Re: [RDA-L] WEMI and Bibframe
-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: 02 October 2013 17:57 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? Yes, although I don't think the conclusion that The WEMI structure of RDA would be as irrelevant to Bibframe as it is to MARC follows since Bibframe as it currently stands and I understand it could distinguish between an RDA Work and Expression. Cheers, Tom
Re: [RDA-L] WEMI and Bibframe
J. McRee (Mac) Elrod said:
As I understand it, what are Expressions in RDA (e.g. translations) are Works
in Bibframe. The WEMI structure of RDA would be as irrelevant to Bibframe
as it is to MARC.
Not so. As I understand it, both RDA Works and RDA Expressions are represented
as Bibframe Works. This is not to say that they are to be collapsed as such.
You will no doubt have noticed that the draft(!) Bibframe Work
(http://bibframe.org/vocab/Work.html) includes both expressionOf and
hasExpression properties so that, for example:
Shakespeare's Hamlet (Bibframe Work representing an RDA Work)
- hasExpression: 1945 French edition of Hamlet
1945 French edition of Hamlet (Bibframe Work representing an RDA Expression)
- expressionOf: Shakespeare's Hamlet
I don't think you could do that so explicitly in MARC. I'll admit it might have
been preferable had they chosen a different name for it than Work to avoid
confusion. Bibframe is I understand designed to accommodate other kinds of
bibliographic data, some that use FRBR (like RDA) and some that don't (like
AACR2).
Cheers,
Tom
Mark said:
Presumably the RDA profile will incorporate the WEMI entities and all
the other whiz-bang components of that standard.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__
\__
---
Thomas Meehan
Head of Current Cataloguing
Library Services
University College London
Gower Street
London WC1E 6BT
t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk
Re: [RDA-L] Recording alternate content and physical forms -- Bibframe
The BIBFRAME Work In the current draft does now have the expressionOf and hasExpression properties defined so a BIBFRAME Work could be either a FRBR Work or a FRBR Expression (or presumably some other kind of creative work used by another scheme), which does happily mean we can carry on talking about Expressions. Thanks, Tom --- Thomas Meehan Head of Current Cataloguing Library Services University College London Gower Street London WC1E 6BT t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk -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: 10 May 2013 21:39 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording alternate content and physical forms -- Bibframe Deborah Fritz said: A change in Expression data in a MARC Bib record means a change in Expression when we get the data out of MARC and into ... whatever. The only whatever on the horizon is Bibframe. Like MARC, Bibframe has no expression record. I suspect expression data in Bibframe will be divided between Work and Instance records, mainly instance ones, unless work is more narrowly defined. Thinking RDA will make expression relevant in neither MARC nor (without major revision) Bibframe. So let's stop talking about expressions for now. Apart from the complicated arrangement of RDA, the concept is irrelevant to creating recprds in MARC. unless greatly changed, in Bibframe..
Re: [RDA-L] Abridging statement of responsibility
Thank you. I think I am happy with the first two, although there are still hard policy decisions to be made. As far as possible, I intend to follow orthodoxy and widespread practice, hopefully both as much as possible. Some more comments below: -Original Message- From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca] Sent: 10 May 2013 19:47 To: Meehan, Thomas Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Abridging statement of responsibility Thomas Meehan asked: 2. Statements of responsibility naming more than three persons (2.4.1= .5). Only the first is core, and must be main entry or added entry. But all may be recorded. If not recording all, follow the one(s) recorded with [and nn others]. SLC will use [et nn al,] due to our multilingual client base. I understood the default position was to record all, but if you accept the option, then I see what you mean. I am tempted to follow LC-PCC and BL practice and put the lot in except in onerous (to be defined) cases. 3. Abridging statements of responsibility (2.4.1.4). The major change is that we now may include data formerly omitted, but as with much in RDA, options abound. When in doubt, I suggest including, apart from affiliations. There is a field in the authority record for affiliations; they don't have to be in each bibliographic record. A sample posted to Autocat showed that it is complicated to punctuate affliliations, and that they may be mistaked for responsible corporate bodies. It does save time not to have to ponder what to omit. Again, I understand the default is to include everything, affiliations included, and the Option is to abridge, although in an unidentified manner. My main concern is that this is largely inferred from the examples rather than the rules themselves. If RDA wants me to put affiliations in and general practice does not follow the option and its nebulous consequences (LC training materials certainly seem to suggest they are no), I will be happy to follow. I am keen to avoid options unless necessary. Thanks, Tom
