominant ones but they likely are not - do we have any statistics? I don't think we do, but there is the OCLC report on user perceptions of libraries that states on p. 1-17 that only 1% of people questioned say that they begin an information search in the library catalog. 84% begin with an Internet search engine. p. 1-26 has some higher figures for libraries, with the physical library getting an 11% rating for first choice for looking for information (search engines get 80%). page 1-20 has interesting stats on how people find out about new information sources (61% from a friend, 8% from a librarian). There are other figures about how many people have used their local public library and how often, and what they do when they are there. Of the services, free books and free internet access are at the top. This is really the point: relatively few people start their research with a library catalog. In fact, I was surprised when OCLC discovered that an entire 1%-11% does today! If people are not using library catalogs to start with, it logically follows that the #1 search choice for people is full-text. This is the world as it is, and it is a completely different world from that of only 15 years ago. Libraries and their tools must somehow fit into this world, because the world has shown that they feel they can get by without our tools. How will FRBR/RDA be relevant to the vast majority of the population who start from Google, Google Book Search, Amazon.com (unfortunately!), or the Internet Archive? It is still hard to get accustomed to the fact that libraries are becoming an afterthought; a place to find something only after I can't see what I want to see on the web. Perhaps it's not quite at this extreme yet, but it will be soon. In the OCLC report, in the conclusions, there is: Libraries are seen as a place for traditional resources (books, reference materials and research assistance) and to get access to the Internet. The results of this survey confirm that libraries are not seen as the top choice for access to electronic resources. This seems to me to be heading in the wrong direction. We need to be more relevant somehow, especially in these increasingly difficult economic times. I think we can demonstrata the serious problems of relying only on full-text and that the records we make are still very useful, [not as they are used in our current library catalogs, of course!]. So, while I believe that we *can* be relevant today, we must take a completely fresh look around ourselves to see what we can offer. As only one example, the statistic about finding out about new information resources (8% from a librarian) is a huge area for improvement. There are tools that I try to mention to my users and have tried to integrate their RSS feeds into my website, such as Intute, Infomine, and the Librarian's Internet Index. These databases should be interoperable with our library catalogs. The statistic that librarians are trusted can be utilized as well. I absolutely love the traditional resources mentioned by OCLC. I'm a bookman. I have thousands of books at home. I'm a book addict. I became a librarian! But there's a lot more of the other stuff today, and it's all fabulous as well. I want to emphasize that I am not against the
Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG
This looks quite good! Here in the UK, the public and academic sectors are being encouraged to follow practice in the private sector, so if this takes good, it might be a good counterargument against those who like to write off the need for good cataloguing on the basis of the search engine doing all the work... Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bryan Baldus Sent: 17 July 2008 14:36 To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG On Thursday, July 17, 2008 4:45 AM, James Weinheimer included the quote: 1.1.1.6 All: Demonstrate to publishers the business advantages of supplying complete and accurate metadata. There was recently a story at Book Business Extra, Are You Providing Poor Book Data? Executive Director Michael Healy on the BISG's Product Data Certification Program. [1], with additional information at The Book Industry Study Group's website [2]. [1] http://www.bookbusinessmag.com/story/story.bsp?sid=111018var=story [2] http://www.bisg.org/documents/certification_productdata.html Bryan Baldus Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses 1-800-323-4241x402 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RDA-L] [s.n.] used by Amazon; not confusing after all?
