Re: [RDA-L] Titles of nobility
Heidrun wrote: up to now, there is no text string Wiesenmüller, Heidrun, 1968- in the authority record for my own person. Instead, the relevant fields look like this: 100 Wiesenmüller, Heidrun 548 1968 $4 datl The code datl makes it clear that this is a year of birth (there are other codes for other kinds of dates, e.g. datv would be used for the date of a conference). Many catalogs will still show something like Wiesenmüller, Heidrun, 1968- to their users. This is done by automatically combining the information from 100 and 548 for display. I hope that rather than changing your practice, the Anglo-American practice will change to your practice--as in having the dates in a separate field (046) rather than using a subfield $d. It has been suggested that the 100$a does not need to be unique because other data/fields supply the disambiguation information. 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 Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 8:51 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Titles of nobility Charles, Thomas and Richard, This has been very helpful. Many thanks for your ideas! In fact, I had been mainly thinking of authority data. I find Richard's analysis quite convincing: If you *do* create an access point, you include the title (apart from the exceptions mentioned by Arthur). I was intrigued by the question because in the German data model, up to now we didn't really have what the Anglo-American world calls an authorized access point for a person. In the current format of our Common Authority File GND (which isn't MARC, but is based on it), 100 is used only for the preferred name. Dates of persons are recorded separately, in 548 fields. The connection between a title record and a person record is not created by the use of a text string (AAP). Instead, the records are directly linked by recording the identifier for the person record in the title record. For example, up to now, there is no text string Wiesenmüller, Heidrun, 1968- in the authority record for my own person. Instead, the relevant fields look like this: 100 Wiesenmüller, Heidrun 548 1968 $4 datl The code datl makes it clear that this is a year of birth (there are other codes for other kinds of dates, e.g. datv would be used for the date of a conference). Many catalogs will still show something like Wiesenmüller, Heidrun, 1968- to their users. This is done by automatically combining the information from 100 and 548 for display. With the implementation of RDA, we plan to change this: We'll still record the dates in 548, but will also have them as part of 100, similar to Anglo-American practice. I hope that this can be achieved automatically, as I wouldn't want having to input the same information twice. After the discussion here, I now think that it would be equally possible to keep our current practice under RDA, arguing that our 100 is not really an AAP, and that AAPs are not obligatory. But it may be easier for data exchange if we conform to Anglo-American practice in this respect. Titles of nobility like Graf (count) are even trickier, because up to now they were not recorded at all. For example, the preferred name for Adolf Graf von Schack according to the RAK rules is Schack, Adolf von. The title Graf is not even recorded in a separate field. I believe this has something to do with the legal status of the former nobility in Germany (but would be hard pressed to give you the details). However, I agree that it does make sense to record them, as people will most certainly associate them with the persons, whatever the law may say. If we're going to add dates in 100, it now seems logical to me to put the titles of nobility there as well. Heidrun On 17.10.2013 09:22, Richard Moore wrote: RDA doesn't require authorized access points. 9.1.2 says An authorized access point is one of the techniques used to represent ... a person. 18.4.1 gives two ways to record a relationship between a resource and a person (etc.) associated with it: by using one of these techniques: a) identifier and/or b) authorized access point. Currently we choose to create authorized access points, but in the brave new world of linked data we might only need to record separate elements, and identifiers. There is a school of thought that the authorized access point should be regarded as a temporary device until we get there. So all 9.4.1.3 is saying, is that you can record a Title of Nobility as a separate element, or you can use it in an access point, or you can do both (as we do now). 9.19.1.2 says that if you *do* create an access point, you include the title. That's my understanding, anyway. Regards Richard _
Re: [RDA-L] Titles of nobility
Kevin wrote: It's when we're able to rely on identifiers that we can let go of the need for unique access points. Yes, and that needs to be the goal. Too often we limit designing for the future because of current practices. My comment was in reference to the German library needing to adopt Anglo-American practices. 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 Kevin M Randall Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 11:50 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Titles of nobility Mary Mastraccio wrote: I hope that rather than changing your practice, the Anglo-American practice will change to your practice--as in having the dates in a separate field (046) rather than using a subfield $d. It has been suggested that the 100$a does not need to be unique because other data/fields supply the disambiguation information. Regarding access points in RDA, the intention is that they be able to distinguish between different entities. For instance, consider the following passages from RDA 8.6: If two or more persons, families, or corporate bodies have the same or similar names, include one or more additional identifying elements in the access point representing the person, family, or corporate body. ... Indicate that the name of a person is an undifferentiated name (see 8.11) if the additional identifying elements to differentiate the name cannot be readily ascertained. The instructions for *access points* for both names and works explicitly say that elements should be added to make them unique. It's when we're able to rely on identifiers that we can let go of the need for unique access points. 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] Punctuation question--quoted notes
Yes this is a US/UK convention issue. I remember years ago, in another life, we had a British woman reviewing manuscripts and she made all sorts of punctuation edits and we had to go back to re-edit it so it matched the punctuation for the Philippines, which followed US convention. Mary L. Mastraccio Cataloging Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78265 1-800-531-7678 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Young,Naomi Kietzke Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 10:09 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Punctuation question--quoted notes The placement of punctuation inside vs. outside quotation marks is a US/UK English convention. US = inside (generally); UK = Outside (generally). This probably affects the difference between ISBD, with its more international focus, and the LCRI, which would follow predominant US style. Cheers, Naomi Young University of Florida From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of M. E. Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 11:01 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Punctuation question--quoted notes Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.edumailto:babra...@mit.edu wrote: When a note is quoting the source of information (see 1.10.3) and so ends with a quotation mark, does the full stop fall inside or outside of the quotation mark? I am having trouble finding an instruction that addresses this. Most folks have followed the old LCRI and the newer LC-PCC PS to give the final punctuation within the quotation. http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?i?i d=lcpschp1target=lcps1-502#lcps1-502http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=lcpschp1target=lcps1-502#lcps1-502 Scroll down to the second example under #2. That said, my former boss, Edward Swanson, always used the ISBD method you describe of adding the full stop after the quotation. At least one client library asked what was going on with that, so we reverted to the more popular application. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
Agree that it would be better to always use 7xx. 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 Robert Maxwell Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 6:49 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points I agree with Kevin and am tickled that he's tickled about this :-) 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. (or alternately, without the relationship designator) 700 12 $a Owens, Jo, $d 1961- $t Add kids, stir briskly. instead of using the 1XX/240 technique for recording work/expression authorized access points? Are there any arguments for continuing to use 1XX/240 instead of recording all authorized access points for works in 7XX (aside from we've always done it that way)? At the moment we're recording an authorized access point for a work using 1XX/240 if there's only one work or expression involved in the resource; if there's more than one, all are recorded in 7XX. Why do we have this exception for just one work/expression? In my opinion it would be better for training (e.g., you only have to explain one way to record an AAP for a work/expression) and better for systems (e.g. OCLC and most other systems can't control 1XX/240, but can control the string in 7XX; and many can't index the name-title if it's split into two MARC fields) if we abandoned the clumsy 1XX/240 and instead consistently record the information in 7XX. Note: on the issue Kevin brings up about the 1XX itself, making this change does not necessarily make using 1XX for the creator unnecessary-that would be a separate discussion. I'd just like to sound people out about the possibility of making 240 obsolete in RDA bibliographic records. This doesn't necessarily mean we would also abandon 1XX altogether. Bob Robert L. Maxwell Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger 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 Kevin M Randall Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 11:09 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points Adam Schiff wrote: 100 1_ Owens, Jo, $d 1961- 240 10 Add kids, stir briskly 245 10 Add kids, stir briskly, or, How I learned to love my life / $c Jo Owens. Now the question I have is, given that the 240 that would be required in an RDA record for this resource (because you have to name the work manifested in this resource)**, would one or two variant title 246s be required?: 246 30 Add kids, stir briskly 246 30 How I learned to love my life Or would only the second 246 for the alternative title suffice in an RDA record? Seems that only the second 246 would be appropriate. The first 246 is not a *variant* title, it is the preferred title. And since it is already there in 240 (or 700, per your alternate coding), a 246 field for the same thing would be quite redundant. Although, there is also the matter of system indexing capabilities, but it doesn't really seem like a good idea to add redundant access points to make up for (hopefully temporary) ILS-specific deficiencies. ** I realize that instead of the 240 a 700 related work access point could be given: 700 12 $i Contains (work): $a Owens, Jo, $d 1961- $t Add kids, stir briskly. You wouldn't believe how tickled I am to see you make this argument! This is much more in line with the FRBR WEMI concepts, and really should be the direction we end up moving in. And in this approach, the 100 field for the creator would not only be unnecessary, it would have no basis in the RDA guidelines. The 245 field is describing the *manifestation*, and the creator relationship is with the *work*. (This makes me think about all of the times people have argued that main entry isn't needed in online catalogs. I think those arguments didn't make sense in the contemporary context; but in the future, when we have metadata specific to the various WEMI entities, the what-we've-traditionally-called-main-entry concept won't apply at the manifestation level--it will only be at the work level, per RDA chapter 19. Hopefully, catalogers will start out describing *manifestations*, and then link those descriptions up to the expressions/works that are involved.) Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials
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] WEMI and Bibframe
I agree that Work and Expression is too fine a hair to split.
