[RDA-L] Abridgements
I am not at all clear about how to treat abridgements under RDA. Looking at AACR2 21.9, which is the rule dealing with headings for abridgements, I am directed to RDA 6.27.1.5, which is for adaptations and revisions. The rule in RDA essentially follows that in AACR2, but abridgements are not specifically mentioned. As I read the rule, I would still enter an abridgement under the heading for the original expression, but I would like some confirmation of this. I had not noticed in discussions I have seen that the rules for abridgement had significantly changed. Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu
[RDA-L] (OCoLC)863164120
I have just added #863164120 to OCLC (and I have not done the corresponding authority work yet). Since this book represents a somewhat unusual situation (at least for me), I would be happy to have any feedback. The book is a bilingual text. The English text is, in my opinion, an abridgement of Oscar Wilde's The importance of being earnest, despite the fact that the title page reads adapted by Kelly Rogers. The Spanish translation is, therefore, a translation of the abridgement. However, it seems impossible to bring this out explicitly in the 7XX fields. I wonder if the first 700 for Oscar Wilde isn't redundant, since, if I had followed LC's practice and omitted subfield $l for the language of the original expression, the title would match 245 subfield $a. The 765 is, as noted, not entirely accurate, and applies only to the Spanish expression in the book. The 775 applies only to the English expression in the book. All comments welcome. Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu
[RDA-L] 765 note again ((not-quite-so) hypothetical)
Please forgive the duplication, but I think this question is relevant to all three lists. It seems to be the consensus that under RDA, when one has a translation, one should not only indicate this in terms of the preferred title (130 or 240), but also by the addition of a 765 field, in MARC. In the case of publications, such as the Loeb Classical Library, where there is both the original language and a translation, it is now considered best practice to omit the 240, and instead have two preferred titles in separate 7XX fields, one for the original language expression, one for the translation. In this case, would you also have an additional 765 essentially duplicating the 7XX for the original language? It seems to me that this would be the logical conclusion. Just how is it envisioned that all these fields will be used? Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu
Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
What is the effect on filing and display in the OPAC? Despite all promises made at the beginnings of computerization over 40 years ago, the sort in computer systems has never, in my opinion, been as good as the card catalog, organized according to the LC filing rules. Only once, at an ALA meeting, did I find something that came close. So in an author search, how are these 700's going to sort? What will patrons see? How is this envisioned? Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu -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 7:49 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- $t Add kids, stir briskly. You wouldn't believe how tickled I am to see you make this argument! This is much more in line with the FRBR WEMI concepts, and really should be the direction we end up moving in. And in this approach, the 100 field for the creator would not only be unnecessary, it would have no basis in the RDA guidelines. The 245 field is describing the *manifestation*, and the creator relationship is with the *work*. (This makes me think about all of the times people have argued that main entry isn't needed in online catalogs. I think those arguments
[RDA-L] FW: [RDA-L] 700$a$t replacing 240?
So, do they only want one subject per record, fearing that users will discover
the same book twice if there are two subjects, and so on?
When I was a classics major, I used to get duplicate hits in the card catalog,
if I searched under the original language of the work and its translation (at
the time, the rules required two headings for a work with translation, one for
the original, and another for the translation, as RDA does now, but the heading
for the original was the main entry). I didn't mind -- I was happy to have
found the book. I wonder if there is a study about this. At present, it seems
to me that all we are working on is our preferences.
I will say, however, that if a book contains two works by Charles Dickens, and
two readers each do an author search, one looking for title A, one for title B,
they should each be able to find the same book that has both titles, doing, as
I said, the same author search. In my opinion, if that does not happen, the
catalog, and catalogers, have not done their job properly.
Michael S. Borries
Cataloger, City University of New York
151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10010
Phone: (646) 312-1687
Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu
-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 1:13 PM
To: Michael Borries
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 700$a$t replacing 240?
Michael Borries said:
So in an author search, how are these 700's going to sort? What will
patrons see? How is this envisioned?