To continue this line of dissention, I can't help but notice that that bastion of the fabled web 2.0, Wikipedia, also shows references using such terribly terribly outmoded terms such as et al. ed. etc.. I went to a cataloguing meeting recently where the removal of such terms was celebrated in favour of cluttering up records by unnecessary avoidance of any abbreviation, on the rather patronising basis that most people are too thick or ignorant to figure out what these widely used terms refer to! Actually, technical terms like DVD and CD were still allowed - da kids will know bout dem. Disney has dem, and der Backstreet boys! Coool Has anyone told anybody else who deals with bibliographic reference? Thrilling though it may seem to try and get down with the kids by not expecting them to have to deal with widely used and popular terms invented before 1985, RDA really is beginning to look to me like an amazing way to show the rest of the information world that us library cataloguers are highly skilled at barking up the wrong tree... While I'm on this little soapbox, it might also be worth pointing out that RDA is a highly overused abbreviation. try it on google - other than what most people recognise it as, recommended daily allowance, there are also a whole host of other terms and companies using those initials AACR at least only really shared with the American Association for Cancer Research! Martin Kelleher Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool At 04:37 PM 6/10/2008, you wrote: Stephen Hearn wrote: If searchers are much happier sorting through multiple results than finding one, happier in an environment of competing claims than of one governed by some form of authority, offended by any attempt to redirect their search from their preferred term to the one used in a resource, and would rather see personal links to my favorite sites than clear, authoritative indications of available information on related topics--all long-standing features of the way library catalogs serve searchers needs--then why is Wikipedia so popular? Wait, who said they were happier with those things? Nobody I've seen on this list, or really anywhere else. I think this is a straw man. But of course you are right, users are not happier with those things, the various kinds of collocation and relationship assigning that both catalogers, wikipedia, and many other information organization projects, perform in varying ways, are of course useful services, when done effectively. Who is it that says otherwise? Jonathan Wikipedia's acceptance of community input is obviously also very important to its success, and in that regard it's an instructive model for us, too. But would people like our catalogs better if they were really modeled on Google searches on the open web? Wikipedia's success in just that environment suggests not. Stephen At 12:48 PM 6/10/2008, you wrote: The book in question is available *via* Amazon, but not from Amazon. In other words, this is one of those third-party books, and in that case Amazon obviously gets the data from the third party (a bookseller), not the publisher. The third-party data is often of very poor quality. It should be considered a Good Thing if these independent booksellers use WorldCat or LoC data (and what's in Amazon looks very much like the LoC record http://lccn.loc.gov/2007277697). Those who don't often present very incomplete records. kc Mike Tribby wrote: My guess would be that the metadata Amazon received for this book was library metadata rather than publisher metadata (since the latter would have identified the publisher). I would NOT assume from this that Amazon thought S.N. was anything other than a publisher name. Maybe, except that the book in question has only 6 holdings in WorldCat (certainly not a definitive guide to how many libraries actually hold the item), so there wouldn't be that many libraries able to contribute information in the first place. I think it's far more likely that the information in Amazon that didn't come from the publisher came from reviews-- and the publisher's employees likely know where the publisher is located. The record is an LC record, but judging by the LCCN was not a CIP record, and I'm not sure how much information LC routinely communicates to Amazon. Also, as I said in my original posting to Autocat, I was browsing small press materials on Amazon and saw S.n. used on other materials, too. The book, BTW, is a collection of recipes and humor from Iowa: Midwest Corn Fusion: A Collection of Recipes Humor, ISBN: 9780977833900. Speaking of assumptions, isn't it a little nihlistic to think that nobody but catalogers knows what S.n. means? Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- --- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596
Re: Importance of certain details
An illustration containing any colour; black, white, and shades of grey are not to be considered colours By this definition, illustrations in black, white and/or shades of grey are not considered colours. there is not a distinction between multicoloured illustrations vs. black and white/monochrome There IS a distinction between black and white and other monochromatic combinations. Monochrome does not exclusively refer to black and white (or, for that matter, shades of grey), so an illustration exclusively in various shades of turquoise, even though monochrome, would be considered colour. The purpose of this is doubtless partially relating to the technological development of black and white image (re)production as opposed to colour (re)production, and users' requirements of one or the other. I can appreciate your main point, largely on the basis that the declining bibliographic workforce most organizations are relying on just doesn't have time for such detail regarding colouration or bibliography pagination. In practice, however, many libraries practice a reduced minimum level of detail in cataloguing, and many do not detail such elements to full extent. It is still preferable, however, to have a greater degree of detail if possible, and the kind of collaborative cataloguing developing around union catalogues and the like do facilitate the 'building up' of records, whereby various hands ultimately enhance each others records until (theoretically) you end up with a super record, with everything in and more. Therefore, it's worth having rules to cover such extended cataloguing. Finally, if they have little time for describing the chromatography of books, cataloguers have even less time for the full codification of the obscure 008, even if it were to be utilised in any kind of useful capacity by any LMS whatsoever. Best wishes, Martin Kelleher Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bryan Baldus Sent: 04 June 2007 19:58 To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Importance of certain details RDA rule 3.12 covers Colour. I realize that recording color information is important for some resources, such as films, but wonder whether it is still necessary to determine whether a book's illustrations are color or not, especially with the revised definition of Coloured illustration (in the 2005 update to AACR2): An illustration containing any colour; black, white, and shades of grey are not to be considered colours. Based on this definition, or on the instructions in RDA 3.12, a book with illustrations in a single color (monochrome) is considered coloured. If there is not a distinction between multicoloured illustrations vs. black and white/monochrome, why bother requiring a distinction? What purpose is served by the time taken determining whether the book has all col., some col., or chiefly col., rather than just seeing that it has ill., and noting that? Similarly, due to the different interpretations of what constitutes a bibliographical reference (footnotes, endnotes, websites (unless part of address listing/directory, such as a list of suppliers of materials for crafts), bibliography), why is it still necessary to record the pagination in a 504? If the book has an extensive bibliography as well as some footnotes scattered throughout the book, the pagination is not listed. As a result, users do not always see the extent of the bibliographical references from this note. Wouldn't time spent determining the page numbers of bibliographical references be better used on more important cataloging details? Removing the above might facilitate automated addition of these elements, based on proper coding of the 008 bytes for content, illustrations, and index, since one could simply add the code and let the software enter the human-readable note. Thank you for your time, Bryan Baldus Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses 1-800-323-4241x460 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Those long English RDA inclusions (fwd)
Sometimes abbreviations can be confusing, and I know we've has problems
with, for example the copyright date (Oxford University Press, c2000)
being taken to be circa. On the other hand we've never had anybody
question the meaning of 'et al.' or 'ca.', or any others, as far as I am
aware.