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 Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 12:33 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] WEMI and Bibframe
I think what he's saying is that a bibFrame:Work is just a container into
which both FRBR:Works and FRBR:Expressions can be put.
But, speaking for myself, I think the FRBR model would be a lot simpler to
grasp, not to mention more applicable to non-monographic resources, if the
expression level were jettisoned altogether.
I don't see what the category of Expressions give us that couldn't be
recorded and expressed through relationships among Works.
--Ben
Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 12:57 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] WEMI and Bibframe
I said:
As I understand it, what are Expressions in RDA (e.g. translations)
are Works in Bibframe.
Thomas Meehan responded:
Not so. As I understand it, both RDA Works and RDA Expressions are
represented as Bibframe Works.
Isn't that what I just said?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] GMD - where is everyone on this?
Based on what our customers request, it depends on what the local system requires. Some systems require a GMD (245$h)-- of these customers some ask that we retain the 245$h, even if they are getting RDA conversion. Other customers ask us to generate a GMD (245$h) if it does not exist and there is sufficient data in the record to know what it should be. On the other hand, customers with systems that do not use the GMD (245$h) ask us to remove it, especially if they are having us add the CMC (336, 337, 338) Mary L. Mastraccio Cataloging Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78265 1-800-531-7678 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Nelson Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 10:39 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] GMD - where is everyone on this? Hi, everyone; Could we get some postings on what others are doing now with the GMD? There are lots of opinions out there on this, I know. Accepting but not displaying in OPAC? Displaying? Etc. Some rationales would be helpful too. My librarian thanks you!
Re: [RDA-L] Difference between Introduction and Preface
Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: Sometimes I think RDA makes too many distinctions. It would be far more sensible to have only one relationship designator covering writers of things like prefaces, introductions, forewords and afterwords. Then we wouldn't have to wreck our brains about the differences. Writer of added text would do the trick, if it wasn't restricted to primarily non-textual work. I agree!! Mary L. Mastraccio Cataloging Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78265 1-800-531-7678
Re: [RDA-L] Difference between Introduction and Preface
I think the point that was being made--and with which I was agreeing--is that sometimes too much specificity isn't really that helpful. In other words, it is nice there is a higher-level designator but have we gone too far in some lower-level designators? In most cases the very specific relationship designators is/will be very helpful but when it comes to introduction, preface, afterwords, forewords it might be more helpful to have them all lumped together. Just how some of us see it. But as Adam Schiff said --in another setting--some of us are lumpers and some are splitters. In a shared cataloging environment this difference of viewpoint can cause unexpected results in our catalogs. At least the lumpers can make global changes to move terms to the higher-level designators to improve search results. Mary L. Mastraccio Cataloging Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78265 1-800-531-7678 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of JSC Secretary Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 9:04 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Difference between Introduction and Preface You can choose the higher-level designator writer of supplementary textual content if you don't want to or cannot identify a more specific relationship. Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Mary Mastraccio ma...@marcive.commailto:ma...@marcive.com wrote: Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: Sometimes I think RDA makes too many distinctions. It would be far more sensible to have only one relationship designator covering writers of things like prefaces, introductions, forewords and afterwords. Then we wouldn't have to wreck our brains about the differences. Writer of added text would do the trick, if it wasn't restricted to primarily non-textual work. I agree!! Mary L. Mastraccio Cataloging Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78265 1-800-531-7678tel:1-800-531-7678
[RDA-L] RDA implementation
If you have plans to attend the upcoming ALA Annual Meeting in Chicago, we hope you'll plan to attend a program of interest to technical services staff. MARCIVE is hosting an ALA-ERT program: RDA Implementation: What, Why, and How in One Hour. It is Saturday, June 29 at 10:30am-11:30m at the McCormick Place, room S 103bc. Here is the agenda: Content Outline: * Lori Robare, University of Oregon Libraries. RDA: What's In It for You? * Mary Mastraccio, Manager, Cataloging and Authorities, MARCIVE, Inc. RDA with Less Stress * Richard Guajardo, University of Houston Libraries. Our Implementation of RDA * Jim Noël, Manager, GPO Services, MARCIVE, Inc., RDA and GPO records * Questions and answers Hope to see you there! Mary L. Mastraccio ALA-ALCTS-CaMMS Past-Chair Cataloging Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78265 1-800-531-7678 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 8:50 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] RDA relationship designators in NARs, again Cross-posting to PCC and RDA_L lists, sorry. Following the recent discussion on this on the PCC List, I wanted to ask for clarity on a couple of points, before contemplating training our cataloguers to begin using these designators. Assuming for the moment the current list of designators in Appendix K, and without anticipating those that may be added as a result of the CC:DA/TF, would the followings usages be considered correct? 1. Body A changes name to Body B 110 Body A 510 successor: Body B 110 Body B 510 predecessor: Body A When we expressed this relationship in terms of earlier names and later names, this allowed for the fact that an earlier name could still be in use. I'm not sure whether this works as well with the terms predecessor and successor, so if in doubt, should we prefer a simple see-also reference with no designator? 2. Body A and Body B merge to form Body C 110 Body A 510 mergee: Body B 510 product of a merger: Body C 110 Body B 510 mergee: Body A 510 product of a merger: Body C 110 Body C 510 predecessor: Body A 510 predecessor: Body B 3. Body A splits to form Body B and Body C 110 Body A 510 product of a split: Body C 110 Body B 510 product of a split: Body C 110 Body C 510 predecessor: Body A 510 predecessor: Body B Someone raised the issue of complex situations where a body may split, merge, or change its name, but leave a body behind still using the earlier name, or where we simply didn't know the nature of the change. If in doubt, should we prefer the simpler successor and predecessor, or even a simple see-also reference with no designator? Many thanks in advance for any advice. 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 ** Experience the British Library online at www.bl.ukhttp://www.bl.uk/ The British Library's latest Annual Report and Accounts : www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.htmlhttp://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. www.bl.uk/adoptabookhttp://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 postmas...@bl.ukmailto: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] fictitious characters in RDA
Richard Moore wrote: When time permits, it would be useful if LCSH authorities for fictitious characters could be cancelled, and re-established as RDA authorities in the name authority file. This would avoid having two separate authority records for the same entity, each using a different form as an access point. Same for real non-human entities (cat, dogs, horses). This is an important enough issue that time should be made early on to do as Richard suggests. Names may be / and often are coded as valid for subject use so there is no need to have two authority records for the same entity and having two is only asking for trouble. Mary L. Mastraccio ALA-ALCTS-CaMMS Past-Chair Cataloging Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78265 1-800-531-7678
Re: [RDA-L] Retrospective conversion of data