Our clients tell us that they see two hits for the same item with an author
search, one for the 100 and one for the 700, making patrons think there are two
items. The do *not* want a 700 which duplicates the 100.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
[RDA-L] Question on responsibility and preferred entry
I have in hand the fourth edition of Facilities management handbook. I have the edition from Routledge. (OCoLC) 244653136 is an AACR2 record for the Butterworth-Heinemann edition. (You can also search by ISBN: 9780750689779.) The cover says edited by Frank Booty; the title page leaves out edited by, at least in my copy (the record for the Butterworth-Heinemann edition suggests that edited by was on the title page, although other records suggest that edited by did not appear on the title page). Page xx, About the authors, lists 8 authors of the handbook, the first, of course, being Frank Booty, who seems, then, to be the primary author and the editor responsible for the final form of the volume. So, should his name be the preferred entry? Should I simply ignore edited by on the cover? And if I did want to give it, I assume I would not use square brackets, since it comes from the resource, although not from the source I am using for the information. Thanks in advance for any help. Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Question on responsibility and preferred entry
I'm sorry, I am having a bad day. However, Frank Booty is said to be the editor of *other* titles, as part of listing his qualifications. However, I don't think any of the others are editors of anything else. Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joan Wang Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 2:00 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question on responsibility and preferred entry Hi, Michael I did read Page xx, About the authors. Apparently the term author is used differently in the book. It actually means editor rather than author as we understand in RDA. I would suggest you to stick to the title page. You also can make a judgement based on the nature of the handbook. About the Authors Frank Booty is former editor of Facilities Management and a contributor to, and editor of, other market-leading titles, books and web sites in the fields of business, IT and networking. Hopefully it helps. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Michael Borries michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edumailto:michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu wrote: I have in hand the fourth edition of Facilities management handbook. I have the edition from Routledge. (OCoLC) 244653136 is an AACR2 record for the Butterworth-Heinemann edition. (You can also search by ISBN: 9780750689779.) The cover says edited by Frank Booty; the title page leaves out edited by, at least in my copy (the record for the Butterworth-Heinemann edition suggests that edited by was on the title page, although other records suggest that edited by did not appear on the title page). Page xx, About the authors, lists 8 authors of the handbook, the first, of course, being Frank Booty, who seems, then, to be the primary author and the editor responsible for the final form of the volume. So, should his name be the preferred entry? Should I simply ignore edited by on the cover? And if I did want to give it, I assume I would not use square brackets, since it comes from the resource, although not from the source I am using for the information. Thanks in advance for any help. Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687tel:%28646%29%20312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edumailto:michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Question on responsibility and preferred entry
I am sorry for not making myself more clear, and I think I see the source of your confusion. Frank Booty was formerly the editor of Facilities Management, the serial (not the same as Facilities Management *Handbook*, the publication in hand), as well as the editor of other publications in the same subject area. And, yes, he is also associated with previous editions of the Handbook, probably in the same way, but under AACR2, it did not make any difference in form of entry. See also the next paragraph. Of all the other authors listed on page xx, only the last is said to be an editor, once for a publisher, once for a periodical. These authors are also given at the beginning of the chapters (but not in the table of contents). Looking at the individual chapters, it appears that Frank Booty did write most of them. At the beginning of chapter 2 I found an author (one of three) who was not listed on page xx. There seems to be no way of knowing why - perhaps she did not send in her information. The more I describe this, the more I am inclined to treat Frank Booty as the preferred access point. Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joan Wang Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 2:42 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question on responsibility and preferred entry From the information about Frank Booty. He is used to be an editor :) Yes. I made an assumption from his experience. You also can check if the eight authors are responsible for particular parts of the book. If they do write parts of the book, they would be authors. On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Michael Borries michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edumailto:michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu wrote: Why do you think page xx means editors and not authors? I see nothing there to suggest this. Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687tel:%28646%29%20312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edumailto:michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joan Wang Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 2:00 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question on responsibility and preferred entry Hi, Michael I did read Page xx, About the authors. Apparently the term author is used differently in the book. It actually means editor rather than author as we understand in RDA. I would suggest you to stick to the title page. You also can make a judgement based on the nature of the handbook. About the Authors Frank Booty is former editor of Facilities Management and a contributor to, and editor of, other market-leading titles, books and web sites in the fields of business, IT and networking. Hopefully it helps. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Michael Borries michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edumailto:michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu wrote: I have in hand the fourth edition of Facilities management handbook. I have the edition from Routledge. (OCoLC) 244653136 is an AACR2 record for the Butterworth-Heinemann edition. (You can also search by ISBN: 9780750689779.) The cover says edited by Frank Booty; the title page leaves out edited by, at least in my copy (the record for the Butterworth-Heinemann edition suggests that edited by was on the title page, although other records suggest that edited by did not appear on the title page). Page xx, About the authors, lists 8 authors of the handbook, the first, of course, being Frank Booty, who seems, then, to be the primary author and the editor responsible for the final form of the volume. So, should his name be the preferred entry? Should I simply ignore edited by on the cover? And if I did want to give it, I assume I would not use square brackets, since it comes from the resource, although not from the source I am using for the information. Thanks in advance for any help. Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687tel:%28646%29%20312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edumailto:michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409tel:618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Question on responsibility and preferred entry
Why do you think page xx means editors and not authors? I see nothing there to suggest this. Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joan Wang Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 2:00 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question on responsibility and preferred entry Hi, Michael I did read Page xx, About the authors. Apparently the term author is used differently in the book. It actually means editor rather than author as we understand in RDA. I would suggest you to stick to the title page. You also can make a judgement based on the nature of the handbook. About the Authors Frank Booty is former editor of Facilities Management and a contributor to, and editor of, other market-leading titles, books and web sites in the fields of business, IT and networking. Hopefully it helps. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Michael Borries michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edumailto:michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu wrote: I have in hand the fourth edition of Facilities management handbook. I have the edition from Routledge. (OCoLC) 244653136 is an AACR2 record for the Butterworth-Heinemann edition. (You can also search by ISBN: 9780750689779.) The cover says edited by Frank Booty; the title page leaves out edited by, at least in my copy (the record for the Butterworth-Heinemann edition suggests that edited by was on the title page, although other records suggest that edited by did not appear on the title page). Page xx, About the authors, lists 8 authors of the handbook, the first, of course, being Frank Booty, who seems, then, to be the primary author and the editor responsible for the final form of the volume. So, should his name be the preferred entry? Should I simply ignore edited by on the cover? And if I did want to give it, I assume I would not use square brackets, since it comes from the resource, although not from the source I am using for the information. Thanks in advance for any help. Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687tel:%28646%29%20312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edumailto:michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] 775 again
Mac,
Thanks for taking the time to answer. So far, you are the only one to do so.