However, abbreviations in general are an increasingly frequent reality
in everyday life, and with good reason given the escalation in data
production. The fact is, if you can use abbreviation to reduce the
amount of data taking up the page, then that means that it is easier for
users to scan the main information.
If you spell all such terms out, then that reduces to some degree the
emphasis on elements representing the core description of the item,
which is surely an undesirable outcome.
Best wishes
Martin Kelleher
Bibliographic Services Librarian
University of Liverpool
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: 30 November 2006 22:54
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Those long English RDA inclusions (fwd)
Forwarded to RDA-L with James' permission. See below for his follow up
comments, which did not appear on Autocat.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Forwarded message
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 11:00:39 -0600
From: James Weinheimer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Those long English RDA inclusions
J. McRee Elrod wrtoe:
Would RDA have us substitute approximately for ca. in collation?
(I just finished cataloguing some DVDs with approximate running
times.)
Cheez.
I find it so ironic that today, when there is a huge push in the world
to
make everyone's metadata more interoperable--which is also so
convenient
for library cataloging and our 50 year push for ISBD--the library
community
is now pushing to make their metadata/cataloging *less* interoperable.
I'd like to point out that there is a difference between
incomprehension
and a problem. For example, I have incomprehension toward several
parts of
my computer and my automobile, but these parts do not represent problems
for
me since I don't need to understand them.
I believe that we should be very conservative toward changing the
information in the catalog records. It should only be done if it can be
demonstrated that there is a genuine problem, e.g. that people who don't
understand things like et al. and ca. cannot find or access the
information they need.
I doubt this very much. At the most, people may be so puzzled that they
might look it up in a dictionary, although I doubt that even this
happens
very often. Users probably just go get the item and forget all about the
abbreviation. As a result, it's just like the incomprehensible bits of
my
computer or my car: they are not problems.
For those who maintain that it is a problem, I wish they would ask the
users who don't understand the abbreviation if their lack of
understanding
hindered access to the material in any way and how it did so. Or, did
they
feel the need to go look it up or ask a librarian? This has never
happened
in my experience. If this is the case, I see the use of abbreviations as
presenting no problem for the users.
Even if it can be demonstrated that there is a problem, changing
cataloging practice is not the only solution. Someone had the excellent
idea that there could be a list of abbreviations that people could link
to, or pop-up in their browsers when the abbreviation appears in the
record. People could actually learn something. In this sense, I am a
firm
believer that we should change *catalogs* and not *catalog records*.
But once we admit that these abbreviations and practices are primarily
for
catalogers and not for the users, the whole discussion changes. My
belief
follows the old saying: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
James Weinheimer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Director of Library and Information Services
The American University of Rome
via Pietro Roselli, 4
00153 Rome, Italy
voice- 011 39 06 58330919 ext. 327
fax-011 39 06 58330992
Of course you can forward my message to anyone you would like. When I
was at
Princeton, I did a lot of research on the history of cataloging from its
beginnings, and I still would very much like to write a book on it,
although
I would name it something like The History of Information Retrieval. I
know that my first illustration would be a photo of a bunch of cuneiform
tablets, which would be rather shocking for some.
I personally believe that we are in a moment of crisis, similar to the
1840's when Panizzi was attacked at the British Library. If he hadn't
made a
stand; if he had taken the easy way out and decided, Oh well, it's not
worth it! then everything later would have been different. The