[RDA-L] Abridging statement of responsibility
Dear all, This is a fairly novice question but one where I would welcome some clarification, especially as far as the RDA text goes. Apologies if this has been raised before (I'm sure it must have been). I am looking at a couple of contentious aspects of the statement of responsibility relating to the title proper where I think there are three areas that require some decision on policy: 1. Which (or how many) statements of responsibility are to be regarded as core. 2. Statements of responsibility naming more than three persons (2.4.1.5). 3. Abridging statements of responsibility (2.4.1.4). It is the third one which confuses me most. The rule states Transcribe a statement of responsibility in the form in which it appears on the source of information. The examples that follow contain no titles (Mr, Dr, Earl) except those that would have been retained under AACR2 and no affiliations (...professor of History at the University of Biggleswade) at all. However, the Optional Omission beneath which says Abridge a statement of responsibility only if it can be abridged without loss of essential information has examples with all of this information in, e.g. by Harry Smith // Source of information reads: by Dr. Harry Smith. The option seems curiously vague about what can/should be omitted if the option is followed, and why. Is this basically a case of the examples of the main rule not catching up and so being illustrative of AACR2 rules rather than RDA? I notice, looking at the really helpful LC training materials and BL workflow, that the point is made more explicitly there so I think I am happy with what is intended, but I am uncomfortable having to interpret the meaning of a rule based on third party training and policy documentation, if that makes sense. Many thanks, Tom --- Thomas Meehan Head of Current Cataloguing Library Services University College London Gower Street London WC1E 6BT t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk
Re: [RDA-L] Use of ISBD punctuation with RDA. And a workshop.
I think of it as being a standard abbreviation/symbol for a unit of measurement before any cataloguing code got hold of it. The same can’t be said of illustrations/ill. although I’m sure pages/p. can generate lots of debate over the weekend. Tom --- Thomas Meehan Head of Current Cataloguing Library Services University College London Gower Street London WC1E 6BT t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Michele Estep Sent: 01 March 2013 17:02 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Use of ISBD punctuation with RDA. And a workshop. Hi all. Occasionally I have tried briefly to explain to non-cataloging library colleagues about some of the changes they might be seeing in the catalog. I mention the no abbreviations rule[s] and go on to say, except for cm which is not an abbreviation, but a symbol and does not have a period after it. When I'm explaining this to people, I have to say that I'm inwardly cringing and feeling embarrassment for my profession as a cataloger, which I've never felt before. Do any of you know what I mean? How does one explain the cm rule with a straight face? Michele Estep Cataloging and Metadata Librarian Savannah College of Art and Design® Jen Library 201 E. Broughton St. Savannah, GA 31401 T: 912.525.4659callto:912.525.4720 - Fax: 912.525.4715callto:912.525.4715 mes...@scad.edumailto:mes...@scad.edu - www.scad.eduhttp://www.scad.edu/ SCAD - The University for Creative Careers® NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it may contain legally privileged and confidential information intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or by electronic mail and then delete this message and all copies and backups thereof. Thank you. From: Ian Fairclough ifairclough43...@yahoo.commailto:ifairclough43...@yahoo.com To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 11:34:15 AM Subject: [RDA-L] Use of ISBD punctuation with RDA. And a workshop. Dear RDA-L readers, On January 11th I asked a question (subject: question about dates in 264 fields) about the use of brackets and periods, and received several responses, most memorably from Deborah Fritz (who provided pertinent technical documentation) and Mac Elrod (who among all the respondents most closely answered the questions, which were phrased as What would you do ...). Also, in response to a more recent question (subject: cross training) I posted a list of MARC fields that I add to each RDA record in progress. In that list, I included field 300, and ended it with cm. That's right, cm. In so doing, I had in mind the likelihood of a response, which I indeed received. I had actually read up in ISBD prior to posting that message. John Hostage and I corresponded for a while about ISBD punctuation, and I found his response helpful and encouraging. Few people will care about this seemingly trivial issue, use of the period following the symbol for centimeters. But some people are likely to be perplexed. For example, some catalogers, used to the red pen of the revisor, and inded in some cases, points deducted for such transgressions as omission or inclusion of a punctuation mark, might wonder what is going on. In writing this message, however, I'm thinking of a different set of people. I am in the process of preparing a