Chris, You are correct that making global RDA changes to existing records can only be done in an automated way. As far as the descriptive fields, I think libraries are generally planning on accepting hybrid catalogs. However, there are tools and services to automate changes and some libraries are using these to make changes for consistency sake and to hopefully ready them for other changes that are anticipated for bibliographic data. Current customers that are asking for RDA conversion either are only getting it for ongoing cataloging [they recently did a full database clean-up and/or have regular updates to authority records so do not see a need for a full clean-up again], or if they have not had a full clean-up of their data ever or in a long time, or their system doesn't have a good authority module, are getting the RDA conversion done along with authority processing. The recently completed LC Phase 2 conversion of RDA records makes it attractive to many libraries to have their bib records processed and get a variety of changes to their data. Mary L. Mastraccio ALA-ALCTS-CaMMS Past-Chair Cataloging Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78265 1-800-531-7678 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Fox, Chris Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 11:00 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Retrospective conversion of data Gary, I'm just curious about many staff you have, both copy catalogers and original catalogers, to accomplish this. I don't think there is enough of me to attempt something like this to any degree. What are others doing, especially you smaller libraries? Are you planning some degree of retrospective conversion, or are you settling for living with a hybrid catalog? Thanks, Chris Chris Fox Catalog Librarian McKay Library Brigham Young Univ.-Idaho c...@byui.edumailto:c...@byui.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gary L Strawn Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 9:25 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Retrospective conversion of data We did the headings business (bibliographic and authority) last month. Any record that comes to the attention of our cataloger's toolkit can have the following happen to it (depending on options selected): * Add $e author to 100 (preferred value for this option: don't) * Expand abbreviations (those in square brackets) in 245 (preferred value: do) * Expand abbreviations in 255 (preferred value: do) * Expand abbreviations in 260 (preferred value: do) * Expand abbreviations in 300 (preferred value: do) * Supply 336-338 fields (preferred value for original catalogers: do; for copy catalogers: don't at this time) * Expand abbreviations in 5XX fields (preferred value: do) * Re-cast the 502 field, using new subfields (preferred value: do) (The reason that we have asked copy catalogers not to add the 33X fields at this time is that this code is still considered experimental, and the results need to be examined carefully for correctness, and problems reported.) All this of course is just making the records more RDA-like, but there's no pretense that the result is an RDA record; Leader/18 is not changed. As a project, we have already dealt with square brackets in 245 $a beginning i.e.. ([sic] is another thing that is begging to be dealt with.) In an ongoing project, we're dealing with bi-lingual and Polyglot subfield $l. As another project, we're looking at records for librettos, to flip the headings around. (Both the $l and libretto project are done one record at a time, but we have automated assistance-the operator clicks to indicate decisions, and the program does the mechanics. Many of the librettos are multi-lingual, which only adds to the fun.) No doubt, the need for yet other projects will become clear as time goes on; and no doubt, the things that we do automatically will continue to grow. We rather expect to make an RDA-ization sweep through the bibliographic database (adding 33X fields, removing 245 $h, expanding abbreviations and no doubt other stuff) in the next year or two. Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc. Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300 e-mail: mrsm...@northwestern.edumailto:mrsm...@northwestern.edu voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306 Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. BatchCat version: 2007.22.416 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Tony Whitehurst Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 8:56 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Retrospective conversion of data Are any libraries
Re: [RDA-L] GMD revisited
Kathie Goldfarb wrote: Until the 3xx can format a GMD, it is our plan to add them manually. Luckily, our library does not add a lot of media. Ebook bulk loads will need to be edited, but hopefully, a way will be found to do that in bulk. I have seen several libraries in different forums mention they will be adding GMD manually but don't think anyone has mentioned talking to their Authorities Services vendor. For libraries that already pay for authorities services it is certainly advisable to talk to their vendor because this may be an additional option that can be requested at little or no charge. I know MARCIVE adds it when requested. Mary L. Mastraccio ALA-ALCTS-CaMMS Past-Chair Cataloging Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78265 1-800-531-7678
Re: [RDA-L] First issue vs. latest issue
Heidrun Wiesenmüller asked regarding serial records: What are your feelings about first vs. latest issue - which advantages and disadvantages do you see? If you were free to choose, i.e. if there was no existing data to consider, and if we assume (for the sake of the argument) that both methods were equally well suited for the sharing of data: Which method would you prefer? And also: Would you see it as a problem if the German library community were to stick to its practice of 'latest issue' when moving to RDA? Although I understand the logic of first issue, I agree with Germany's logic that the latest issue is the current valid information so should be the basis of cataloging. Current records when cataloged can become out of date over time but the record [assuming it is in a cloud] could be updated as needed over time and benefit everyone with little effort. Mary L. Mastraccio ALA-ALCTS-CaMMS Past-Chair Cataloging Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78265 1-800-531-7678
Re: [RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields
when I look at the LC distributed records there are two patterns $a $b $c $d $e including $a $b $c $d $e $d and $a $b $e $c $d I don't think I have ever seen the $e before the $b but there certainly isn't any consistency about $e coming before or after $c ; if it comes at the end--after $c/d there may be additional $d's added after the $e. Mary L. Mastraccio ALA-ALCTS-CaMMS Past-Chair Cataloging Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78265 1-800-531-7678 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gary L Strawn Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 4:00 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields I asked a program to look at the weekly files of LC/NACO name authority records from 2012: find the new records in each issue (from Leader/05) that contain both $b and $e in the 040 field, and see whether $b or $e comes first. Here are the results: File 32 has 139552 records, of which 1306 have both $b and $e; in 1306 of these, $b comes before $e File 31 has 39665 records, of which 1055 have both $b and $e; in 1055 of these, $b comes before $e File 30 has 8959 records, of which 848 have both $b and $e; in 848 of these, $b comes before $e File 29 has 9928 records, of which 899 have both $b and $e; in 899 of these, $b comes before $e File 28 has 7237 records, of which 556 have both $b and $e; in 556 of these, $b comes before $e File 27 has 8691 records, of which 715 have both $b and $e; in 715 of these, $b comes before $e File 26 has 7896 records, of which 604 have both $b and $e; in 604 of these, $b comes before $e File 25 has 8538 records, of which 575 have both $b and $e; in 575 of these, $b comes before $e File 24 has 8618 records, of which 530 have both $b and $e; in 530 of these, $b comes before $e File 23 has 8761 records, of which 631 have both $b and $e; in 631 of these, $b comes before $e File 22 has 8946 records, of which 605 have both $b and $e; in 605 of these, $b comes before $e File 21 has 9490 records, of which 567 have both $b and $e; in 567 of these, $b comes before $e File 20 has 9364 records, of which 456 have both $b and $e; in 456 of these, $b comes before $e File 19 has 8590 records, of which 439 have both $b and $e; in 439 of these, $b comes before $e File 18 has 8917 records, of which 512 have both $b and $e; in 512 of these, $b comes before $e File 17 has 9693 records, of which 532 have both $b and $e; in 532 of these, $b comes before $e File 16 has 9037 records, of which 422 have both $b and $e; in 422 of these, $b comes before $e File 15 has 8743 records, of which 372 have both $b and $e; in 372 of these, $b comes before $e File 14 has 9443 records, of which 356 have both $b and $e; in 356 of these, $b comes before $e File 13 has 9087 records, of which 448 have both $b and $e; in 448 of these, $b comes before $e File 12 has 9485 records, of which 399 have both $b and $e; in 399 of these, $b comes before $e File 11 has 9661 records, of which 384 have both $b and $e; in 384 of these, $b comes before $e File 10 has 10645 records, of which 410 have both $b and $e; in 410 of these, $b comes before $e File 9 has 9488 records, of which 470 have both $b and $e; in 470 of these, $b comes before $e File 8 has 8971 records, of which 371 have both $b and $e; in 371 of these, $b comes before $e File 7 has 10574 records, of which 473 have both $b and $e; in 473 of these, $b comes before $e File 6 has 10306 records, of which 434 have both $b and $e; in 434 of these, $b comes before $e File 5 has 9787 records, of which 390 have both $b and $e; in 390 of these, $b comes before $e File 4 has 8565 records, of which 273 have both $b and $e; in 273 of these, $b comes before $e File 3 has 9449 records, of which 498 have both $b and $e; in 498 of these, $b comes before $e File 2 has 8096 records, of which 338 have both $b and $e; in 338 of these, $b comes before $e File 1 has 3950 records, of which 171 have both $b and $e; in 171 of these, $b comes before $e Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc. Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300 e-mail: mrsm...@northwestern.edu voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306 Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. BatchCat version: 2007.22.416 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jack Wu Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 2:59 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields Consistency is a good thing only if it is followed consistently in practice. I have previously asked if PCC and LC have both come to the same conclusion that $b before $e is the order to be, if not already. So I ask
