Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity

[Layne, Sara]

I think what we may have here is an interesting example of the issue of 
"aboutness" vs. "is-ness" as it applies to people (or any Group 2 entity), 
rather than to resources.



And we do seem to have conflated the two within Field of Activity.



If one uses "Study and teaching" to try to make the distinction, what happens 
when someone's research area*is* the study and teaching of a particular topic? 
Rather than the topic itself?



Sara Shatford Layne

Cataloger (Retired but still interested in these problems)




From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Adam Schiff 
[asch...@u.washington.edu]
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 10:56 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity

You can also add subdivisions to main headings to clarify the context.  For 
example: War crimes--Study and teaching or Genocide--History or many other ways 
to be more specific.  I believe that LC is going to be making --Law and 
legislation available for use under crimes as well.  See the announcement at 
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/crime-law-and-legislation.pdf

Adam

From: Robert Bratton
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 5:35 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity

Field of activity is pretty broadly defined in RDA 9.15 as a: "field of 
endeavour, area of expertise, etc., in which a person is engaged or was 
engaged."  You could propose that Field of endeavour and Area of expertise be 
two separate data elements, but for now they are lumped together.

Being in a law library I have run into this issue because legal academics often 
write about unsavory topics.  When I put terms like "Rape" or "War crimes" or 
"Family violence" in the Field of activity data element I often pause and 
think, "Wait, am I making it sound like this person is a perpetrator of these 
things?"

Thus:

372 $a War crimes $a Genocide $2 lcsh
374 $a Law teachers $a College teachers $a Authors $2 lcsh

and

372 $a War crimes $a Genocide $2 lcsh
374 $a War criminals $a Generals $2 lcsh

For the punk rock example you could also have:

372 $a Punk rock music $2 lcsh
374 $a Punk rock musicians $2 lcsh

and

372 $a Punk rock music--History and criticism $2 lcsh
374 $a Music critics $2 lcsh

Robert

--
Robert Bratton
Cataloging Librarian
George Washington University Law Library
Washington, DC  20052


On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Moore, Richard 
mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk>> wrote:
Ricardo

All you are doing with “372 Punk rock music”, is expressing that the person has 
that field of activity. It’s the 374 that tells you their occupation, in 
relation to that field:

372 $a Punk rock $2 lcsh
372 $a Punk rock musicians $2 lcsh

or

372 $a Punk rock $2 lcsh
372 $a Music critics $2 lcsh

and of course you can put more than one thing in 372:

372 $a Punk rock $a Musical criticism $2 lcsh
372 $a Music critics $2 lcsh

Regards
Richard

_
Richard Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library

Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806
E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk






From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On 
Behalf Of Santos Muñoz, Ricardo
Sent: 14 November 2013 10:07
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity

Hello again.

I’m wrangling with some of the 3xx fields for authority records, in order to 
produce some policy for using some of them in a coherent and fruitful way. I’m 
facing some problems, and neither the MARC field itself, nor RDA instructions, 
nor the use I’ve seen out there gives me a clear view.

The main bump in the road is field 372. Let’s say I’m working on Joseph Stalin. 
I’d like record and retrieve him as a politician (374), as a member of 
Communist Party of the Soviet Union (373), but I’d like to relate him with 
communism. So, recording “Communism” in 372 seems perfect for that purpose. But 
I would also record Comunism in 372 for a scholar historian on communism.

Summing up, if I record 372 Punk-rock, Am I expressing that the guy is a 
musician (374), specialized in doing punk-rock music, or Am I indicating that 
he/she is a music critic (374), expert on punk-rock music?

Thanks in advance for opinions and experiencies.

Ricardo Santos Muñoz
Depto. de Proceso Técnico
Biblioteca Nacional de España
Tfno.: 915 807 735

**
Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk

The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : 
www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html

Help the British Library conserve

Re: [RDA-L] 7.17 Colour content

[Layne, Sara]

Interesting conundrum.