However, I think we differ in our understanding of who should be considered a
publisher in the case of reproductions of this nature.
When the Society of Biblical Literature issues in paperback a book that is also
published by Brill as a hard cover, they are each considered publishers of the
book, and separate records are created, even though (in all likelihood) the
same plates, or reproductions of the plates, are being used to produce the
books. This is because each decided to publish the book, and bear, among other
things, the financing.
In the case in hand, Read Books Design (and similar such publishers) make the
decision to republish and redistribute the title. The original publisher has
nothing to do with this decision, nor do they bear the cost of publication --
in many cases, the original publisher has ceased to exist. Just because the
means of reproduction (photomechanical) is different from traditional reprints,
doesn't mean Read Books Design and similar corporations are any less
publishers, or so it seems to me.
And I think the question could reasonably be asked, if we are going to treat
Read Books Design simply as a manufacturer, then why not simply add a 264 to
the existing record, rather than create a new one? And if we treat
corporations such as Read Books Design as only manufacturers, why not similarly
treat others who issue reprints as manufacturers, and put everything on one
record, the way that many public libraries apparently do?
MIke
Michael S. Borries
Cataloger, City University of New York
151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10010
Phone: (646) 312-1687
Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu
-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: Thursday, August 29, 2013 5:24 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 775 again
Michael Borries said:
I have a photomechanical reprint of W.P. Robins Etching craft in hand.
The= facsimile of the title page has been altered so that the original
publicat= ion information does not appear (in fact, the publication
information of th= e reproduction also appears nowhere
I would suggest a 264 1 for the original publisher, and a 264 3 for the
reproducer. Elements in both would need brackets.
Since it is an exact reproduction (apart from the imprint) I am not sure it is
another edition needing a 775.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
[RDA-L] 775 again
I have a photomechanical reprint of W.P. Robins Etching craft in hand. The facsimile of the title page has been altered so that the original publication information does not appear (in fact, the publication information of the reproduction also appears nowhere, but this appears to have been published by Read Books Design). There seem to have been two editions of the book, one British with only The Bookman's journal print collector appearing on the title page (the quotes are used in the records), and one American, with the addition of Dodd, Mead and Co. This seems to be an American reproduction, so my guess would be that the American edition was used for the reproduction. Should I use that in the 775? Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Question re: 776 for Custom Editions, which are excerpts/adapted from full textbooks
Having dealt with a number of these in the past (although I haven’t done any using RDA), I would say that generally these are excerpts, although you should check to see what any front matter says. Often the pagination is not changed, but sections are dropped, so that pagination may not be continuous. Again, you have to check carefully. Sometimes (although rarely, in my experience) there is more than one textbook involved in the custom edition. I also think that the 776 should be “Excerpt from (manifestation),” since a specific edition is involved. This is all “off the top of my head,” so there may be other things to be aware of that I am not thinking of at the moment. Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of MCCUTCHEON, SEVIM Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 10:37 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Question re: 776 for Custom Editions, which are excerpts/adapted from full textbooks I have many books to rush catalog, all of which are custom editions for classes taught at Kent State University. I’m taking the record for the full textbook and deriving an original record for the custom edition. I’d like to add a 776 to link the full textbook to the custom edition. I’m not sure of what to put in the subfield I of the 776 to explain the relationship. I think that in most cases, the custom editions are excerpts, but the first one I’ve looked at closely appears to have the same pagination as the texbook, with the addition of a course syllabus. I really like my coworkers suggestion, 776 08 ǂi Excerpts from (work): ǂa Hamilton, Cheryl. ǂt Communicating for success. ǂd Boston : Allyn Bacon, c2011 ǂz 0205524753 ǂw (DLC) 2009045254 ǂw (OCoLC)316017345 But wonder if it’s safe to assume these are all excerpts versus modifications. Thus I’d just like to check with the collective wisdom before I take final action. Since these are rush cataloging requests, the sooner I can hear from you all the better! Thanks in advance for your help. Sevim McCutcheon Catalog Librarian, Assoc. Prof. Kent State University Libraries 330-672-1703 lmccu...@kent.edumailto:lmccu...@kent.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Bible. New Testament. Syriac. Peshitta--relationship designator for text prepared by?