Re: [RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields
Mac Elrod wrote: Certainly having 040$e in a consistent position would be good. Having it last, in alphabetical order, we find easier to spot than between other subfields (after either $a or $b). I don't look forward to having to redo all our RDA Procedures and programs to allow for variation in placement for rda$e. Sometimes the simplist solution is best. Well said! Mary L. Mastraccio ALA-ALCTS-CaMMS Past-Chair Cataloging Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78265 1-800-531-7678
Re: [RDA-L] 667 field in Name Authority Record
Gene Fieg asked: will all of the companies that do authority work, will they give us a free review of our entire files once authority records are rdaed? The answer of course is It depends. I cannot speak for other companies but I suspect it is similar. Any library that has a Notification subscription with us (they contract with us to keep them current on all new and changed LC authority records that they use) will automatically receive all appropriate rda-ified authority records as they appear during and after this transition period. Nothing is free, but since they are already paying for an update service, the fact that the file is ten times larger (or whatever) and there is no additional cost, that additional review can be considered free. Mary L. Mastraccio ALA-ALCTS-CaMMS Past-Chair Cataloging Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78265 1-800-531-7678
[RDA-L] ALA Annual CaMMS Forum
The Cataloging Metadata Management Section invites you to a forum on reimaging the library catalog. CaMMS Forum When: Friday, June 22, 2012 - 1:30 to 3:30pm Pacific Daylight Time* Location:Anaheim Convention Center, Room 209B Online https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/642397217 Description: Reimagining the library catalog: changing user needs, changing functionality Do we need to change our perspective on what the catalog should be doing based on changes in the education and economic environment? What is needed, what could be changed, and what would be worth retaining, taking economic realities and educational goals into consideration? It has been argued that catalogs are not giving users what they need nor taking into account how they search. There is an objection to cataloging favoring the 1% using the library for research at the expense of the 99%. If cataloging practice is biased toward scholarly research, and we are able to change the bias, will this change the overall quality of education? If the bias is changed in favor of non-scholarly uses, how does the Library of Congress respond? What are the identifiable changes in scholarly discovery in the web environment that could change our perspectives on cataloging support of research? Speakers: * Jane Greenberg-Professor and Director of the Metadata Research Center, Univ. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill * Kevin Ford-Library of Congress * John Myers-Catalog Librarian, Schaffer Library, Union College, Schenectady NY * James Weinheimer-Information Consultant, Rome, Italy Virtual Link: Live Broadcast Signup Link: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/642397217 Attendees just need to submit their name and email address in order to receive an access link via email. The link is available to anyone that wants to watch the CaMMS Forum during the scheduled program time. ALCTS will post the recording to the ALCTS Web site and to the Conference Scheduler shortly following Annual Conference. *PDT is 7 hours behind Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). Coordinated Universal Time - the international basis for other time zones. Same time as for GMT (Greenwich Mean Time) and Zulu time. To check your local time, see: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?month=6day=22year=2012hour=0min=0sec=0p1=137p2=136 Mary L. Mastraccio ALA-ALCTS-CaMMS Chair Cataloging Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78265 1-800-531-7678
Re: [RDA-L] Simplified OPAC display
You aren't blind, you just aren't able to get past the guest logon screen. I've tried several times with different browsers and most of the time I when I submit a search it sends be back to the guest logon screen. However, twice I did retrieve a list of titles and there are MARC ISBD options on the left. Of course, when I click on them or anything in the retrieved list it sends me back to the guest logon screen. Maybe there is a limit to the number of guests that can be on at one time so we are getting unexpected results. Mary L. Mastraccio ALA-ALCTS-CaMMS Chair Cataloging Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78265 1-800-531-7678 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 1:06 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Simplified OPAC display I must be blind. I don't see it. Here is what I see: http://celarc.ca/cgi-bin/opac/opac.pl On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Lisa Hatt hattl...@deanza.edumailto:hattl...@deanza.edu wrote: At the left, near the checkboxes. On 11/4/2011 9:15 AM, Gene Fieg gf...@cst.edumailto:gf...@cst.edu wrote: Where is the ISBD option in the hit list? On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 12:41 PM, J. McRee Elrodm...@slc.bc.camailto:m...@slc.bc.ca wrote: For a sample simple ISBD display, visit the OPAC SLC created for Canadian Elecrtronic Library. In a hitlist click ISBD to see that display. http://celarc.ca/ -- Lisa Hatt Cataloging De Anza College Library 408-864-8459tel:408-864-8459 -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edumailto:gf...@cst.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Simplified OPAC display
I tried BROWSE and had the same results so there is something else that is kicking some of us out. Mary L. Mastraccio ALA-ALCTS-CaMMS Chair Cataloging Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78265 1-800-531-7678 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Wardroper, Lawrence Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 1:10 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Simplified OPAC display You have to choose BROWSE I think 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.camailto:lawrence.wardro...@cas-satj.gc.ca Téléphone | Telephone 613-996-8735 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 2:06 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Simplified OPAC display I must be blind. I don't see it. Here is what I see: http://celarc.ca/cgi-bin/opac/opac.pl On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Lisa Hatt hattl...@deanza.edumailto:hattl...@deanza.edu wrote: At the left, near the checkboxes. On 11/4/2011 9:15 AM, Gene Fieg gf...@cst.edumailto:gf...@cst.edu wrote: Where is the ISBD option in the hit list? On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 12:41 PM, J. McRee Elrodm...@slc.bc.camailto:m...@slc.bc.ca wrote: For a sample simple ISBD display, visit the OPAC SLC created for Canadian Elecrtronic Library. In a hitlist click ISBD to see that display. http://celarc.ca/ -- Lisa Hatt Cataloging De Anza College Library 408-864-8459tel:408-864-8459 -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edumailto:gf...@cst.edu
[RDA-L] Margaret Mann Citation Award Jury
The Margaret Mann Citation Award Jury is looking for nominations of individuals that have contributed to the library cataloging classification community. http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/alcts/awards/profrecognition/margaretmann.cfm I have submitted Adam Schiff as a nomination but in order to be nominated it helps to have multiple supporting letters of recommendation. Many of you are examples of individuals that contribute to the cataloging classification community and could be valid candidates for such an award but I chose Adam because he is is very involved in various ALA responsibilities at this critical time of change and he is significantly contributing to RDA training for the masses. Hopefully you will be able to submit an email recommending Adam for this award. Just send your email to Mary Woodley, award jury Chair. mary.wood...@gmail.commailto:mary.wood...@gmail.com (preferred email) Thanks. Mary L. Mastraccio ALA-ALCTS-CaMMS Chair Cataloging Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78265 1-800-531-7678
Re: [RDA-L] PCC records and 630s
David Powell asked: I've seen more than one PCC record now that purports to be an RDA record that nevertheless leaves in the |p N.T. or |p O.T. in the 630 for biblical entries. I was under the impression that these subfields were to be eliminated in RDA. Just wondering what I might be missing Thanks for any wisdom. RDA bib records may contain headings ( uniform titles in this case) that match terms from LC-NAF. If the LC authority record is AACR2 the heading will have the |pN.T. or |pO.T. In the same way an AACR2 bib record may match to an RDA authority record and therefore follow the RDA rules for structure. Mary L. Mastraccio ALA-ALCTS-CaMMS Chair Cataloging Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78265 1-800-531-7678
Re: [RDA-L] [ACAT] Upper case in records
Adger Williams wrote: Those ...with poor vision find all-caps difficult to read Mac Elrod wrote: I would think either sentence or title capitalization, even with the occasional error in lower casing an acronym or name, would be better for at least 245, 246, and 740. than all caps. Even people with relatively normal vision cannot read or recognize words as quickly when all caps are used. It is definitely better to have an automated process change select fields to lower case--all lower case is better than all caps. Mac's solution is the best. Mary L. Mastraccio, MLS Cataloging Authorities Librarian MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio Texas 78265 1-800-531-7678 ma...@marcive.com www.marcive.com
Re: [RDA-L] Warning about authority record numbers and headings - they DO change