However, although it may be a "text-centric" view, the relative extent of 
images and text is not necessarily an indication of which content is "primary". 
A case could be made that the text, however limited in extent, is primary, and 
the illustrative matter, however extensive, is secondary.

The alternative, especially for those of us who use MARC, would be to make 
changes to the way in which "volumes" in which images are considered to be the 
primary content are cataloged. This could be similar to the changes made some 
years ago in the cataloging of cartographic atlases. 

Sara Shatford Layne
Recently Retired Principal Cataloger, UCLA Library Cataloging & Metadata Center



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Kathie Coblentz [kcobl...@nypl.org]
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 8:33 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 7.17 Colour content

Aside from the problems with colo(u)r content, I see another problem with some 
of the examples posted in this thread.

As I pointed out in another thread, RDA defines "illustrative content" as 
"Content designed to illustrate the primary content of a resource." (From the 
Glossary.)

Therefore it is not logical to have in 300 $b "chiefly illustrations." Nor is 
it logical to put "Chiefly illustrations" in a note.

Furthermore, if the primary content of the resource is still images, it is not 
logical to have "illustrations" in the 300 field at all. Unless, perhaps, it 
can be assumed to refer to whatever textual matter has been added to the still 
image content.

I am still looking for an answer to this conundrum.


Kathie Coblentz, Rare Materials Cataloger
Collections Strategy/Special Formats Processing
The New York Public Library, Stephen A. Schwarzman Building
5th Avenue and 42nd Street, Room 313
New York, NY  10018
kathiecoble...@nypl.org

My opinions, not NYPL's

Re: [RDA-L] How would you relate these two works?

[Layne, Sara]

Hi All,

Maybe I will be pounced upon for the following thought, but I am offering it 
anyway.

Given the statement that these are "two different novels written about the same 
fictional event" I am not convinced that there is any direct relationship at 
all *between* the two novels as two Group 1 entities. They are both about the 
same (fictional) event, and are both by the same author-- but those 
relationships are between Group 1 and Group 3 entities, and between Group 1 and 
Group 2 entities-- and not between two Group 1 entities. 

Sara Shatford Layne
Recently Retired (formerly, Principal Cataloger) from
UCLA Library Cataloging & Metadata Center



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Adam L. Schiff 
[asch...@u.washington.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 5:38 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] How would you relate these two works?

I'm trying to figure out what relationship designator to use to relate two
novels, one of which is described as a spinoff for young adult readers.
Here's the basic information:

>From http://geoffreygirard.wordpress.com/2013/02/: "In September Simon &
Schuster will publish my first two novels at the same time. The first,
Cain's Blood, is a techno thriller from Touchstone Books. The second,
Project Cain, is a stand-alone companion novel for teen readers from Simon
and Schuster Books for Young Readers. ... Cains Blood and Project Cain are
two different novels written about the same fictional event. In both,
scientists have been doing unpleasant things for the military and these
unpleasant things escape. The two books explore the trouble/adventure that
ensues and simply do so differently. Cains Blood uses the form/devices of
a traditional thriller. It follows the story from a dozen viewpoints;
mostly from former-army-Ranger Shawn Castilllos narrative Point of View
(the character brought in to fix things), but also via chapters/scenes
from the POV of various killers, military schemers, evil scientists, and
victims. All capturing the big picture as the full horrifying story
unfolds.

Project Cain is told from the POV of one character: Jeff Jacobson, the
sixteen-year-old clone of Jeffrey Dahmer who has recently discovered his
true origins and who is recruited by Castillo into helping, we hope, save
the day. Its a much more personal story/journey told with the voice and
reflections of a smart, lost and thoughtful teen. A thriller specifically
written for younger readers (PG-13) and those adults still interested in
young heroes."