workshop RDA and the Local Library (with the support of George Mason University libraries, whose Professional Development Committee kindly awarded me research leave for this project). It is to be presented in the first instance at Norweld, a regional library support office, in Bowling Green, Ohio, a fortnight from today. No I am not expecting an influx of RDA-L readers to sign up! Though you would be welcome. Rather, this workshop is oriented to situations where people will encounter RDA records without actually writing the records themselves, particularly small public libraries. Will they need to know about periods at the end of fields, and ISBD punctuation? I doubt it. You can help me here. Imagine yourself as an ordinary public library user. Will RDA implementation affect him? My plan is to reassure the attendees. Don't worry, it's going to be all right. All comments gratefully received. Sincerely - Ian Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - ifairclough43...@yahoo.commailto:ifairclough43...@yahoo.com
Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
I agree with Jenny: I would love to know the reasoning behind this. As for machine actionable: although I’m no great programmer, I do know that anyone building something using the copyright date would have to insert at least one line of code to strip out the copyright symbol. However, depending on the situation this element could contain any of the following four options for a book with copyright date 2002 (2.11.1.3): ©2002 copyright 2002 ℗2002 phonogram 2002 There are other cases of this in AACR2/RDA (a good example is the 300$c which includes the units- which can vary- and the quantities in one piece of text) but the copyright date seems more alarming as it was added anew in RDA. Thanks, Tom (further ramblings on the 300 fieldhttp://www.aurochs.org/aurlog/2012/07/10/how-big-is-my-book-mashcat-session/) --- Thomas Meehan Head of Current Cataloguing Library Services University College London Gower Street London WC1E 6BT t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jenny Wright Sent: 30 January 2013 09:30 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question I too have wondered about this - an instruction to record copyright date is fine, but given that, in MARC, 264 #4 $c means copyright date, why should we need to insert the © symbol before it? Jenny Wright Development Manager Bibliographic Data Services Ltd. -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: 29 January 2013 20:25 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question I think you have a good point. If the instruction were worded, 2.11.1 Basic instructions on recording copyright *statements* it would make perfect sense to include the © just like we include by in a statement of responsibility. But it's worded ... copyright dates which implies that that data element should exclusively be a date. As to whether this makes it less machine actionable I cannot say, though I would point out for whatever it's worth that the Dublin Core library metadata action profile lists copyright as a refinement of the element, date, which would suggest for DC at least (which, whatever else it is, is closer to machine actionable data than our MARC records) the © symbol is not considered part of the data. (See: http://dublincore.org/documents/library-application-profile/index.shtml#DateCopyrighted) Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems 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 Beth Guay Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 2:23 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.camailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question I'm hung up on the RDA instruction for recording a copyright date as a symbol or spelled out element conjoined to a text string otherwise known as a date. It seems to me, that here we have an excellent effort to carry our data from MARC to linked data format through use of a newly defined 264 field, and rather than entering data (the date) into the area (264 second indicator 4 $c) that contains data defined as copyright date, we enter a symbol plus a date, or a spelled out word plus a date. What we are transcribing is not a date but a symbol plus a date. Is it a string or a thing? http://metadataregistry.org/schemaprop/show/id/5.html Is ©2002 machine actionable? Shouldn't it be up to the content display system to supply the symbol or spelled out element -- © or copyright or ℗ or phonogram? Have there been any successful efforts that anyone is aware of which is a system that serves up labeled data elements from a complex combination of elements in the leader 008 field byte 06 DtSt, byte 07-10 Date 1 and byte 11-14 Date 2? Beth - Beth Guay Continuing and Electronic Resources Cataloger Metadata Services Department 2200 McKeldin Library, University of Maryland College Park, Maryland 20742 (301) 405-9339 fax (301) 314-9971 bag...@umd.edumailto:bag...@umd.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Snow, Karen Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 2:58 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question Patricia Folger wrote: The former coding in OCLC looks like overkill -- How useful/necessary/correct is it to code this dtst to other than s have duplicate dates in the 008
Re: [RDA-L] When will RDA truly arrive? Will it truly arrive?