AMEN! I'm glad to hear this discussion because the problem is far too common. Fortunately PCC/NACO/SACO people are on this list because this needs to be addressed by the people creating rules guidelines and training the participants. Related to the issue of re-assigning numbers (I love Karen Coyle's comment about re-using ISBNs) is the problem of deleting terms and giving no explanation of why, or not providing the deleted number in 010$z of the correct record. I regularly find unauthorized bib headings that exactly match a deleted authority record. There is no note in the authority record for why the record was deleted and often no duplicate/alternate record is available, sometimes the obvious replacement record does not have the deleted control number in 010$z so a computer cannot automatically retain the link. When terms are canceled, and the record deleted, it would be very helpful for other catalogers/authority librarians if there were an explanation of why a record was deleted--and the delete record retained as sort of a Reference record. Most of the time, I'm for not deleting a record/canceling a term unless it is replaced by another record. Many of these terms are just as valid/important as the Validation records created to support pre-coordinated subject strings. 000 00559dz a2200157n 4500 001 no2006039307 003 DLC 005 20090401173240.0 008 060405n| acannaabn a ana c 010 |ano2006039307 035 |a(OCoLC)oca06913814 040 |aRPB-NP|beng|cRPB-NP|dOCoLC 151 |aGloucester Harbor (Mass.) 451 |aCape Ann Harbor (Mass.) 670 |aGloucester Harbor, Massachusetts, 1851:|bmap recto (Gloucester Harbor) 670 |aGNIS, Mar. 20, 2006|b(Gloucester Harbor, bay, Massachusetts, 42°36'57N, 70°40'08W; variants, Cape Ann Harbor) 000 00351dz a2200133n 4500 001 no2003003518 003 DLC 005 20100309075750.0 008 030113n| acannaabn |n ana c 010 |ano2003003518 035 |a(OCoLC)oca05949364 040 |aCU-RivAV|beng|cCU-RivAV 110 2 |aFilm Iva¨st 670 |aDancer in the dark, c2001:|bcontainer (Film Iva¨st) An illustration of why it is important to give others a clue of why a term is cancelled is Stilton, Geronimo. Four times different catalogers created a name authority record for Stilton, Geronimo, all of which were deleted. It was deleted with no explanation as to why and sure enough someone comes behind and creates it again, etc. I'm sure many think it is obvious why they were deleted, but apparently not. Then there is the issue of whether the rule that this should not be a heading needs to change. Four people obviously think so. n 2005053414 d 100 Stilton, Geronimo nb2009013864 d 100 Stilton, Geronimo nb2005018265 d 100 Stilton, Geronimo no 00041084 d 100 Stilton, GeroÌnimo sh2005002661 n 150 Stilton, Geronimo (Fictitious character) [Note: the Topical term does not provide any links to the deleted Name terms and none of the Name ARs supplied a RT to the Topical term, which would be the least one would expect of a valid NAR.] Mary L. Mastraccio, MLS Cataloging Authorities Librarian MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio Texas 78265 1-800-531-7678 ma...@marcive.com www.marcive.com -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: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 10:25 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Warning about authority record numbers and headings - they DO change Quoting Gary L. Strawn mrsm...@northwestern.edu: Something different is seen when an institution accidentally creates a record for an entity already represented by an existing authority record. Sometimes the institution creates identical records one after the other, sometimes the duplication is harder to explain. But when the institution realizes the error, instead of reporting the duplicate for deletion it changes the second record to represent some completely different entity. In this case the linking number is the same but the entity it represents is different. You know how we hate it when publishers re-use ISBNs and therefore make a mess for us? This is the same thing. It's very important that we teach people some basic concepts that will help them avoid these kinds of mistakes. If nothing else, this shows us that our library education (formal or informal) is lacking. We teach people the details of the cataloging code but not much (definitely not enough) about data management, and the latter is part of our job today. kc Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc. Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300 e-mail: mrsm...@northwestern.edu voice: 847/491-2788--now even newer! fax: 847/491-8306 Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. BatchCat version:
Re: [RDA-L] Linked files
My guess is there are other rules that I haven't spotted yet, but these three--DCM Z1 008/32, NACO Heading Comparison, and RDA/LCPS--would need to change to correct the current practice. The desire to have the UndifPNA practice/records changed has been expressed repeatedly over the years. It seems to me that someone needs to step forward to officially submit such a proposal. Can PCC, or similar group, be persuaded to promote this change? Mary L. Mastraccio, MLS Cataloging Authorities Librarian MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio Texas 78265 1-800-531-7678 ma...@marcive.com www.marcive.com
Re: [RDA-L] Fwd: References from one chapter to another in RDA
I don't think the problem is with the rule, the problem is with systems that don't provide easy options to refine a search. Someone might want to see more than books authored by a president and they would expect to find it when searching for materials written by (author)... Yes, I'm sure many people are surprised with how many hits they get but note their question is how can I limit to just BOOKS. Most people these days are used to getting more than they expected (think Google, Amazon, Ebay) and immediately look for a way to limit the search [format, date, language, price, etc.]. I believe this is an example of where we need to push for better systems. Mary L. Mastraccio, MLS Cataloging Authorities Librarian MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio Texas 78265 1-800-531-7678 ma...@marcive.com www.marcive.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moon, Betsy (Secretary) Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 4:00 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Fwd: References from one chapter to another in RDA That's an excellent suggestion, but to me the issue is that if 21.4D1 didn't mandate an added entry for the personal name of a head of state on materials issued by him/her as head of state, it wouldn't be necessary to have to jump through hoops to find Bush's autobiography when you do an author search for Bush, George W. Limiting by GovPub code and other things is jumping through a hoop, to my mind. Most patrons, not to mention librarians, simply won't do it, and I cannot blame them. That's why I said that in my view 21.4D1 is an example of the law of unintended consequences. When the rule was written, I don't think anyone realized that it could mean hundreds and hundreds of entries in catalogs, and didn't realize how difficult it would be to sift through them. In a card catalog environment, it actually was easier in many instances (added entries typed at the top of the card above the main entry, giving a visual cue), but in most online catalogs, main and added entries are all lumped under author and that is the rub. In the end, is this rule actually helping people find what they want or is it hindering them? In my experience, it is a hindrance. I'm not saying that just because I think it's a hindrance it should be jettisoned. However, it should not be difficult for people to walk out of the library with a president's autobiography in hand, and when you get 589 hits under that president's name, it's difficult. Betsy -Original Message- From: Mark Ehlert [mailto:ehler...@umn.edu] Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 4:45 PM To: Moon, Betsy (Secretary) Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Fwd: References from one chapter to another in RDA Moon, Betsy (Secretary) betsy_m...@sec.senate.gov wrote: We are getting into display issues here, but I brought this whole thing up because in my experience it is a real bear to winnow out the publications by a head of state writing as an individual (autobiographies, novels, etc.) and publications issued by him/her in their capacity as head of state. Would the GovPub code in the 008 play a role here--presuming it is indexed? -- 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] Fwd: References from one chapter to another in RDA