>From http://www.geoffreygirard.com/contact.html: "Simon and Schuster will
publish two Girard novels in 2013: Cain's Blood, a techno thriller, and
Project Cain, a spinoff novel for teen/YA readers."

Looking at Appendix J.2 of RDA, it looks to me that the only possible
useable designator there is "complemented by (work) A work paired with
another work without either work being considered to predominate."

I am wondering what others think.  Use "complemented by (work)" to relate
these two novels, or should I suggest a new term to be added to RDA.  If
so, what are the best suggestions for this new term?

Adam

^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~

Re: [RDA-L] eBooks & Playaways

[Layne, Sara]

Maybe we need a new media type (or would it be an unmediated carrier type??) 
that is something like "interactive"?? In all the examples so far (Playaway, 
music box, Kindle), the user needs to do something to make it work, even though 
the user does not need an *additional* device to gain access.

Just a thought.

Sara Shatford Layne
Principal Cataloger
UCLA Library Cataloging & Metadata Center

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelley McGrath
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 11:48 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] eBooks & Playaways

I guess I'm not sure that a Playaway is unmediated. It's just that the 
mediation is transparent to the end user. The user doesn't have to put a disc 
in; they just put in batteries and push play. Mediation for digital content is 
likely to become increasingly transparent. In a sense everything tangible that 
we catalog is an object, but a Playaway is presumably wanted not as something 
to be looked at or touched, but as an integrated audio carrier.

If you could move content on and off the Playaway, would that change your 
opinion? If a library circulates audiobooks on ipods or ebooks on a Kindle, 
should those records also be for objects? This actually seems to be an 
unsettled area.

Kelley

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Robert Maxwell  wrote:
> In my opinion a Playaway is unmediated. You don't need anything other 
> than the object itself (and a source of electricity) to get the 
> information, in contrast to, say, a CD, which you need to put in a machine in 
> order to use.
> Media type is "a categorization reflecting the general type of 
> intermediation device required to view, play, run, etc., the content 
> of a resource." No intermediation device is needed to hear/play the 
> content of a Playaway.
>
> I find it analogous to a music box, which would also be unmediated.
>
> There is not a good unmediated carrier type (yet) for a Playaway. But 
> as noted below, there isn't a good carrier type under the other 
> categories either.

Re: [RDA-L] Reproductions of Art Works and FRBR

[Layne, Sara]

Hi Liz and others,

As it happens, I gave this exact problem a great deal of thought about 30 years 
ago. It was long before FRBR of course, but the issue itself has not changed. 
At the time I argued that reproductions were new works, and for describing the 
relationship between the original and the reproduction/image as "Represented 
Work."

I'm now committing the scholarly sin of self-citation-- but in case it might be 
useful, this is the article that I wrote on this topic:
Shatford, Sara. Describing a picture: a thousand words are seldom cost 
effective. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, Vol. 44(4), Summer 1984, p. 
13-30.

Sara

Sara Shatford Layne
Principal Cataloger
UCLA Library Cataloging & Metadata Center
sla...@library.ucla.edu

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Elizabeth O'Keefe 
[eoke...@themorgan.org]
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 4:31 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Reproductions of Art Works and FRBR

Several months ago, there was a discussion on the PCCList about whether
it was appropriate to add an access point for:

[Artist]. Works. Selections

to a printed monograph that includes reproductions of the artist's
work. The use of conventional collective titles is well-established for
compilations of textual works, but prior to RDA, headings of this kind
were never applied to monographs illustrated with reproductions of art
works.  Catalogers of art-related materials felt the headings were
confusing and unhelpful.