I think editor would be just fine. I would be inclined to catalog this as a set, and I think Kiraz's name is the only one you need to trace - most people will not remember the other editors and translators. If there is another name that is found on every volume, you could trace that as well. Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Dana Van Meter Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 7:38 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Bible. New Testament. Syriac. Peshitta--relationship designator for text prepared by? Hello, I'm cataloging The Syriac Peshitta Bible with English translation, published by Gorgias Press, 2012-. Each volume lists translators (translated by), and a person (or persons) said to have prepared the text (text prepared by). George A. Kiraz is listed as the General editor in the write up at the publisher's website: http://www.gorgiaspress.com/bookshop/p-59841-kiraz-george-a-the-antioch-bible--the-syriac-peshitta-bible-with-english-translation-individual-subscription-75vol.aspx, however the title pages of the individual volumes just list him after text prepared by, and sometimes there is another individual who has prepared the text for a particular volume in addition to George A. Kiraz. Does anyone have any ideas on what would be a good relationship designator for the individuals who have prepared the text? I used editor, but I'm not really happy with that, although I'm stumped for what else might work. Would appreciate any thoughts others might have. Thanks very much, Dana Van Meter Catalog Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edumailto:vanme...@ias.edu
[RDA-L] Edition statements
I have in hand the Second print of a title. The first printing had 77 pages (according to the bib record; 78 according to Amazon, 81 according to Barnes Noble). The Second print has 124 pages, and apparently the same dimensions (at least, the height is the same). I would like to add an explanatory word to the edition statement, something like Second print [expanded], but this doesn't seem to be allowed. 2.5.2.3 allows for adding a word such as edition or version if needed to make the edition statement clear, but nothing else. Apparently only a 500 note can be used in my situation. This would seem to be less helpful, since it does not put this information in as prominent a position, which would be more helpful to the user (including copy catalogers). I wonder if there shouldn't be some re-writing here. Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Edition statements
To answer Mac's questions, there don't seem to have been unnumbered pages
involved (except perhaps in the differing paginations of the bib record,
Amazon, and Barnes Noble). There are lab sheets and tests in the second
print, but not enough, I think, to account for the difference. It's difficult
to know what was added.
The OCLC number is 849655048. The 250 is Second print -- this is what
appears on the piece, so that's what I put in the 250. I added a 500 Second
print expanded from first printing. Interestingly, the copyright had not
changed, so I have two 264s.
Michael S. Borries
Cataloger, City University of New York
151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10010
Phone: (646) 312-1687
Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu
-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 1:40 PM
To: Michael Borries
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Edition statements
Michael Borries posted:
I have in hand the Second print of a title [with more pages than the
first printing].
How about:
250 $a[Enlarged version]
500 %asecond printing.
Although that might make it appear it is the second printing of the enlarged
version.
Perhaps since you have done all that research:
500 $aFirst printed with nn, nn or nn pages.
Perhaps the difference in page numbers is due to counting or not counting
unnumbered pages?
I miss 503, which could have had an explicit statement of printing history.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points
I can see that an argument can be made for using the relationship designator as the justification for the added entry. One problem in the past has been that relationship designators have been more unstable (likely to disappear) than information in the body of the description. Also, there are those cases when there is no suitable relationship designator. I don't think most patron give any of this a thought. But in my career I have come across a handful of added entries (most or all of them corporate) that simply made no sense, and there was no justification anywhere in the record. Since I didn't have the piece in hand, I decided not remove these entries, but it's quite possible that I left in a false hit. Requiring justification of some sort makes this situation less likely (although I would agree that even now it is a rarity). Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Goldfarb, Kathie Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 9:22 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points Very interesting. I have been in favor of continuing to document why a person has an added entry, but I can see, if there is a relationship designator, that those notes could become unnecessary. In the past, sometimes those notes were needed due to the 'rule of three' which prohibited listing those other authors/editors listed on the title page, when the cataloger felt the added entry would be useful to the patron. kathie Kathleen Goldfarb Technical Services Librarian College of the Mainland Texas City, TX 77539 409 933 8202 P Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Meehan, Thomas Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 3:12 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points Is anyone aware of any research into whether patrons want the justification? E.g., once a cataloguer has put Smith, John, editor how much do most patrons want or need to see edited by John Smith in a note. At the moment I am all in favour of justifying information, especially when an added entry is hanging otherwise mysteriously without a relationship designator. Perhaps relationship designators will make us question what is actually informative to the patron. 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 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg Sent: 07 June 2013 17:12 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points And not only justify entries, but also justify fixed fields. For instance, in hand right now, the fixed field for Index has value of one, but there is no note to that effect. Justifying it gives information to the patron, in plain English. What is our goal here? Down and dirty? Or cataloging and classification that is informative the patron? It is not enough to say, Look at all that I have catalogued and now the books are on the shelves. Will the cataloging be fully informative to the patron as to what the book/item is??? That is the question. It is all about communication. On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:40 AM, Don Charuk dcha...@torontopubliclibrary.camailto:dcha...@torontopubliclibrary.ca wrote: Thank you for your responses. We are of split opinion of the non-requirement of justification. some feel the relationship designators are sufficient while others still see the need for notes. Our opinion is also split on how to deal with compilations. Do we go with structured notes and make use of the subfields in 505 tag to allow searching or use authorized access points? We are leaning towards structured notes since it involves no authority work. -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edumailto:gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