Agreed, details should not be added to bib records when the additional data is in an authority record. However, it is important to push system designers to use that data properly or it won't be accessible the way we imagine it. The same way keyword searching doesn't find alternate terms/names in authority records now. Mary L. Mastraccio, MLS Cataloging Authorities Librarian MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio Texas 78265 1-800-531-7678 ma...@marcive.com www.marcive.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 4:29 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Fwd: References from one chapter to another in RDA Relationship designators in RDA would also allow you to distinguish between authors and entities with other roles. In the case of official communications, I think the government official recorded as the creator would be given the designator author, while the access point for the person holding the office could have some other designator, although I don't see anything else other than author appropriate in Appendix I of RDA. I checked the MARC Code List for Relators and didn't find anything that would work either, other than the code oth for Other. I am fairly persuaded by those who suggest that the access point for the person is not needed in cases like these and that the references between the official and the person in the authority record could suffice to lead users from one entity to the other. If someone wishes to propose a change to the examples in chapter 19, they can certainly do that by bringing it up with the appropriate JSC constituent body. 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 ~~ On Thu, 14 Apr 2011, Moon, Betsy (Secretary) wrote: I completely agree with John. As an example, we have 589 entries in our catalog under Bush, George W. (George Walker), 1946- . Of those 589 records, only TWO are for what most people would think of as materials by George W. Bush (commercially published books/audiobooks). The other 587 are official communications of George W. Bush as president (presidential messages, etc.). The added entry for Bush's name is on these 587 records because of AACR2 rule 21.4D1 which says that official communications of a head of state should have an added entry under the personal name for the person. Woe betide the poor person who goes to the catalog, searches for Bush as an author and is gobsmacked by hundreds of entries, when all that is wanted is his autobiography. No one expects those kind of results in a simple author search. There are workarounds (involving setting limits at time of search and so on) but most people don't know them, and frankly, why should they need to? Only one ILS that I have ever used allowed you to differentiate between main entry and added entry when doing an author search. In all of the others, 1XX and 7XX fields are dumped into one author search. I've helped many people here with exactly the kind of search I just described (how do I find actual BOOKS written by a president?), and in my opinion 21.4D1 is an excellent example of the law of unintended consequences. I really do feel quite strongly that office of head of state/name of person holding office references belong on authority records (where they already are) and not on bibliographic records. Betsy Moon Cataloging Supervisor U.S. Senate Library SRB-15, Senate Russell Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20510 betsy_m...@sec.senate.gov 202-224-5581 (phone) 202-224-0879 (fax) -Original Message- From: John Hostage [mailto:host...@law.harvard.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 5:38 PM Subject: Re: Fwd: References from one chapter to another in RDA These corporate body access points for persons holding an office are strange hermaphrodites that are peculiar to the Anglo-American tradition, I think. The idea of using both a corporate heading for the official and a personal name heading for the same person on records for official communications was an anomaly in AACR2, and even more so in RDA. It's not a case of 2 different entities having responsibility for the communication; it's 2 different ways of approaching the same entity. It would be better handled through cross references on the authority records, which are made already, than with redundant access points on the bib records. We could also consider whether these constructed access points for officials make any sense to anyone but catalogers.
Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????
What troubles me is the focus on incidentals (often misinterpreted) and not main issues. The original post said Thanks in advance for all information (and potential public drubbing of CGU?). So, although I agree it wasn't necessary to say, (NYPL would like to politicize it), it was certainly a natural response the rest of us should have understood and ignored--just as we did the first phrase. Mary L. Mastraccio, MLS Cataloging Authorities Librarian MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio Texas 78265 1-800-531-7678 ma...@marcive.com www.marcive.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kathleen Lamantia Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 8:13 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s I too was troubled by the comment which Mike mentions below (NYPL would like to politicize it) Many of us have legitimate concerns both about RDA and about FRBR which underlies it. I did not think it was a political question when Ms. T from NYPL pointed out the extremely unusual 300 field. Kathleen F. Lamantia, MLIS Technical Services Librarian Stark County District Library 715 Market Avenue North Canton, OH 44702 330-458-2723 klaman...@starklibrary.org Inspiring Ideas ∙ Enriching Lives ∙ Creating Community The Stark County District Library is a winner of the National Medal for library service, is one of the best 100 libraries in the U.S. according to the HAPLR rating, and is a Library Journal 5 Star library. -Original Message- From: Mike Tribby [mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 8:43 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s While NYPL would like to politicize it, An alleged initiative to which you are contributing by replying in this manner. As to whether patrons care whether illustrations are in color or in black and white, in my experience lots of public and school library patrons do care about that, and probably find that information somewhat more useful than the number of pages devoted to bibliographical references,* a term which I doubt most patrons understand any better than the frightful col. ill. or etc. Purely conjecture on my part. I'll stop now before I further politicize this thread. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Browse and search RDA test data
Karen Coyle wrote: I was rather surprised to see some titles presented in all upper case... Is this truly RDA compliant? Anyone know? I cannot speak for RDA--I suspect it doesn't care--but some time ago (June 2010, I think) LC announced that it will be re-purposing publisher data provided to them in the creation of bib records. It is recognized that publishers sometimes use all caps in their data and this will show up as all caps in bib records. It doesn't look pretty but it doesn't hurt searching results and definitely helps the cataloging budget. There is a slim hope that if publishers see the impact of their messy data (it will show up in CIP data in their publications) they will change their practices. Mary L. Mastraccio, MLS Cataloging Authorities Librarian MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio Texas 78265 1-800-531-7678 ma...@marcive.com www.marcive.com
Re: [RDA-L] Recording Extent, Other Physical Characteristics, and Dimensions for incomplete serials
Jonathan Rochkind wrote: [The 300$a v.] makes sense for printing catalog cards. It makes no sense at all in an electronic record that will never become a printed catalog card... does it? Actually, the a major use of MARC records was to produce cards and libraries still have cards printed from the MARC records. Mary L. Mastraccio, MLS Cataloging Authorities Librarian MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio Texas 78265 1-800-531-7678 ma...@marcive.com www.marcive.com
Re: [RDA-L] Suprimposition
I'm sure LC/NACO, etc. have thought about this. However, when I asked about any
thinking on this--obviously authority records have to be functional in either
environment (which means catalogers take whichever is the current term no
matter which set of cataloging rules you follow)--the response I received is
that LC is still in the testing stage of RDA so no decisions are being made at
this time.
My thinking is it would be fairly easy and innocuous to make a general
statement, like:
LC/NACO realizes the implications of having both RDA and AACR2 constructed
headings in bib records and the repercussions in authority records. It is much
the same as when pre-AACR headings, AACR, and AACR2 headings exist in the LC
NAF. As with each change in the past efforts, will be made to enable libraries
to continue to use LC authority records to control their bib headings. Just as
in the past, libraries will be able to use their automated services and
software to flip bib headings to the current form authorized in LCNAF.
1. If LC goes with RDA, NACO participants will either modify old records as
they are touched or LC will have projects to convert Bible UT records and corp.
Dept. records. Former AACR2 terms will be retained as tracings in the authority
records to enable libraries to update their bib headings, using LC/NACO
authority records.
2. If LC does not to begin using RDA at this time, there will be projects for
Bible UT records and corp. Dept. records to add tracings for the form expected
with RDA. This will enable libraries using either RDA or AACR2 to continue
using LC authority records.
Mary L. Mastraccio
Cataloging Authorities Librarian
MARCIVE, Inc.
San Antonio Texas 78265
1-800-531-7678
ma...@marcive.com
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of MAURER, MARGARET
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 1:46 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Suprimposition
I think RDA has HUGE implications for authority control. And I'm not sure
I've yet wrapped my brain around the whole thing. I started trying to
think about the role for automated authority processes in all this,
especially for larger catalogs, but then I bumped into the image of an
AACR2 record with an RDA heading inserted into it. Yikes!
I can't wait for the time when we have separate records for works,
expressions, etc.
Margaret Maurer
Editor, TechKNOW
Head, Catalog Metadata
Associate Professor
Kent State University Libraries
370 Library, P.O. Box 5190
Kent, Ohio 44242-0001
330.672.1702
mbmau...@kent.edu
-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, August 13, 2010 11:20 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Suprimposition
Superimposition, for those of you too young to remember, is not a
song sung by Julie Andrews as Mary Poppins and Dick Van Dyck as Bert.
It is a word to describe a policy related to entry form the last time
there was a major change in form of entries. It meant that
established entries would be left as they are, but new ones would be
established according to the new rules. This made some sense in the
days of cards.