The Cataloging Advisory Committee of ARLIS has held several discussions
about this topic, and is considering, among other issues, the FRBR
justification for the practice.  We are uncertain about how FRBR would
characterize the relationship between an art work and a reproduction of
that work, and would welcome comments from readers of this list on
questions such as:

Is a reproduction an expression of the art work? A manifestation of the
art work? Or is it an expression or manifestation of a different work
that is related to the art work? If the reproduction is in turn
reproduced in another medium, such as a printed monograph, what is the
relationship between the art work, the photographic reproduction of that
art work, and the photomechanical reproduction of that reproduction
presented in the printed work? And is the  FRBR relationship affected by
the content type--in other words, will the FRBR relationships for a
reproduction of a photograph of a drawing be different from the FRBR
relationships for a reproduction of a photograph of a three-dimensional
object?

Any thoughts you choose to share on this vexing topic will be much
appreciated.

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

Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question

[Layne, Sara]

In the current infrastructure, adding a uniform title/preferred title for the 
work (with the qualifier included) to each record would make it possible 
(although not easy) for the computer to "look up" the work cited. Wouldn't it? 
Sara
Sara Shatford Layne
Principal Cataloger
UCLA Library Cataloging & Metadata Center


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 6:06 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question

This is not new to RDA. It is a problem inherited from AACR2-style 'citations', 
and MARC. But:

730 0 $i Summary (work): $t Water availability in the Ovens (Summary)

The problem with this, is there's absolutely no way for a computer to actually 
_look up_ the 'work cited' here. It's going to be looking for a record with a 
title "Water availability in the Ovens (Summary)", but no such record (bib or 
authority) exists, right?  

I have no idea what the best solution for this is in the current 
infrastructure, but it's an example of the serious problems with our inherited 
infrastructure, which clearly "RDA" is not a magic bullet for.  When those 
'citations' were written for humans who were going to to take them and manually 
look up the other record in a printed (bound/card) catalog, they didn't need to 
be exact, they just needed to get the user to the right place in the alphabetic 
file and the reader could recognize the 'match' on their own. 

That is not the environment we are in, or have been in for about 15-20 years 
now. 

So that kind of citation is nearly useless in the online environment.  Adding 
an RDA "Summary (work)" does not make it any more useful. 

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Robert Maxwell 
[robert_maxw...@byu.edu]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 6:48 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question

I think many of the linking fields (including 787) are best used to record 
manifestation-level relationships. If I were recording a work-level 
relationship, I'd probably use 730 in this case, with an authorized access 
point for the work; as you say, at least one of them would need to be qualified 
because we have two works with the same title (and no creator-I assume?)

730 0 $i Summary of (work): $t Water availability in the Ovens.

I always teach that the qualifier chosen should be whatever logically 
distinguishes the two; in this case "Summary" makes sense to me.

730 0 $i Summary (work): $t Water availability in the Ovens (Summary)

On the other hand, if you want to use 787, you could distinguish by including 
publication information ($d) and physical description ($h) and perhaps ISBN 
($x) if they have ISBNs and they are different. This isn't very satisfactory, 
though, since the publication information is identical on both, and in any case 
all this is manifestation information, not work information. I guess you can 
put the authorized access point for the work in 787 $s.  I'd go with 730, 
though.

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to 
the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 3:44 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Naming works question

I have two publications with the same title proper, one of which is a summary
of the other:

245 00 Water availability in the Ovens : $b a report to the Australian
Government from the CSIRO Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project.
264 #1 [Clayton South, Victoria] : $b CSIRO, $c [2008]
300 ## iii, 100 pages : $b color illustrations, color maps ; $c 30 cm.

245 00 Water availability in the Ovens : $b summary of a report to the
Australian Government from the CSIRO Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields
Project.
264 #1 [Clayton South, Victoria] : $b CSIRO, $c [2008]
300 ## 11 pages : $b color illustrations, color maps ; $c 30 cm

The question that I have is how best to distinguish between the source work and
the derivative work.  On the record for the summary I could add the following:

787 08 $i Summary of (work): $t Water availability in the Ovens

but since the title is identical, this must have a qualifier of some sort, yes?
If so what would make a reasonable qualifier?  The reciprocal relationship
would be:

787 08 $i Summary (work): $t Water availability in the Ovens

Again, I think I need to break the conflict 

Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question

[Layne, Sara]

I agree with Kevin. But would you also need to add "(Report)" to the reciprocal 
787? 

Sara (who doesn't yet catalog in RDA)

Sara Shatford Layne
Principal Cataloger
UCLA Library Cataloging & Metadata Center
sla...@library.ucla.edu

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 3:36 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question

Adam Schiff wrote:

> The question that I have is how best to distinguish between the source
> work and
> the derivative work.  On the record for the summary I could add the
> following:
> 
> 787 08 $i Summary of (work): $t Water availability in the Ovens
> 
> but since the title is identical, this must have a qualifier of some sort, 
> yes?
> If so what would make a reasonable qualifier?  The reciprocal relationship
> would be:
> 
> 787 08 $i Summary (work): $t Water availability in the Ovens
> 
> Again, I think I need to break the conflict here by adding a qualifier.  I
> thought perhaps of using "(Summary)" but I've not seen this done in any
> other
> situation.

The addition of "(Summary)" seems like the most logical thing to do.  I've 
taken exactly this kind of approach on occasion, with things like Draft and 
Final versions of documents.

(BTW, I really dislike the use of the full Appendix J phrases in 7XX $i, 
instead of what's really meant for public display.  I'm looking forward to a 
metadata carrier that will allow us to *code* the relationships, so users won't 
be seeing "Summary of (work):" but instead will just see "Summary of:".)

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Bibliographic Services Dept.
Northwestern University Library
1970 Campus Drive
Evanston, IL  60208-2300
email: k...@northwestern.edu
phone: (847) 491-2939
fax:   (847) 491-4345

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

[Layne, Sara]

Karen,

The intellectual work of determining the specific role(s) a person or corporate 
body has in relation to a work/expression/manifestation (RDA) is more 
difficult/complicated than the intellectual work of determining that a person 
or corporate body has *a* role in relation to a resource (AACR2). 

Roles may not be precisely defined. A person or body may have multiple roles. 
Catalogers using AACR2 are accustomed to applying their judgment to the yes/no 
question of whether a person or body has a role that calls for an access 
point-- to define precisely the role or roles that person or body plays 
requires additional intellectual effort. And, in my experience, especially for 
corporate bodies, it can be time-consuming to ferret out precisely what the 
role(s) are.

I don't think this increase in intellectual effort is dependent on the use of a 
particular coding scheme or interface. It is inherent in the work. And yes, the 
need for specifying roles in RDA does appear to be a result of attempting to 
catalog in terms of FRBR entities.

Sara

Sara Shatford Layne
Principal Cataloger
UCLA Library Cataloging & Metadata Center
sla...@library.ucla.edu


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 9:18 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework 
statement

Quoting Billie Hackney :

> I apologize for being testy.

Accepted. We all get frustrated.

> It's just that anything that catalogers themselves say about the  
> difficulties they've experiences with RDA seem to be passed over and  
> ignored during all of this theoretical discussion on why RDA is so  
> wonderful. Being told that assigning relator terms is easy when it's  
> not is rather frustrating.

Assigning relator terms in MARC is not easy. That's the point. But the  
intellectual work of determining the role is, I believe, the same in  
AACR2 and RDA. So what it comes down to is how hard it is to convey  
that in the record. I think the MARC coding of this is awkward and  
interfaces don't make it easier.

I doubt if any cataloger includes a name in a record without some idea  
of the role the person plays. However, if there is a need to include  
"miscellaneous" persons, there is no reason why such a relationship  
should not be allowed (that's up to the JSC). Note, however, that you  
will still, as Thomas B has stated, be using the FRBR entities that  
require you to separate out work, expression and manifestation roles,  
so some thinking about what the role is becomes (a perhaps painful)  
part of the process.

I think that MARC is getting in the way of our ability to think about  
this "different."

kc

>
>
> Billie Hackney
> Senior Monograph Cataloger
> Getty Research Institute
> 1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
> Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
> (310) 440-7616
> bhack...@getty.edu
>



-- 
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Re: [RDA-L] Manitoba study of LCSH and keyword search

[Layne, Sara]

An interesting report.

However, the search sample was limited to searches retrieving just one
or two records-- so it seems to me that the study shows how often LCSH
and/or contents notes make the difference between retrieving *something*
using a relatively unusual term (or terms), and retrieving *nothing*--
not how often these access points made it possible for searchers, and
searchers using a range of terminology from common to obscure, to
retrieve relevant records.

Sara Shatford Layne
Principal Cataloger
UCLA Library Cataloging & Metadata Center

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 9:29 AM
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Manitoba study of LCSH and keyword search

"Michael Klossner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Autocat told us about
Pat Nichollls of the University of Manitoba study in which she redid
1543 keyword searches found in the Library's search log.  She found
that 10% (154) of them were successful only because of LCSH subject
headings in the records;  22% were successful because of content
notes; but only 2% were successful due to summaries.

You may see her report at:

http://umanitoba.ca/libraries/units/lets/media/Keyword_Searching_BISON.p
df

Her e-mail is [EMAIL PROTECTED]

This study has importance as we consider what elements are important
in RDA, and the best form of bibliographic records to assist patrons
in finding needed material.  It gives added support for the value of
both subject headings and contents notes *in* the bibliographic record
(as opposed to linked to it).

Perhaps others would like to take a look at the report and comment on
it?  Attempt to have contents given more prominance in RDA?


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: FW: [RDA-L] New works and new expressions (was Cataloger scenarios added to wiki)

[Layne, Sara]

With considerable trepidation, I'm going to venture into this discussion ... 
 
If all the collaborators belong at the work level, doesn't that mean that a 
change in *any* of the collaborators would mean that you then have a completely 
different work? I know this doesn't often happen with films in actual practice, 
but aren't there edited versions of films from which entire characters have 
been eliminated? If *all* the actors are attributes of the work, wouldn't this 
then mean that those edited versions aren't expressions of the original work 
but rather completely new works?
 
And, I do think that there are examples of collaborative textual works in which 
later editions of the work don't have exactly the same collaborators (perhaps 
one has died?), but would still be considered expressions of the same work 
rather than different works ... 
 
Sara Shatford Layne
Principal Cataloger
UCLA Library Cataloging & Metadata Center
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access on 
behalf of Martha Yee
Sent: Wed 3/12/2008 2:24 PM
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] FW: [RDA-L] New works and new expressions (was Cataloger 
scenarios added to wiki)



Sorry about that, Larry; I do agree with Greta that actors (and editors,
directors, screenwriters, costume designers, composers of music) all belong
at the work level, not the expression level, for moving image works.  Moving
image works are essentially visual works that are created collaboratively,
and all of the collaborators together make up the "authors" of the work.
There are collaborative textual works, as well, and I don't think anyone
would argue that those collaborators belong at the expression rather than
the work level, would they?

Hope that clarifies?

Martha

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Laurence Creider
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 1:20 PM
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] New works and new expressions (was Cataloger
scenarios added to wiki)


Martha,

You answered all of my questions except the one at the beginning, and I
should have addressed that to Greta de Groat.  You did not make the
statement about actors being a characteristic of the work rather than the
expression.  I apologize for the confusion, although I would still like
an answer from someone.

I certainly agree with what you say about the adaptation in making a
visual work from a textual one and about the cases you cite.  I wonder,
however, if the same arguments could not also be said of a stage
production of Shakespeare.  Recordings of stage productions are treated by
cataloging rules as versions of the play, but the textual component of a
play is the very bare bones of the play.  Plays, as operas, are frequently
performed with cuts of text, but addition of scenery, blocking,
inflection, direction, production are analogous to film activities.  They
don't seem to go over the edge to being a new work, and I am somewhat
curious how it is that they do not.  The intent of the producers, actors,
designers, etc. could be argued to make the difference, but intent might
not be as easy to establish as one would think.  Is the difference made by
the intellectually creative difference made by the cinematographer and
director, and editor(s), who shape what we see in perhaps a more
fundamental way than the stage director?  Or is it the textual adaptation
required in moving a text from print or stage to screen?