[RDA-L] Active dates
I remember seeing all kinds of emails about replacing fl. with active, but when I look at the instructions in RDA 9.3.4 and 9.3.1, I don't find any instructions to use the word active, or any other word, except approximately. If one reads the instructions as they stand, it would seem that all one should record is the span of dates of activity, nothing more. The LC training materials do clarify this with the instruction to use active. Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu
[RDA-L] Two questions
Dear collective wisdom, I and another cataloger here at CUNY Central Office have two questions regarding creating personal name authority records using RDA: 1. The more theoretical question. In fields 372 and 374 (field of activity and occupation), the instructions in RDA give very generic phrases, such as Theater, Literature, Poets, etc. However, if the information stored in these fields is being considered (as has been suggested in various posts on various lists) for use not only in identification, but also for searching, would it not be better to have more specific information, such as Dominican literature and Dominican authors (we are working on a project involving these)? I don't see any prohibition in this regard, but no one seems to do this. 2. DCM Z1 says that it is preferable to take the terms in these fields from LCSH. However, in the case of authors, the term Writer is used, rather than Authors (Writer being the term used in RDA). Which is preferable? Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Revised printing
I would have to check the piece itself to be sure, but I would suppose that revised printing date meant that there had been revisions, even if these do not appear to be obvious. In that case, I would create a new record. If I am the reader, I want to know if there are differences between the two printings, which seems to be the case. The only way to make that evident is to create a new record. Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joseph, Angelina Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 3:35 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Revised printing Hello All: I don't know if this was discussed on this list before, but I would like to know if a title is just a revised printing and has a revised printing date on it and everything else is the same as the original version, should it warrant a new bibliographic record? The contents, pagination, publisher are all the same as the original edition. Thanks for your comments. -- angelina Angelina Joseph Cataloging Librarian Ray Kay Eckstein Law Library Marquette University Milwaukee, WI 53201 Ph: 414-288-5553 Fax: 414-288-5914 email: angelina.jos...@marquette.edumailto:angelina.jos...@marquette.edu
Re: [RDA-L] 336 repeated for illustrations?
In addition to what others have said, I use an additional 336 for catalogs in which the illustrative matter forms the principal part of the work. I suspect that any time the 300 field indicates that a work consists chiefly of illustrations, then an additional 336 for still images would be appropriate. Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Nelson Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 12:45 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] 336 repeated for illustrations? I am just looking at an LC record for a title which includes significant coloured illustrations. There are two 336's: one for text and one for still image. I see the point, but of all the LC's RDA records for illustrated titles so far, this is the only one I've encountered handled this way - all others have had only the one 336, for text. Comments, please! What is everyone else doing? Karen Nelson Capilano University
Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date
I have wondered whether originally the approach of separating publication date and copyright date didn't arise, in part, at least, from this phenomenon of having books published earlier than the copyright date indicates. I am sympathetic to the concern that a cataloger with the book in hand in 2013, copyrighted 2013, might wonder why the cataloging record available has 2012 in the 264. However, I wonder if the 588 note, or a 500 note, could not be used, e.g., Item received for cataloging March 10, 2012, thus indicating that the book was in fact available in 2012. Michael S. Borries CUNY Central Cataloging 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu Phone: (646) 312-1687 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Patricia Sayre-McCoy [p...@uchicago.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 3:01 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date But what about the cataloger who received the book in 2013? And the patron who used it last week but it can't be this book because this book hasn't been published yet? I makes less sense to pretend that the book wasn't published for 8 months than to include a bracked publication date and make it clear when the book was actually available. Pat Patricia Sayre-McCoy Head, Law Cataloging and Serials D'Angelo Law Library University of Chicago 773-702-9620 p...@uchicago.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Lisa Hatt Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:45 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date On 3/28/2013 8:07 AM, Will Evans ev...@bostonathenaeum.org wrote: Rules or no rules, shouldn't the record reflect the reality of the situation?! 264#1 $c [2013] 264#4 $c (c) 2014 500 Publication received by cataloging agency in 2013. $ MBAt I'm puzzled by this approach, which seems to second-guess the publisher's intent. Unless there's something we haven't been told, I don't get the idea that the resource itself makes any statement about having been published in 2013. If a cataloger first encountered this item in 2014+, they'd have no reason to believe it was published in anything other than 2014, because that's the date printed on the thing itself, yes? (I know there are reverse cases where a later ed. such as trade pbk. does not actually state its publication date and simply retains the copyright of the first hc ed., resulting in situations like [2002], c2001 in AACR2. But in that case other information supports the choice of supplied date, I think.) Rare books might be different, and I am no RDA guru, but my feeling would be to go with what Deborah recommended. -- Lisa Hatt Cataloging De Anza College Library 408-864-8459
[RDA-L] Question about edition statements
A quick question. RDA 2.5.2.2 states that the sources of information for an edition statement are: 1. the same source as the title proper 2. another source within the resource itself 3. one of the other sources of information specified under 2.2.4 Under 2.2.4 we find that the sources of information for identifying manifestations and items includes any other available source (e.g., a reference source). So, between these two instructions, am I allowed to supply an edition statement if there is none in the resource itself, as was allowed under AACR2 1.2B4? Or should I instead give the information in a note? Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
I wish to comment on several aspects of this thread. First, I would respectfully disagree with Joan Wang's statement below. I do not find RDA to be more explicit when it comes to mistakes in title (or in any other transcribed field), but rather less explicit. There are two or three sources of typos: what appears on the item in hand, or the cataloger transcribing the information, or orthographic differences (these, of course, are not typos, but odd spellings that need to be verified). If a [sic] appears next to a typo, I immediately know that the cataloger found it on the item being cataloged; without the [sic] I must look for a 246 and perhaps also a note. If I am in the process of correcting errors in the catalog of which this is one of many, then it is not very helpful to have to hunt through the record to see what the situation is. I wonder how many incorrect corrections will be made because of the lack of [sic]. In terms of adding a 240: While most dissertations are not published, many are. According to RDA, the publication is merely a manifestation of the work, not a new work. If the dissertation had a typo in the title proper, and no 240, what would then be the preferred title of the published dissertation - the title proper of the dissertation, typo and all? No, I think at this point all of us would create a 240 to link the two manifestations. It seems reasonable to simply create a 240 or 130 on the initial encounter, and get it over with. In AACR2, I don't think things would have been much better. How would a dissertation with a typo in the title (or any title with a typo) have been cited in a 7XX field? There are things that the computer makes us think about, that we didn't always have to think about before, which is not necessarily a bad thing. But what is the point of worrying about works, expressions, manifestations, and items, and uniform or preferred titles, and linkages, if it is not to create a collocations, sorts, and displays that a patron can navigate with meaning and ease? Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joan Wang Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 11:55 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles RDA follows the representation principle. The data describing a resource should reflect the resource's representation of itself. The current way seems to be more explicit. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.edumailto:babra...@mit.edu wrote: I still don't understand why the JSC saw fit to get rid of the device, [sic] ,for bringing gattention to known typos or other minor mistakes in the title. I think most users understand what it means, even the ones who don't know Latin. --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137tel:617-253-7137 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.camailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 11:44 AM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.camailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles As far as I understand it, you transcribe what you see. Just had one of those. Title was Upnashads. The record also had a 246. The whole point of a catalog is get the patron to the work he/she wants or is seeking, or may find while doing a browse by title on the computer. Do we want to help the patron or not? RDA cannot be a cataloging code for catalogers. It has to be a means to an end: Gee, I am glad I found this. Thanks. On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 3:49 AM, Michael Cohen mco...@library.wisc.edumailto:mco...@library.wisc.edu wrote: RDA Exercise A patron asked us to correct a typo in the title page of his dissertation. The rules are quite clear on how to handle this situation: transcribe the title page title in 245 and record the corrected title in 246. But 246 is defined as Varying Form of Title, and a corrected typo is not a variation of the real title in the same way that spelling out 'and' for is. Rather, isn't the corrected (or intended) title actually the title of the Work (instead of the Manifestation) and therefore shouldn't it be recorded in 240 instead of 246? Please explain the flaws in this logic. -- Michael L. Cohen Interim Head of Cataloging General Library System, University of Wisconsin-Madison 324C Memorial Library 728 State Street Madison, WI 53706-1494 Phone: (608) 262-3246tel:%28608%29%20262-3246 Fax: (608) 262-4861tel:%28608%29%20262-4861 Email:
[RDA-L] (OCoLC)829311087
I come to the collective wisdom looking for guidance. I have cataloged this record according to RDA standards (I hope!). What troubles me is the 710 for Polaroid Collections. I have no idea what to use for the subfield $e except perhaps contributor, and that doesn't seem correct. The term author would seem to suggest that the Polaroid Collections should be the preferred entry, but this book does not seem to fall into any of the categories for corporate authorship. I did use the subdivision Catalogs in one of the 610 fields, but this doesn't seem to be an official catalog, although all the illustrations are of photographs held by the Polaroid Collections, and Barbara Hitchcock is the director of the Collections. Thoughts? Any and all corrections also gratefully received, especially for the 300 field. Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu
[RDA-L] Use of subfield $b in 336, 337, 338
Dear collective wisdom, My apologies, because I believe this has been asked and answered before, but I cannot find the relevant emails. At this point is it considered necessary in fields 336-338 to use both subfield $a with the term spelled out and also subfield $b with the code, or is subfield $a with the term spelled out sufficient? I seem to see both usages in various records and instructions. Many thanks for your help. Michael Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Fw: What Goes into the 1xx Field?
Before you decide that MARC cannot accommodate the concept of authorized access point, look at the definition of all the subfields in 1XX. This is not to be taken as a defense of MARC, merely as a reminder, as Mac does from time to time, that MARC has not always been well utilized. Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Marjorie Bloss Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 10:01 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Fw: What Goes into the 1xx Field? My thanks for Bob's and others' thoughtful comments regarding my question about what goes into the 1xx field when using RDA. You support what I've instinctively been doing but was uncertain as to where to turn for the specific RDA instruction. This is where RDA 18.3 is particularly useful. Bob articulated my concerns about disconnects between MARC and RDA with regard to the 1xx and 240 fields so much better than I did. AACR2 and MARC grew up together so it's no big surprise that MARC is so AACR2-centric. MARBI has worked long and hard, bringing MARC in line with RDA but it's a complex process and the pieces don't always fit together cleanly. During the testing of RDA, the Dominican students participating in the test seriously considered not using the 1xx fields at all but 7xx fields instead in order to bring the test records more in line with the concepts found in RDA (that is, not designating any one person, family, or corporate body as the main entry). In the end, we didn't do this but it did tickle the backs of our minds. I suspect we are going to have to wait until there is a replacement for MARC before an authorized access point is an authorized access point is an authorized access point and we no longer identify one of them as the main entry. The tickle in the back of my mind about using only the 7xx fields for persons, family, or corporate body access points when creating RDA records is inching closer to the front of my mind, however. Thank you again. Cordially, Marjorie Marjorie E. Bloss, Adjunct Faculty Dominican University Graduate School of Library and Information Science 7900 W. Division St. River Forest, IL 60305 USA 1-773-878-4008 1-773-519-4009 (mobile) - Original Message - From: Robert Maxwellmailto:robert_maxw...@byu.edu To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 11:31 AM Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Fw: What Goes into the 1xx Field? I agree with the spirit of Marjorie's question, especially the part about keeping one foot on either side of the fence. It is true that we have had no official word on continued use of 1XX fields, by which I mean the MARC 21 Format for Bibliographic Data http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/ecbdhome.html instructions for 1XX have not been revised to take RDA into account. (There have been plenty of training materials prepared making use of 1XX.) But the MARC formats still refer to 1XX as main entry fields, which, as Marjorie points out, is not appropriate in an RDA context. Since AACR2 is still being used in bibliographic records it would be inappropriate to make this designation obsolete, but updating is needed to allow for RDA, if RDA is going to continue to use 1XX fields in MARC bibliographic records. RDA does not have the concept of main entry, but RDA 18.3 still makes a distinction between the creator having principal responsibility named first and other creators (e.g. co-authors, etc.). So long as that distinction exists in the guidelines some way is needed to show it in bibliographic records, and it makes logical sense to me that 100, 110, and 111 should be used for the creator having principal responsibility named first and 700 for other creators. I recommend that MARC be revised to clarify this. So far so good for 100, 110, and 111. But there is nothing in RDA corresponding to 130, Main Entry-Uniform Title. An AACR2 uniform title is roughly equivalent to an authorized access point for a work or expression in RDA, representing a work or expression, not a person, family, or corporate body. A work is one of the first group of FRBR entities, the products of intellectual or artistic endeavor. Persons, families, or corporate bodies are in the second group, those entities responsible for the intellectual or artistic content (etc.) of works, expressions, manifestations, or items. In the context of a work, the second group are creators. So, given RDA's distinction between principal and other creators, which I suggest in the previous paragraph could continue to use the 1XX/7XX distinction in MARC, 100 is appropriate for persons and families, and 110, and 111 are appropriate for corporate bodies, when they are the principal creator. But
Re: [RDA-L] Simultaneous publication in more than one language
So if the South African author wrote the book in Afrikaans and it's
published simultaneously in Afrikaans and English, the uniform title is
in Afrikaans.
There is no way of knowing which was written first, if the author is
bilingual. We certainly aren't going to assign Polish uniform titles to the
works of Joseph Conrad.
I would suppose, for the hypothetical South African author, that in most cases
there will be a note about a translator, either on the title page, title page
verso, colophon, or introductory material. One does the work catalogers are
supposed to do to find this information. If there is no indication of
translation, then maybe it was originally written in English.
As for Canadian federal publications, why not a French uniform title for
French-speaking areas, and an English uniform title for English-speaking areas?
Michael S. Borries
Cataloger, City University of New York
151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10010
Phone: (646) 312-1687
Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 6:41 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Simultaneous publication in more than one language
James King asked:
What do you do when you get the Spanish version of the English-French
title?
We've never had a Spanish translation of a Canadian federal government
document. Two 246s?
It's not quite correct that AACR2 dictates using the English title,
regardless. If it can be determined another language was the original
Nor did I say that it was. But one is to use English if it is not known which
was the original. For personally written books, one can guess from the
name/nationality of the author. But with government documents, having no
personal authors given, that it not possible.
Our Quebec clients would not be happy with all having English uniform titles.
They want the item under the title given in the item.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Kits
I am behind in my email, and so someone else may already have made this point, but to answer Thomas's question below, an archive could also have multiple 33X fields, but would not be described as a kit. Kit, at least to me, implies some sort of interaction. Even if an archive contained a kit, it would be there for archival purposes, not interaction. Michael S. Borries CUNY Central Cataloging 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu Phone: (646) 312-1687 Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu Sent by: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA 09/12/2011 10:37 AM Please respond to Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA To RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA cc Subject Re: [RDA-L] Kits On the other hand, I agree we (to serve our users) also want to identify the aggregate resource that is presumably being cataloged as an aggregate whole for some reason (like it was intended by the creator/publisher to go together). Now if the record simply contains multiple 336/337/338 of different carrier types, then the record already contains enough meaning for the system to know exactly that -- that this item consists of an aggregation of several things with different carrier types/media/etc. And any such things could be presented to the user in searches/filters/displays as Kit or whatever other user-understood term is appropriate. (SNIP) There's still a question of whether this is sufficient -- is it sufficient to say that _anything_ with more than one 336 not of the same type is a kit, or is whether something is a kit instead something that can only be determined by a judgement of creator intent, whether the items were intended to go together in a particular kit-like way by the creator? If the latter, that it can only be determined by a judgement of creator intent, then indeed a seperate coding of the aggregate would need to be in the record somehow. (This would be even more clear if the high level description we wanted was instructional kit specifically -- that can't be infered merely by seeing that the thing includes a DVD and a workbook, some things including a DVD and a workbook are 'instructional kits', some things aren't). If the former, that anything with multiple items of different carriers in it can be considered for our user community's purpose as a kit, then no additional coding is neccesary.
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
In terms of films vs. texts, we can think of Shakespeare. The texts of his plays are entered under his name, but filmed productions are entered under title. In the case of adaptations of novels for the screen, there is a screenwriter involved, as well, so these productions are not the work of the original author. So I think this would be work related to work. Michael S. Borries CUNY Central Cataloging 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu Phone: (646) 312-1687
Re: [RDA-L] Harvesting data
I sent a message to Amazon that while the cover for Architecture now! v. 3 was shown, when one tried to Look inside, one was shown the contents for the first volume. The message I received was: We have determined that no change needs to be made to the product image you have specified. However, if you are the rightsholder for this product, please visit www.amazon.com/images to find instructions for providing a replacement image. Michael S. Borries CUNY Central Cataloging 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu Phone: (646) 312-1687
Recording place of publication
My apologies for not having responded earlier. John Marr prefers not to use the term home office and would rather use most explicit data. But this wouldn't have worked well for the ta Neues book (I forget the title) -- all the addresses were explicit, except for Kempen. But Kempen was part of the copyright statement, and so presumably had legal status. While this doesn't seem to happen often, I don't think it's unique. I tend to think it is better to be explicit about taking this information from any place in the publication, since this is something of a departure from past practice. I do like giving a note about the source of information if it comes from outside the piece being cataloged, or comes from a very obscure place in the piece. As for notes, this brings me to some comments about RDA. RDA seems to give one the choice of not transcribing place of publication, or else transcribing all places present. The examples include up to three places, but we all know that often there are more. This seems unreasonable, almost punitive. There should be some middle ground. And having to put explanations and corrections in notes, rather than in square brackets next to the incorrect or incomplete information, seems needlessly verbose (sort of like RDA). Just because we don't have to fit everything on a 3 x 5 card doesn't mean we shouldn't be concise. In Mac's proposal, I would change county to local jurisdiction, or, perhaps, county or other local jurisdiction. At the risk of violating my own wish about verbosity, should we try to make the place name unique in the way it is customarily done in the country in which the place is located (an awful sentence, I know). For example, piece says Frankfurt. Do we transcribe Frankfurt, [Hesse] or do we transcribe Frankfurt-[am-Main]? Or maybe this is so rare that we don't need to worry about it. Michael S. Borries CUNY Central Cataloging 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (646) 312-1687