I can not believe that 1f/when RDA is adopted, National Authority File
(NAF) established entries for books of the Bible and treaties will be
left as they are, even if Dept. is left abbreviated, with new forms
expected to interfile with them. If that very unlikely situation
should occur, we should not allow that in our local catalogues. Some
of us are using Stilton, Geronimo as a bibliographic identity main
entry aren't we, regardless of the NAF to the contrary? There is such
a thing as jury nullification.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] RDA Toolkit open access
Our instructions has the password. Mary L. Mastraccio Cataloging Authorities Librarian MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio Texas 78265 1-800-531-7678 ma...@marcive.com From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Nicholas Bennyhoff Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 10:23 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] RDA Toolkit open access We just received an email from RDA Toolkit with our login, but the password is blank - has anyone else had this happen? The instructions say to log in with the username and password provided, but there is no password in the email. Nick - Nicholas T. Bennyhoff Web Services Specialist Lewis Clark Library System Edwardsville, IL 62025 (618) 656-3216 ext.107 nicholasbennyh...@lcls.orgmailto:nicholasbennyh...@lcls.org
Re: [RDA-L] expressions and manifestations
Diane Hillmann wrote: I'm not sure that we should continue to hold on to the idea of typing in tables of contents (or buying them from vendors who then refuse to let us share them). In a world where digital versions of books are taking hold, and Amazon has made Look Inside the Book their way of letting customers make a purchase decision, can't we make quick scans of tables of contents and add a link to them? So where is the scanned table of contents stored? Many libraries have found the long practice of linking to an offsite TOC inefficient. People do want at least key word search access to the TOC for both non-fiction and fiction (as a public library). Will each library have to go to this linked site to download the TOC so they can always have access locally or are you suggesting that each library scan the TOC themselves? What are these more robust ways of providing access to our data? There has been a lot of talk of harvesting publisher data, which in theory sounds more efficient; however, it won't be free. We currently use publisher data to enhance customers records but publishers often have some type of use-restriction and cost that must be followed and paid. If we cannot get the data free now and allow unlimited sharing of it, what makes us think it will be free and unrestricted in the future? Mary L. Mastraccio Cataloging Authorities Librarian MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio Texas 78265 1-800-531-7678 ma...@marcive.com
Re: [RDA-L] libraries, society and RDA
Owen Stephen: I think that in this case I am talking about a weakness in MARC21 rather than AACR2. Possibly it is the implementation - but isn't MARC21 an implementation of MARC? MM: At one level MARC21 is an implementation of MARC but what I am thinking of is the library systems implementation of MARC (use of the MARC data) and obviously to some level how MARBI decides to store AACR2/RDA data in MARC21. Many of our problems are related to how the rules tell us to put the data in MARC, not with the format itself. OS:As an example, I cannot see how MARC could support a linked data approach to information stored in fixed fields - one of the places where it would benefit from it. MM: Systems already use MARC fixed fields information to display icons related to format and to refine searches and there are drop down boxes with additional information. There is no reason a system design cannot use the code in the fixed fields to provide additional information to a user. OS:However, I do agree that new technologies are formats could allow us to do better data management more easily! I also believe that even if it is possible to 'tweak' MARC to allow more use of non-literals this wouldn't necessarily be easier than designing a new format. MM: I agree with you that the amount of work tweaking MARC could be significant so would be better spent on designing a new format, but unless the designers recognize that a major problem with MARC is design--not the format--they are not going to properly address those design issues. OS: Moving on to your example of authority records - this looks fine to me, but is this covering the ground that FRBR and FRAD have started on - which in turn RDA is building on? This IS covering the ground that FRBR and FRAD claim to be covering but I and many others are growing frustrated in not seeing any progress beyond the theorizing that began years ago and virtually nothing on FRAD (where some of think we need to start). Progress might be happening in secret somewhere but those of us waiting eagerly in the wings are beginning to think it isn't going to happen, or if it does, it will not be as well designed as it could be. I do think RDA is trying to build on the FRBR/FRAD effort but their work might be easier if they had a clearer structure around which to build their documentation. Yes, I know that RDA is supposed to free us from structure, but we all know there has to be some structure or they can reduce RDA to put in what you want. Mary L. Mastraccio Cataloging Authorities Librarian MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio Texas 78265 1-800-531-7678 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RDA-L] libraries, society and RDA
Bernhard Eversberg wrote: Just one more thing: To achieve what you envision, it will I think have to be a top priority that authority data (names and subject headings) become openly and freely available for easy inclusion and swift use in metadata. Jim Weinheimer wrote: I think another conclusion, just as logical, would be to figure out methods to ensure and improve consistency in a cost-effective way. Three years or so ago I thought, finally the significance of what authority data can do for improving data management is understood but more recently it seems to have been lost in the dust. I would add to Bernhard and Jim's comments that the rules governing the construction of authority data for automated management are long overdue. Too much of the data and rules are designed for human intervention. So much of the focus in current discussions is on bibliographic records rather than authority records, which is really backwards. A name authority record should have as much data as possible on a person. Ideally, all known works should be added to a name record, with additions over time. The relationship to the work should be provided (author, director, actor, performer, etc.). Birth and death dates, and other identifying information should all be provided in a manner to help identify other outside resources like online biography sources. Mary L. Mastraccio Cataloging Authorities Librarian MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio Texas 78265 1-800-531-7678 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RDA-L] Variant series titles in RDA
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 7:52 AM To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Variant series titles in RDA Jenifer Marquardt wrote: If such destructive headings are transfered to bibliographic records the damage is extended to everyone's bibliographic files as well. Correcting the faulty authority records and conducting bib. file maintenance will be more trouble and expense than creating the series correctly in the first place! Bernhard Eversberg replied: Taking FRBR seriously can only mean that you link bib records of parts of a series to the series authority record, and not by a textual link (as it is still current practice in MARCistan) but by control number linking. While I heartily agree that control number linking is the way to go, I am surprised that Bernhard ties the failure to do this to MARCistan. Yes, it is the current _common_ practice of many MARC systems, but 1.) it is not the fault of MARC, just some developers and practitioners; and 2.) There are MARC systems that _do_ use the control number. You mentioned one, and Spydus sold by CMI is another that does a great job of linking bib and authority records and really automating authority maintenance. Mary L. Mastraccio Cataloging Authorities Librarian MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio Texas 78265 1-800-531-7678 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RDA-L] FRAD program at ALA Anaheim
Hi Arlene, Today the weatherman said the heat wave is over. The high for today is only 93 ;-) I know the feeling of wanting to clone myself for ALA, actually I've been trying to figure out how to do that at work this past couple of months. I will either send you copies of what is passed out or send you a link when they are posted online. I am just the ACIG Vice Chair for this presentation and confess I haven't even a sure idea of who the presenters are. The Chair is a busy man and not very good at keeping others in the loop. Hope I'm not guilty of that next year when I'm in charge. MaryM -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Arlene Klair Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 8:11 AM To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRAD program at ALA Anaheim hi Mary, once again I succumb to the inability to clone myself at ALA. During the time I would have loved to be at your presentation, I will be encased in the ALCTS Org and Bylaws Cmte. If there are handouts or presentation power point stuff, can you let me know where you posted them? Thank a million. I am sitting here in an outfit every piece of which was purchased in San Antonio. It seems fitting for today since it will be hot and humid as all get out here. Cheers! Arlene Mary Mastraccio wrote: Sorry for failing to include the date for the ACIG--FRAD meeting. It is Sunday, June 29. The program will be over about 4:30, followed immediately by an ACIG business meeting for those interested. Mary L. Mastraccio Cataloging Authorities Librarian MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio Texas 78265 1-800-531-7678 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- 1:30-4:30 p.m.LITA-ALCTS/CCS /ACIG - The Authority Control Interest Group ACC -- Room 210 A-C You Know FRBR, But Have You Ever Met FRAD Track: Collection Management Technical Services; Cataloging Metadata To improve search and retrieval experiences for users, the data modeling concepts of FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records)- work, expression, manifestation, and item - have been incorporated into RDA (Resource Description and Access) and elsewhere. FRBR has been extended to both name and subject authority data through the work of FRAD(Functional Requirements for Authority Data) and FRSAR (Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records). Speakers will describe the status of this work to date. -- __ Arlene Klair Head, Adaptive Cataloging/Database Mgt. University of Maryland Libraries McKeldin Library, Rm. 2225 College Park, MD 20742-7011 V:301.314.7994 F:301.314.9971 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RDA-L] FRAD program at ALA Anaheim
Sorry for that personal message that went to the list. Mary L. Mastraccio Cataloging Authorities Librarian MARCIVE, Inc. P.O. Box 47508 San Antonio Texas 78265-7508 1-800-531-7678 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[RDA-L] FRAD program at ALA Anaheim
With all the discussion about what is involved with FRAD some might be interested in this program at ALA. 1:30-4:30 p.m. LITA-ALCTS/CCS /ACIG - The Authority Control Interest Group ACC -- Room 210 A-C You Know FRBR, But Have You Ever Met FRAD Track: Collection Management Technical Services; Cataloging Metadata To improve search and retrieval experiences for users, the data modeling concepts of FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records)- work, expression, manifestation, and item - have been incorporated into RDA (Resource Description and Access) and elsewhere. FRBR has been extended to both name and subject authority data through the work of FRAD(Functional Requirements for Authority Data) and FRSAR (Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records). Speakers will describe the status of this work to date. Mary L. Mastraccio Cataloging Authorities Librarian MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio Texas 78265 1-800-531-7678 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RDA-L] FRAD program at ALA Anaheim
Sorry for failing to include the date for the ACIG--FRAD meeting. It is Sunday, June 29. The program will be over about 4:30, followed immediately by an ACIG business meeting for those interested. Mary L. Mastraccio Cataloging Authorities Librarian MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio Texas 78265 1-800-531-7678 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- 1:30-4:30 p.m.LITA-ALCTS/CCS /ACIG - The Authority Control Interest Group ACC -- Room 210 A-C You Know FRBR, But Have You Ever Met FRAD Track: Collection Management Technical Services; Cataloging Metadata To improve search and retrieval experiences for users, the data modeling concepts of FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records)- work, expression, manifestation, and item - have been incorporated into RDA (Resource Description and Access) and elsewhere. FRBR has been extended to both name and subject authority data through the work of FRAD(Functional Requirements for Authority Data) and FRSAR (Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records). Speakers will describe the status of this work to date.
Re: [cont] Re: [RDA-L] Indication of gender in RDA and a uthority records
Nicholas Bennyhoff wrote: While I can see value for the patron in the inclusion of gender, it isn't always as clear cut a question as is usually assumed. There are authors in the GLBT community who do not identify as either gender, and in fact identify themselves as either between genders, as a third gender, or outside established gender boundaries. How would such an identification be handled in a binary gender option (which I assume is what would be available)? There is no reason to assume that only a binary gender option would be provided. As you suggested, there is always the No information provided/Unknown options, which is frequently used in other fixed fields. There might be some debate as to whether the other options should just be f=female, m=male, z=Other (just an example), or whether more specific options would be required. This issue clearly illustrates Mac Elrod's point that much information should be in the authority record. If a person's gender changes over time, or the cataloger got it wrong the first time, it could be updated in the national authority record and this distributed to local systems to update their local catalog. Mary L. Mastraccio Cataloging Authorities Librarian MARCIVE, Inc. P.O. Box 47508 San Antonio Texas 78265-7508 1-800-531-7678 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Naming of Sacred scriptures?
Hal, I agree with your observation that users search for the short title Genesis not Bible--O.T.--Genesis. When I worked in theological libraries we made sure our subfield $p was indexable for that very reason. I like your suggestions of using the direct form and qualifying the titles Genesis (Old Testament), Romans (New Testament). Mary L. Mastraccio Cataloging Authorities Librarian MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio Texas 78265 1-800-531-7678 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Hal Cain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 6:08 AM To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Naming of Sacred scriptures? I would be grateful for quick reactions to the following remarks; not that the topic doesn't deserve longer discussion, but I need to assemble my thoughts as soon as possible. I've been working over the LC proposal and various responses on the question of formulating the names of scriptural works, for construction of citations/headings -- the area covered by AACR2 25.17 25.18. For the user, what value is imparted by the (present and traditional) practice of entering a book of the Bible as a part of the Bible, rather than directly under its own (convention, short, English) title? That is to say, what specific benefit does the user derive from having the catalogue present Bible. O.T. Genesis -- or the alternative proposed by LC, Bible. Genesis -- rather than simply Genesis (maybe Genesis (Old Testament); similarly, Bible. N.T. Romans or Bible. Romans rather than Romans (New Testament)? And what benefit, apart perhaps from decrease of cultural irritation (not insignificant, I agree), does the user have from Bible. Genesis rather than Bible. O.T. Genesis? The latter has at least the advantage of long familiarity. Nearly a quarter of a century in theological libraries has convinced me that users search (and work) primarily in terms of the short title of the individual books (John, or Gospel of John) or groups of books (Gospels) and the preceding layers Bible. N.T. are something of a hindrance. It's my opinion that a good reference structure, with explanatory scope notes, will provide no less collocation than the present practice of indirect, hierarchical entry. And as a matter of history, the various texts have their own identities, before and apart from their having been assembled into (or excluded from) canonical collections in one or another religious/cultural context. As far as I can see, such considerations apply equally to scriptural texts of other traditions too. If we're looking at a change (which would involve a good deal of catalogue revision for many of us, and some for nearly all), why not go the whole way towards direct, specific entry for each book or specifically-named group of writings? Why stop halfway? Hal Cain Joint Theological Library Parkville, Victoria, Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.6/453 - Release Date: 20/09/2006
Re: Parallel title and other RDA terminology
Adam Schiff wrote: ... what was being suggested was not changing the term parallel title in the rules, but ...when we create notes about parallel titles we should use more understandable language. Instead of a recording a catalog record note as Parallel title: or Former parallel title on cover we could use notes like Title in French: or Former Spanish title on cover: Bernhard Eversberg replied: Which would be English-centered practice, not international!..I'd fully support retention of ISBD, ...to the extent that it avoids language-dependent verbiage. ...the rules themselves will not likely be read by catalog users!... the code need not, I think, sacrifice established and useful terminology in favor of lengthier circumlocutions for the benefit of potentially no-one. It may be helpful to include references to the MARC record in this discussion because it is the electronic display that is being referred to by the postings mentioning catalog users. No one is suggesting changing the rules or code, just the display language. Examples and labels in the RDA will be in English (at least in the English version) but a non-English library would use the appropriate translation of that label. In MARC tag 246 the second indicator value 1 indicates the title is a parallel title. The second indicator is used to generate a display constant that generally precedes titles when notes are generated from this field (based on the first indicator value). Because the label Parallel title does not mean anything to most users when they see it in the catalog display, it would probably be better to use a second indicator of blank with a subfield $i and include labels like the ones Adam Schiff suggested. Then we can either leave the second indicator value 1 = Parallel title: for those who want to continue displaying that label or come up with a good lay-term for Parallel title that would be applicable for the display constant. To be fancy it could be [Other] language title: where the [Other] is automatically supplied based on the subfield $elanguage code (which, of course, is not defined for tag 246). Although I like putting as much info in as possible to automate as much as possible this is one instance where for simplicity sake I would go with the first option of leaving the indicator codes and display constant phrases as is but recommending the use of blank and a subfield $i with appropriate phrase. Mary Mastraccio, MLS Cataloging Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78233-5367 1-800-531-7678 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RDA 2.7.0 Recording Names of Publishers--Parent vs Im print
Deborah Fritz wrote: For the sake of consistency in the information provided in this field, should we be asking for a rule that addresses this issue: * first named? * most prominent? * highest level (parent)? * lowest level (imprint)? Or am I the only one having trouble finding clear instructions on which name to use (bearing in mind that machine matching processes crosscheck this data)? I agree with Deborah that there is a definite need to clarify this issue. I've worked in a variety of libraries and this is always a question that comes up. Mary Mastraccio, MLS Cataloging Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78233-5367 1-800-531-7678 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