Larry Creider

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Martha Yee wrote:

> Creider's asks, "One question I have for Martha is why a change in actors
> results in a different work?"  I would argue that moving images are
> essentially visual works, not textual ones; in order to change a textual
> work into a visual work, adaptation is inherently necessary.  The
situation
> is complicated by the fact that it is possible  to use moving image as a
> mere recording medium.  I don't mind identifying a stage performance of
> Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet as a work by Shakespeare when the stage
> performance has been recorded by a stationary video camera.  When
> Shakespeare's play is transformed into a moving image (visual) work by the
> contributions of screenwriters, cinematographers, editors and directors,
> however, I believe a new related work has been created.  Anglo-American
> practice hitherto has agreed with me, as does FRBR in the Zeffirelli
> example...
>
> Hope that clarifies my position?
>
> Martha
> %%
>
>
> Martha M. Yee
> Cataloging Supervisor
> UCLA Film & Television Archive
> 1015 N. Cahuenga Blvd.
> Los Angeles, CA  90038-2616
> 323-462-4921 x27
> 323-469-9055 (fax)
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Email at work)
>
> Campus mail:
> 302 E. Melnitz
> 132306
>
> 1413 Quintero St.
> Los Angeles, CA  90026-3417
> 213-250-3018
> 213-250-3018 (fax)
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (E

Re: Wrong model--RDF?

[Layne, Sara]

So  ... with apologies in advance for asking a possibly ignorant
question ... can you make the following statement in RDF? That is, can
the same sort of entity be both a subject and an object?


 


Work2 is a parody of Work1 


 


And you would not need to make, in addition, a statement like the
following?


 


Work1 is parodied by Work2


 


Sara 


 


Sara Shatford Layne


Principal Cataloger


UCLA Library Cataloging & Metadata Center


 





From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon Spero
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 3:01 PM
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Wrong model--RDF?


 


On 7/2/07, Martha Yee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


 


When we look at the RDF specifications themselves
(http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/), they might as well be written in
Greek for all of the information they convey to us.  However, just from
using the web, we can see that links over the web are commonly
one-to-one links.  When you click on a hot link, it leads you to just
one other web site, not a list of web sites.   Do the RDF specifications
limit us to one-to-one links?



 Well, the FRBR-OO   work is
hosted out of Crete, but  I  don't think that's the issue here  


 RDF is a lot easier to understand without the horrible XML syntax.  In
essence, what RDF lets you do  make lots of independent statements about
the properties of lots of different things. These statements are
referred to as triples.  Each triple consists of a subject, a predicate,
and an object.  


For example, in the statement   
work1  has title 'The Expedition of Humphry Clinker'  
"work1" is the subject, 
" has title" is the predicate, and 
"The Expedition of Humphry Clinker'" is the object.  


As an extended example: 


work1  has uniform title 'The Expedition of Humphry Clinker'  
work1  has expression expression1
work1  has expression  expression2
expression1has title'The Expedition of Humphry Clinker' 
expression2has title'The Expedition of Humphry Clinker :
complete in two parts ' 
expression1has manifestationmanifestation1
manfestation1 has oclc number 1929911
expression2has manifestationmanifestation2 
expression2has manifestationmanifestation3 
manfestation2 has oclc number 9013968
manfestation3 has oclc number 5987254


 Because RDF is defined in terms of logical relationships, there is no
need to explicitly state that manifestation2  is a manifestation of
expression2. 


By default, all relationships expressed in basic RDF are many to many.
OWL   (the Web Ontology Language) can be
used to restrict the number of things on either side of a relationship.
For example, one can specify that a Work has at most one Uniform Title,
and a  Uniform Title has precisely one Work.* 


As a more contrived example,  one could specify that an Expression that
is a Parody must express a Work that has more than one Expression. 


Simon


 

Re: Wrong model--RDF?

[Layne, Sara]

Just to clarify—the issue = that Martha and I are having here isn’t with the FRBR/FRAD model = … it is with the RDA implementation of that model as exemplified in the recently released drafts …

Sara

Sara Shatford = Layne
Principal = Cataloger
UCLA Library Cataloging & = Metadata = Center



From: = Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Monday, July 02, = 2007 2:40 PM
To: = RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] = Wrong model--RDF?

“For example, = we create a subject heading for a parody that consists of the work = identifier for the work parodied plus a subdivision denoting parody.  Then, when = anyone searches on works about the work parodied, they will see a collection of = works that are parodies of it; the heading we have created will be hotlinked, = and the user who selects it will be led to all of the parodies.  It is not necessary to add a parody link in every bibliographic record for every manifestation of the work parodied; thus this method is much more efficient.”

In a FRBR/FRAD entity-relationship database, the link would NOT = be to every manifestation of the work parodied. Instead, there would be a = single link between the *work record* = for the parodying work and the *work = record* for the work being parodied. One link, not many. 
Suppose the parodying work is published in many editions. In our current model, we have to make a link between the record for every manifestation of the parodying work to the work being parodied by adding = a uniform title as a subject heading to every record for the editions of the parodying work. This method is the one that seems lots less efficient to = me, not the FRBR/FRAD model, which requires the link to be made only  the work records), and not many times (adding a subject heading in the = MARC record for every edition of the parodying = work).

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, = UT 84602
(801)422-5568



From: = Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martha Yee
Sent: Monday, July 02, = 2007 2:37 PM
To: = RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Wrong = model--RDF?

Our previous posting concerned the entity-relationship model = underlying FRBR.  The linking concerns we are about to discuss relate to both = the RDF model and to the RDA implementation of FRBR's = model.

The RDA developers are now beginning to look to the RDF = specifications for the semantic web as a model for our data.  It became apparent = at ALA in Washington, D.C., that the rules in = RDA Chapter 7 for demonstrating relationships rely on  links between bibliographic record, one link for each relationship on every single bibliographic record involved in the relationship.  For example, if someone writes a parody of a work, the existence of the parody would be mentioned in every single one of the records for manifestations = containing expressions of that work.

When we look at the RDF specifications themselves (http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/), they might as well be written in = Greek for all of the information they convey to us.  However, just from = using the web, we can see that links over the web are commonly one-to-one links.  When you click on a hot link, it leads you to just  web site, not a list of web sites.   Do the RDF specifications = limit us to one-to-one links?

The creation of clouds of everything linked to everything else = is much less efficient than the method used heretofore in libraries for = "" most relationships.  In our current ILS systems we can make links = that are much more efficient by creating a single authority record (or a single = heading) that stands for a category (or entity) into which many bibliographic = records fit, and then linking all of those bibliographic records to that one node.  We in libraries have worked out that it is often more = efficient to make explicit links in just one direction (from the bibliographic record = to the authority record), and to have reciprocal links be implicit, such that = when a user chooses the entity represented by the authority record from a list, = the user is given a list of all of the bibliographic records linked to = it.  It is more efficient because a link needs to be stated just once rather = than twice or more, and maintenance is correspondingly more efficient. For example, = we create a subject heading for a parody that consists of the work = identifier for the work parodied plus a subdivision denoting parody.  Then, when = anyone searches on works about the work parodied, they will see a collection of = works that are parodies of it; the heading we have created will be hotlinked, = and the user who selects it will be led to all of the parodies.  It is not necessary to add a parody link in every bi