Martin, Hello. I understand that at the least the US national libraries, British Library, Library Archives Canada, and National Library of Australiahttp://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/news_rda_implementation_date.html, and most of the UK copyright libraries are aiming for implementation on March 31 2013. I certainly know that an awful lot of work and planning has been going on in some of the latter. The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek (DNB) are apparently planning to do the same in mid-2013. The PCChttp://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/RDA%20FAQ.html#PCCTransition3 are requiring RDA to be used for authorities (although not bib necessarily) from that date too. We are intending to try and implement RDA to some degree in 2013, although I am trying to avoid a big Day 1 and leave aside some of the more tricky materials types and so forth. The main factor for us is that records will be appearing in RDA no matter what we do and that we need to handle them in some way and retaining RDA will avoid an increasing amount of work AARCRising otherwise good records. That said, I think you certainly will get AACR2 records for another 3 years; it's just that you're going to get an increasing amount of RDA ones too. Thanks, Tom --- Thomas Meehan Head of Current Cataloguing Library Services University College London Gower Street London WC1E 6BT t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 22 January 2013 10:26 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] When will RDA truly arrive? Will it truly arrive? Hi all We're going through a 'library review' here at the University of Liverpool, which will include a substantial change in responsibilities, including a switch from predominantly professional staff cataloguing to nonprofessional staff, at least for copy cataloguing. At the moment, the plan is to train everyone in AACR2, because RDA never really seems to actually arrive. It officially arrived 2-3 years ago, yet the cataloguing world and it's records barely appeared to register it - first there was the lengthy wait for LoC, NLM the BL and all the other big libraries to accept it, then the revision, and then there were proclamations of when they were to be adopted... this year - April, I think? Is this genuinely going to be the case? Are there going to be further delays?? I don't want to push for the implementation of RDA if we're still predominantly going to get AACR2 records for another 3 years! Best wishes Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool
Re: [RDA-L] Relationship Designators
Thomas, Thank you. That does make concise sense. I feel I'm making something of a meal of this to be honest, although I think even a slight rewording would make it clearer. It still feels to me that Creator is described clearly as a relationship but Author isn't: the relationship designators imply (in my head anyway) that they are describing the Creator relationship rather than establishing a more precise relationship of their own. Thanks, Tom --- Thomas Meehan Head of Current Cataloguing Library Services University College London Gower Street London WC1E 6BT t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Brenndorfer, Thomas Sent: 28 November 2012 14:19 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship Designators There is a hierarchy in the RDA relationship designators, underneath respective relationship elements, which establishes the logical links, as shown in Appendix I: Example: Relationship element: creator Relationship designator: author Relationship designator: screenwriter While the relationship designators can be found in subfield $e (and $j for conferences), the top-level relationship elements in the hierarchy (Creator, Contributor, Publisher, etc.) do not have a specific home in MARC at this point. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Meehan, Thomas Sent: November 28, 2012 4:27 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Relationship Designators Dear all, Hello. I am having trouble trying to fit some aspects of RDA into a theoretical model in my mind. I recently delivered some training on FRBR and it was possible to explain everything in terms of entity-relationship (ER) models, at least as far as I understand them: [Entities] which have (attributes) and which have relationships to other [entities]. I hope my brackets in place of various shaped boxes make sense. I understand this should be possible with RDA too, but can't figure out exactly where Relationship Designators fit in. For example: [Shakespeare] has the Creator relationship to the work [Hamlet]. If I want to specify that Shakespeare is the Author of Hamlet, does the relationship actually change to something more specific?: [Hamlet] - Author - [Shakespeare] In which case, does Author have a recognised hierarchical relationship to Creator? I would guess not as RDA clearly says the relationship is Creator and doesn't describe Author as being a relationship; however, looking at the RDA Element Registry, Author is given as a subproperty of Creator. Or, as they are termed relationship designators, does it merely describe the relationship: an attribute of the Creator relationship perhaps: [Hamlet] - Creator - [Shakespeare] where: Creator - (Relationship Designator) - Author What I mean is hard to write on lines of text, so I hope it's clear. Looking at the non-MARC examples in the Toolkit, the following is implied: [Hamlet] - Creator - [Shakespeare] [Hamlet] - (Relationship Designator) - [Shakespeare] with no logical link between the two statements. Ironically, perhaps, MARC binds the two clearly together using a single field, but I wonder how this might look either in an ER model (are the relationship designators attributes or relationships or attributes of relationships or something else entirely?) or some kind of generic RDF triples. The following clearly doesn't work for instance: example:Hamlet rda:Creator example:Shakespeare . rda:Creator rda:RelationshipDesignator rda:Author . Presumably, given the RDA Element Registry version, the following would do the trick (where Author is a recognised subproperty of Creator), although the Toolkit doesn't suggest this to me at all: example:Hamlet rda:Author example:Shakespeare . While I don't wish to make a fool of myself here, I do also hope that I am missing something obvious, especially as I am also slightly confused by whether Title is an attribute of Manifestation or if Title Proper is, or if they both are but again in a hierarchical relationship of some kind... Many thanks, Tom --- Thomas Meehan Head of Current Cataloguing Library Services University College London Gower Street London WC1E 6BT t.mee...@ucl.ac.ukmailto:t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk
[RDA-L] Relationship Designators
Dear all, Hello. I am having trouble trying to fit some aspects of RDA into a theoretical model in my mind. I recently delivered some training on FRBR and it was possible to explain everything in terms of entity-relationship (ER) models, at least as far as I understand them: [Entities] which have (attributes) and which have relationships to other [entities]. I hope my brackets in place of various shaped boxes make sense. I understand this should be possible with RDA too, but can't figure out exactly where Relationship Designators fit in. For example: [Shakespeare] has the Creator relationship to the work [Hamlet]. If I want to specify that Shakespeare is the Author of Hamlet, does the relationship actually change to something more specific?: [Hamlet] - Author - [Shakespeare] In which case, does Author have a recognised hierarchical relationship to Creator? I would guess not as RDA clearly says the relationship is Creator and doesn't describe Author as being a relationship; however, looking at the RDA Element Registry, Author is given as a subproperty of Creator. Or, as they are termed relationship designators, does it merely describe the relationship: an attribute of the Creator relationship perhaps: [Hamlet] - Creator - [Shakespeare] where: Creator - (Relationship Designator) - Author What I mean is hard to write on lines of text, so I hope it's clear. Looking at the non-MARC examples in the Toolkit, the following is implied: [Hamlet] - Creator - [Shakespeare] [Hamlet] - (Relationship Designator) - [Shakespeare] with no logical link between the two statements. Ironically, perhaps, MARC binds the two clearly together using a single field, but I wonder how this might look either in an ER model (are the relationship designators attributes or relationships or attributes of relationships or something else entirely?) or some kind of generic RDF triples. The following clearly doesn't work for instance: example:Hamlet rda:Creator example:Shakespeare . rda:Creator rda:RelationshipDesignator rda:Author . Presumably, given the RDA Element Registry version, the following would do the trick (where Author is a recognised subproperty of Creator), although the Toolkit doesn't suggest this to me at all: example:Hamlet rda:Author example:Shakespeare . While I don't wish to make a fool of myself here, I do also hope that I am missing something obvious, especially as I am also slightly confused by whether Title is an attribute of Manifestation or if Title Proper is, or if they both are but again in a hierarchical relationship of some kind... Many thanks, Tom --- Thomas Meehan Head of Current Cataloguing Library Services University College London Gower Street London WC1E 6BT t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
Hello, I would like to quickly say that I think that the abandonment of the GMD and the adoption of a more logically designed system is one of the better bits of RDA (I am not an unalloyed fan of RDA, but I do think it is moving in the right direction, too slowly if anything). Briefly my thoughts, with apologies if any or all of this has already been said: * GMD is not a part of the title so should never be included in with the data elements for the title. * GMD basically uses vague library jargon. Electronic resource has already been discussed already as being largely meaningless except in specific contexts. Music is another example: it could mean sheet music, CDs, LPs, or an mp3 download depending on who you asked. * GMDs are already being circumvented/ignored, both for search and display: o For searching, our old catalogue uses a combination of 008 and record format to power our ebook search. Our discovery interface (Primo) can identify electronic material without reference to GMDs. o In terms of display, Primo uses icons and its own system of categories to happily distinguish between different formats and (generally at least) present them in a reader-friendly way. We have only used GMDs where we can't get rid of them. I notice that the University of Liverpool catalogue also uses icons and non-GMD terms for Book, Music, and Film. o Indeed, the issue is not now confined to traditional catalogue records as data from various sources becomes combined and mixed together. To me, the more granular the better to enable a better fit with data from other sources. * I think this is something best done by a computer which can take the three elements and work out what they mean in real terms for the user, especially in combination with format information. Being freer from having to input display values also has lots of other possibilities: tailoring the display for different audiences (e.g. icons for children vs technical description for professors), or even different languages. Even if we do have to keep the GMD, can it pleased be removed far away from the title! Cheers, Tom --- Thomas Meehan Head of Current Cataloguing Library Services University College London Gower Street London WC1E 6BT t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 24 October 2012 10:37 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Hi Richard Well, can't help but think that this looks like the Cataloguing worlds equivalent of burying under bureaucracy. I was hoping for a populist revolution via the RDA list! Ah, well, I guess I'll go for it. And maybe if a few others do the same, who knows? Maybe things can change at the 11th hour Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: 24 October 2012 10:18 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Martin There is a revision process for RDA: http://www.rda-jsc.org/revision.html If you wanted to submit a proposal yourself, you would need to discuss doing it through CILIP, as the relevant member body of JSC. That's the way RDA gets revised. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.ukmailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 24 October 2012 10:02 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Well, there does seem to be a large amount of discontent, if not widespread rejection of the 330s replacing the GMD. And I see a few others were using similarly user friendly (DVD, book on CD) terms to us, perhaps similarly hoping as we were that this would be the direction things would go in. But is there anything we can actually do about it? Or would that be another 10 year+ revisionary process?? Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool
