Re: [RDA-L] Illustration terms in 7.15.1.3
The fact that RDA rules create a conundrum like this regarding what should be a simple line of description has got to be one of the most ridiculous examples of why this whole set of rules will be just another (big) nail in our professional coffins. The public doesn't want to be confused with all this nit-picking. They just want to know if they are looking for a thick or thin book with or without a lot of pictures. The machines can figure out what they need to figure out from the 33x fields if they are properly developed. This is a rant against the folly of RDA, NOT a knock on Prof. Wiesenmüller's ruminations. I just don't understand how the profession can embrace such folly though. Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 2:19 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustration terms in 7.15.1.3 Lynn wrote: Is there a reason we can't do something like this for graphic novels and the like: 1 volume of illustrations ; some color or 138 pages of illustrations ; some color I haven't gone through the RDA rules in depth like many of you, but 3.4.12.1 says to give the number of units and/or subunits and if we look at the examples under 3.4.5.9 (leaves or pages of plates). It looks like 'pages of plates' would be considered a subunit, so why not consider 'volume of illustrations (or other appropriate term)' or 'pages of illustrations' a subunit. The challenge is to find a solution which is easily understandable for our users and also fits in with the internal logics of RDA (the second aim is the harder one, I think). As RDA now stands, if there is no text at all, you can't use the element 3.4.5 Extent of text (it is not quite clear to me whether it can/should be used if there is a little bit of text, though). But you also cannot use the element 3.4.4. Extent of still image, if the resource is a volume. So you need to work with the general rule in 3.4.1. The unit is supposed to be given as a term from the carrier type list, which gives us 1 volume. If my coffee-table book has 350 pages, I think these are the subunits, so we get 1 volume (350 pages). I don't think that, according to the logics of RDA, we can use volume of illustrations instead of volume. The alternative in 3.4.1.3 allows us to use a term in common usage instead of the carrier type term, but I don't think this applies here. I also think that we cannot use pages of illustrations as the name of the subunit instead of a mere pages. The definition in 3.4.1.1 says a subunit is a physical or logical subdivision of a unit (e.g., a page of a volume, a frame of a microfiche, a record in a digital file). The problem seems to be that illustrations are seen as belonging to the level of the expression, whereas chapter 3 is only about manifestations. However, it has been noted that RDA doesn't keep this distinction up consistently in chapter 3: 1 map, for example, mixes up carrier and content. The extent of the manifestation should really be 1 sheet. The information that there is a map on the sheet should be treated somewhere in chapter 7. I believe this is one of the main messages of the ALA discussion paper on machine-actionable data, as Francis Lapka has already pointed out earlier on this thread: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ALA-Discussion-1.pdf They propose to introduce a new element extent of expression. So, we could have 1 volume (350 pages) as the extent of manifestation according to chapter 3, and 300 illustrations or some such as the extent of expression according to chapter 7. That makes a lot of sense to me. On the other hand, the EURIG discussion paper on illustrative content and other augmentations http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-EURIG-Discussion-2.pdf proposes a completely different approach. They see illustrations not as a part of a certain expression but as a work in its own right, of which the illustrator is the creator. Up to this point, I'm quite willing to follow. I'm not so sure about the next steps: The combination of the expression of a textual work and of an illustration work is seen as taking place on the level of the manifestation. It is argued that - if the illustrations are not described as a work in their own right - the information should be handled as part of the description of the carrier. Therefore, the idea is to move 7.15 to somewhere in chapter 3. What bothers me is that illustrators are (if I understand the paper correctly) supposed to be two different things at the same time: 1. creators of the illustration work 2. persons with a relationship to a manifestation, if the illustration work isn't described in its own right I think the situation is a bit
Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print?
-Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Brenndorfer, Thomas Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 8:26 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print? [...] Currently we require: 008 fixed field -- this generates a Large Print icon and facet term; it also shows up at the end of a title in the Title Browse index) 300 $a ... (large print) -- this is the current placeholder for the RDA Font Size element; 340$n would be its replacement, and I would put that in the Brief Display as well 650 Large type books [...] Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library Since we are not analyzing books ABOUT large type books, one should use, rather than a 650 Topical subject, a 655 _0 Large type books. Particularly if one is trying to engage in some consistent separation of elements and precision in description. Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu
Re: [RDA-L] RDA Content/Media/Carrier types [was: The A in RDA]
in the case of the record type, they require one to assign one and only one type Unless, of course, one also uses the repeatable 006 field. Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Myers, John Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 9:12 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] RDA Content/Media/Carrier types [was: The A in RDA] To address the only question posed, concerning the RDA Content/Media/Carrier types (recorded in the MARC21 Bibliographic format in fields 336-338): We are all used to encoding record types and carrier types within the MARC21 format -- in the LDR and field 007. They however share several disabilities. First, they have no foundation in our cataloging standard -- they are strictly a management tool within MARC that have been symbiotically incorporated into our practices. Second, they are largely ad hoc constructs, developed as needed without any overarching structure. Lastly, in the case of the record type, they require one to assign one and only one type (much like needing to assign one and only one classification number), when we are increasingly confronted by an information environment where resources are comprised of a blend of content types. The development of Content/Media/Carrier types in RDA addresses these shortcomings. The articulation of such data elements are now formally present in the catalog standard. A structured ontology has been developed to unambiguously assign these types to any given resource. Multiple types can be assigned as needed to resources that exhibit multiple facets. John Myers, Catalog Librarian Schaffer Library, Union College Schenectady NY 12308 518-388-6623 mye...@union.edumailto:mye...@union.edu On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Ford Davey ford_da...@hotmail.commailto:ford_da...@hotmail.com wrote: I would like to know how those of you who can explain to the rest of what the 33x fields are all about (and to be honest those explanations are far too wordy for me to follow!)
Re: [RDA-L] RDA Content/Media/Carrier types [was: The A in RDA]
The 006 has 17 places for pertinent information by the way which is pretty granular. Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mitchell, Michael Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 9:31 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA Content/Media/Carrier types [was: The A in RDA] in the case of the record type, they require one to assign one and only one type Unless, of course, one also uses the repeatable 006 field. Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Myers, John Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 9:12 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] RDA Content/Media/Carrier types [was: The A in RDA] To address the only question posed, concerning the RDA Content/Media/Carrier types (recorded in the MARC21 Bibliographic format in fields 336-338): We are all used to encoding record types and carrier types within the MARC21 format -- in the LDR and field 007. They however share several disabilities. First, they have no foundation in our cataloging standard -- they are strictly a management tool within MARC that have been symbiotically incorporated into our practices. Second, they are largely ad hoc constructs, developed as needed without any overarching structure. Lastly, in the case of the record type, they require one to assign one and only one type (much like needing to assign one and only one classification number), when we are increasingly confronted by an information environment where resources are comprised of a blend of content types. The development of Content/Media/Carrier types in RDA addresses these shortcomings. The articulation of such data elements are now formally present in the catalog standard. A structured ontology has been developed to unambiguously assign these types to any given resource. Multiple types can be assigned as needed to resources that exhibit multiple facets. John Myers, Catalog Librarian Schaffer Library, Union College Schenectady NY 12308 518-388-6623 mye...@union.edumailto:mye...@union.edu On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Ford Davey ford_da...@hotmail.commailto:ford_da...@hotmail.com wrote: I would like to know how those of you who can explain to the rest of what the 33x fields are all about (and to be honest those explanations are far too wordy for me to follow!)
Re: [RDA-L] RDA Content/Media/Carrier types [was: The A in RDA]
Yes, if Bibframe is devised, used widely, and makes adequate provisions for converting MARC records using RDA (and not incidentally AACR2 1). Until then we would do well to continue using the 006/007/008 combos as well as any other new, less granular, fields. RDA by itself is not going to make anything available as linked data. Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Amanda Raab Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 9:44 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA Content/Media/Carrier types [was: The A in RDA] But those 006/007/008 codes are only useable in MARC and understandable by librarians (actually: just catalogers). RDA provides that same description written out in actual words and made available as linked datahttp://rdvocab.info/ so that description can viewed and used in schemas, structures, and displays that aren't MARC or MARC-dependent. Amanda Raab | Catalog and Metadata Librarian ROCK AND ROLL HALL OF FAME + MUSEUM | Library and Archives 2809 Woodland Ave. | Cleveland, OH 44115 ar...@rockhall.orgmailto:ar...@rockhall.org | 216-515-1932 | fax 216-515-1964 www.rockhall.com/libraryhttp://www.rockhall.com/library | Facebookhttp://www.facebook.com/rockandrollhalloffame | Twitterhttp://twitter.com/#%21/rock_hall On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Mitchell, Michael michael.mitch...@brazosport.edumailto:michael.mitch...@brazosport.edu wrote: The 006 has 17 places for pertinent information by the way which is pretty granular. Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.eduhttp://brazosport.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 Mitchell, Michael Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 9:31 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA Content/Media/Carrier types [was: The A in RDA] in the case of the record type, they require one to assign one and only one type Unless, of course, one also uses the repeatable 006 field. Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.eduhttp://brazosport.edu
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
I'm afraid Mr. Davey's assessment is much closer to present reality than Dr. Tillett's. Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of JSC Chair Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 8:53 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA RDA is about describing bibliographic resources and their relationships and enabling access to those resources to meet our users needs. It is intended to be used as an online tool that can be consulted as needed once a cataloger has learned the basics. That is not different from earlier cataloging codes. What is different, is that now we can access those instructions online and we can build on the expertise of thousands of people to help improve those instructions and vocabularies to offer even better descriptions and access to those resources for our users -- now. - Brabara Tillett JSC Chair On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Ford Davey ford_da...@hotmail.commailto:ford_da...@hotmail.com wrote: I don't mean to be offensive; not to demean the hard work that has gone into (and the ongoing work) making RDA But, RDA is a nonsense! It's about cataloguing the sake of cataloguing! I has nothing to do with access, or the user! Looking at this forum, and a couple of others; the discussion by cataloguers - and I recognize names who I would consider have experience of, and know their cataloguing seems to me to suggest that nobody really seems to know what they're on about! That disturbs me, a lot! I would like to know how those of you who can explain to the rest of what the 33x fields are all about (and to be honest those explanations are far too wordy for me to follow!) How do you explain them to your users, you know the folks who actually want to find stuff! Who don't want, or have the time to read through the equivalent of a 1,000 page manual (that at times looks as if t was put together by Lewis Carroll and a bunch of lawyer!); just in case there has been any changes since they last looked at it?? It'll be OK when at some undetermined point in time (how long did RDA take?), some undetermined solution is put in place? Sorry to rant. 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 James Weinheimer Sent: 27 July 2013 14:59 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA On 26/07/2013 22:10, JSC Chair wrote: snip Taking the bigger view is precisely what RDA will help us do - stop focusing on creating records and see how the resources we are describing fit into the bibliographic universe. We are living with lots of MARC limitations for now, but the data built using RDA will be especially useful when we can move beyond MARC. It is still usable in MARC just as records created with AAACR2 were useful in MARC, and RDA can even be used to create catalog card records, if that is your limited environment for now, but we want to look beyond the current limitations of just building a catalog to re-use of bibliographic data in the broader information community - to enable libraries to interact better in that larger realm where our users are - to connect users to the rich resources and related resources we have to offer and beyond. - Barbara Tillett JSC Chair /snip The idea that the problem is with records and that things will get better once they are discombobulated into various bits of data is a theory that has never been demonstrated. It also goes against reason: why should a separate bit of information such as Paging300/Paging or TitlePoems/Title make such a big difference? On their own, these little bits and pieces of information are completely meaningless and they must be brought together again--or recombobulated--if anything is to make sense. (http://s3-media2.ak.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/Ao1Tpjx5r0ZFwHDZHb49Pg/l.jpg. This area apparently really exists at the airport in Milwaukee. I love it!) The fact is: catalogs currently do not have records as such, because in any catalog based on an RDBMS, everything is already discombobulated into separate tables for headings, language codes, perhaps dates and all sorts of things. Internally, each catalog may separate the information in different ways. Anyway, there is *nothing at all new* about getting rid of the record--it's been the case for decades. When a searcher of the catalog sees a record, these bits and pieces are brought together, and the human experiences the same thing as a record, although it can be displayed completely, partially, or it could be in many, many unique and novel ways. I think the argument has confused database structure with data transfer. For instance, I can't imagine anybody wanting
Re: [RDA-L] 338 field for a volume of art prints
A unit of extent of text- is that even English? Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kathie Coblentz Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 10:58 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 338 field for a volume of art prints May I take the occasion to point out another confusing definition in the RDA glossary? Portfolio: A unit of extent of text that is a container for holding loose materials (e.g., paintings, drawings, papers, unbound sections of a book, and similar materials) usually consisting of two covers joined together at the back. There is something I'm not getting about how the RDA mind works. If something is a unit of extent of text, how can it be a container for, e.g., paintings? I was driven back to the definition of text to see if maybe somehow it includes non-verbal images, but no, it's Content expressed through a form of notation for language intended to be perceived visually. Though I suppose one picture IS worth a thousand words, so maybe that's how they figure it. I'm also not too pleased with that usually consisting of two covers joined together at the back (which was taken over from the AACR 2 glossary). I've seen a lot of portfolios in my time, and relatively few look like that. Actually, come to think of it, I'm not even sure what it means. Two covers? The RDA definition of cover is The outer protective material attached to a volume, consisting of both sides of the front and back panels and the spine to which they are joined. Kathie Coblentz, Rare Materials Cataloger Collections Strategy/Special Formats Processing The New York Public Library, Stephen A. Schwarzman Building 5th Avenue and 42nd Street, Room 313 New York, NY 10018 kathiecoble...@nypl.org My opinions, not NYPL's
Re: [RDA-L] 7.17 Colour content
Would it make sense to consider the illustrations to be representative of the content of the work (rather than the expression or manifestation) since a work and thus its contents is really an idea? Something imagined? So if we have a work about red objects then a picture book of red objects would illustrate the primary content of [that] resource. I'm not sure I follow your problem with illustrations v. still images. Seems to me illustrations are (usually) still and are images. Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Kathie Coblentz [kcobl...@nypl.org] Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 8:33 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 7.17 Colour content Aside from the problems with colo(u)r content, I see another problem with some of the examples posted in this thread. As I pointed out in another thread, RDA defines illustrative content as Content designed to illustrate the primary content of a resource. (From the Glossary.) Therefore it is not logical to have in 300 $b chiefly illustrations. Nor is it logical to put Chiefly illustrations in a note. Furthermore, if the primary content of the resource is still images, it is not logical to have illustrations in the 300 field at all. Unless, perhaps, it can be assumed to refer to whatever textual matter has been added to the still image content. I am still looking for an answer to this conundrum. Kathie Coblentz, Rare Materials Cataloger Collections Strategy/Special Formats Processing The New York Public Library, Stephen A. Schwarzman Building 5th Avenue and 42nd Street, Room 313 New York, NY 10018 kathiecoble...@nypl.org My opinions, not NYPL's
Re: [RDA-L] Leaf (new RDA glossary term and definition)
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Myers, John F. Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:02 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Leaf (new RDA glossary term and definition) [...] Per AACR2 (2005 Update). Glossary: Leaf - One of the units into which the original sheet or half sheet of paper, parchment, etc., is folded to form part of a book, pamphlet, journal, etc.; each leaf consists of two pages, one on each side, either or both of which may be blank. == Why would the editors of RDA feel it necessary to change this definition - especially by adding unnecessary and incomplete references to text (leaving out music and images) and parchment, etc.? More change for no good reason. Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu
[RDA-L] Catalog publication date
I'm sorry if this has been covered recently. I seem to remember something similar. If I have a book with a copyright date of 2011 and the t.p. verso statement This catalogue is published in conjunction with the exhibition 'The Confused Art' on view at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York from May 10 to Dec 25, 2012. Nothing else. Is 2012 the assumed pub date or is 2011 used? Thanks, Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Catalog publication date
Thank you for the advice! I was overthinking that one. Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam Schiff Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 10:38 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Catalog publication date I would use [2011] as the publication date. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries -Original Message- From: Mitchell, Michael Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 7:50 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Catalog publication date I'm sorry if this has been covered recently. I seem to remember something similar. If I have a book with a copyright date of 2011 and the t.p. verso statement This catalogue is published in conjunction with the exhibition 'The Confused Art' on view at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York from May 10 to Dec 25, 2012. Nothing else. Is 2012 the assumed pub date or is 2011 used? Thanks, Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu
Re: [RDA-L] another (basic) 264 query
I just cataloged LCCN 2012007182 whose author holds the copyright and LC used your first pattern only (264_1|aNew York, NY :|bHarper,|c[2012]). Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.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, June 25, 2013 1:35 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] another (basic) 264 query What Dana has just posted is very helpful (great timing!) and I have just noticed that Mac answered a very similar one from me last time I was fiddling with some RDA bibs. Should've checked my saved replies, note to self. But I am still wondering about the issue of the author holding copyright ... does her name go in the second 264, if a second one is kept? Haven't seen it done so far. Karen From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Nelson Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 10:33 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] another (basic) 264 query I am just getting my toes wet with some RDA copy cataloguing based on LC bibs. Looking at the bib for Louise Erdrich's Round House, LCCN 2012005381. There is a 260 in this one still. I want to edit it to 264(s). So far, I have included: 264_1|aNew York, NY :|bHarper,|c[2012] or maybe [2012?] 264_4 |ccopyright 2012 My queries: Since the author is identified on the tp verso as copyright holder, do I include her in the second (copyright) 264? I don't think I have seen that done, but does not to do so imply that Harper has the copyright? Should the square-bracketed inferred date in the first 264 have a question mark, or not. LC had it in 260 without copyright symbol. Haven't checked the publisher's website yet. This level of question will give someone a laugh, if nothing else. Karen
[RDA-L] Citation annotations
Would annotations of formal citations for instances be of interest in this mix? Something like InstancehasMLACitation. Could have annotations for all the top formats. This would certainly be useful to our students, I don't know if machines would care. Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Citation annotations
oops, wrong list. sorry Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mitchell, Michael Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 7:55 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Citation annotations Would annotations of formal citations for instances be of interest in this mix? Something like InstancehasMLACitation. Could have annotations for all the top formats. This would certainly be useful to our students, I don't know if machines would care. Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu
Re: [RDA-L] English Hebrew -- English.. a taste of things to come?
Next! ;) From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gary L Strawn Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 11:10 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] English Hebrew -- English.. a taste of things to come? This very matter has been the subject of more than one e-mail to what I can only refer to as offenders. In our current wild-West everyone-does-what-they-want world I doubt that anything except eternal vigilance on all of our parts can prevent this kind of improper behavior from adversely affecting our databases. Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc. Twitter: GaryLStrawn Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300 e-mail: mrsm...@northwestern.edu voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306 Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. BatchCat version: 2007.25.428 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adger Williams Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 10:56 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] English Hebrew -- English.. a taste of things to come? n 79084797. Haggadah English has a see-reference from Haggadah English Hebrew. When this record hit our database, it turned all the entries for Haggadah English Hebrew into entries for Haggadah English. I then went through and added the extra entry for Haggadah Hebrew. (hm... that may require some more thought) Does anyone know if this is the way NACO will be handling the RDA insistence on only one language in subfield l of title authority records? -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edumailto:awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Bibframe
-Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Bernhard Eversberg Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 11:38 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Bibframe 28.05.2013 23:45, J. McRee Elrod: Angelina Joseph asked: Every now and then I see the word Bibframe in emails. Is it replacing MAR= C? How is that going to be? You will have answers from those more in the loop than I, but there is my *very* biased answer. Bibframe is a work in progress, so no one knows if/when it will replace MARC. ... LC's Sally McCallum on May 24 informed the VBIBFRAME community thus: http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1305L=bibframeT=0P=43920 And this is but one example of the openness of the Bibframe development process of which I am very impressed. We catalogers do have a chance to monitor and influence the development of our future toolset. There are several first rate info sci people working on this but as Mac wrote there seems to be a lack of frontline cataloger input at this point (not absent, just a minority). Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Bibframe
It may be awhile before it all comes to pass despite the decree that it should be in approximate sync with RDA. A recent question on the discussion list: Will it be possible to use a BIBFRAME authority to link a BIBFRAME Work describing a FRBR Work to a BIBFRAME Work description of a FRBR Expression? Maybe, but our students just want to find three sources for the report that's due tomorrow. Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of JSC Chair Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 2:51 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Bibframe BibFrame refers to the Library of Congress program, Bibliographic Framework Initiative that is indeed exploring a transition from the MARC format. Please check their website for more information: http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/ They also have a listserv you are welcome to join. - Barbara Tillett, JSC Chair On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Joseph, Angelina angelina.jos...@marquette.edumailto:angelina.jos...@marquette.edu wrote: Every now and then I see the word Bibframe in emails. Is it replacing MARC? How is that going to be? -- angelina Angelina Joseph Cataloging Librarian Ray Kay Eckstein Law Library Marquette University Milwaukee, WI 53201 Ph: 414-288-5553tel:414-288-5553 Fax: 414-288-5914tel:414-288-5914 email: angelina.jos...@marquette.edumailto:angelina.jos...@marquette.edu -- Dr. Barbara B. Tillett, Ph.D. Chair, Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA
Re: [RDA-L] Size of PDF files
I'm looking at http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd347.html and the first example under $b is 347 ##$atext file$bPDF$2rda so I'm a little confused as to what you mean when you say a PDF file is not a text file. What am I missing? Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of John Hostage Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 10:23 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Size of PDF files Kyley, I'm saying that it's not necessary to give a file type as defined in RDA at all. For one thing, Digital file characteristic is not a core element. For another, the file types given in 3.19.2.3 consist of information that's already found in the content type and media type, and the terms are misleading. I'm no expert, but I doubt the types are a useful categorization. A PDF file is not a text file. If you had to characterize it, you might call it a document file. John -- John Hostage Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services Langdell Hall 194 Harvard Law School Library Cambridge, MA 02138 host...@law.harvard.edumailto:host...@law.harvard.edu +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax) From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Felix, Kyley [kfe...@parliament.wa.gov.au] Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 21:29 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Size of PDF files John, Are you saying it's not necessary to put the 347 field in at all, or that the 347 (a) field should not be text file? What should it be? Many thanks, Kyley Kyley Felix Librarian Parliamentary Library Parliament House Harvest Tce Perth WA 6000 Phone: (08) 9222 7393 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of John Hostage Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013 9:39 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Size of PDF files The file types in RDA 3.19.2 do not convey anything that is not already conveyed by content type and media type, so there is no need for this element to be in RDA. In any event, a PDF file is not a text file as the term is commonly understood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_file) -- John Hostage Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian // Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services // Langdell Hall 194 // Cambridge, MA 02138 host...@law.harvard.edumailto:host...@law.harvard.edu +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax) From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Felix, Kyley Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 23:13 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Size of PDF files I'm cataloguing a lot of PDF files in my library. I want to make it easy for users to see the size of the documents. This is what I am thinking of doing in the 300 and 347 fields. The 347 field is hidden from the user so I want the file size also showing in the 300 field. I wasn't sure if this is the best way to do it. Also not sure whether the file size should be within the brackets with the extent? I'm unable to find examples where both the number of pages and the file size are used. 300 (10 a) 1 online resource (v, 23 pages), 840 KB : (20 b) text file, PDF. 347 (10 a) text file (20 b) PDF (30 c) 840 KB Your thoughts would be appreciated. Kyley Felix Librarian Parliamentary Library Parliament House Harvest Tce Perth WA 6000 Phone: (08) 9222 7393 - PARLIAMENT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CONDITIONS OF USE, PUBLICATION, OR DISCLOSURE OF THIS EMAIL APPLICABLE TO RECIPIENT The content of this email (including any attachments) - is provided for the use of the intended recipient only; and - mere receipt in no way authorises any recipient to disclose or publish all or part of it to another person or in any form. If this email relates to matters that were, or are being, considered by one or both Houses of Parliament or a committee of either or both Houses, any unauthorised use, publication or disclosure may amount to a breach of the privileges of the House(s). A person who is not an intended recipient is requested to advise the sender and delete this email immediately. Although this email has been scanned for viruses, this email is not guaranteed to be free of viruses and should be vetted by your own security mechanisms. The Parliament of Western Australia accepts no liability for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or its attachments.
Re: [RDA-L] Size of PDF files
Yes, that makes sense. As John Hostage said the text would be more accurately be identified as document so the MARC example is off. Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 8:14 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Size of PDF files On 23/05/2013 14:33, Mitchell, Michael wrote: snip I'm looking at http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd347.html and the first example under $b is 347 ##$atext file$bPDF$2rda so I'm a little confused as to what you mean when you say a PDF file is not a text file. What am I missing? /snip I guess I'm confused too. To explain it most simply, a text file is something you can open in Notepad and it will make sense. Other files are called binary files and you need a special program to read it correctly. MARC format (ISO2709) is a binary file. You can see it for yourself. If you take Notepad and open a pdf file with it, you will get very strange gobbledygook. A text file does not mean any file that looks like text when displayed on your machine. For instance, if you had a scanned jpeg image of a book or pdf or gif or png none would be a text file. $a is A general type of data content encoded in a computer file. $b is A schema, standard, etc., used to encode the digital content of a resource. So I also do not understand what $a means. It looks as if in the example, $a and $b are contradictory. -- James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.commailto:weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com First Thus http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ First Thus Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus Cooperative Cataloging Rules http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ Cataloging Matters Podcasts http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Size of PDF files
So who should be contacted to change the erroneous example? And who has the juice to influence those responsible to effect the change? Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of John Hostage Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 8:27 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Size of PDF files I'm saying that the example in the MARC format is in error. RDA seems to be using text file to mean any computer file that contains text, including binary files, but that conflicts with the normal meaning of text file. A typical PDF file is comprehended by Content type: text and Media type: computer. Of course, a PDF may have other kinds of content, such as still image, cartographic image, or notated music. Here are some definitions of text file: Web definitions (computer science) a computer file that contains text (and possibly formatting instructions) using seven-bit ASCII characters wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn A text file (sometimes spelled textfile: an old alternate name is flatfile) is a kind of computer file that is structured as a sequence of lines. A text file exists within a computer file system. ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_file A simple data file containing only plain, human-readable text, distinct from documents with embedded formatting; this sense?) (computing) A simple data file in a character encoding that allows it to be read in a simple editor: usually, seven-bit, as opposed to containing raw binary data en.wiktionary.org/wiki/text_file (Text files) Simple unformatted files that are widely recognized and created by many different programs. wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/4848/4964879/go_office_i... or Textfile: A data file consisting entirely of printable ASCII characters, i.e. plain unformatted text. Text files often have a .txt Extension after the filename (e.g. readme.txt) and their contents can be viewed using programs such as Windows Notepad. ... www.ict4lt.org/en/en_glossary.htm A file containing ASCII text created by any standard editor. Such text files can contain, for example, COBOL source code or Compiler directives. COBOL programs can read or write such files by specifying ORGANIZATION LINE SEQUENTIAL. www.microfocus.co.jp/manuals/SE/books/mxglos.htm A file with text that has no formatting. None of the text is bold, underlined, italicized, or tabbed. www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-1589_1711_4579-1421... A file in which the bytes represent printable characters organized into lines separated by newline characters. www.difranco.net/progstuff/voc_list.htm A file that contains text to be compiled during the build. Source: NTK www.splorp.com/newton/glossary/ with tab delimited values (aka csv file): go to point 2. wasaty.pl/blog/2010/05/30/importing-glossary-entries-to-multite... This file contains all text strings used by the system to convert various codes into alpha descriptions for display and report purposes. The file also contains much of the parametric data (not stored in the Parameter File) that is necessary to control many optional functions. ... www.leadtec.com/en/home/glossary.html contains plain text and may be opened in a text editor wps.aw.com/aw_gaddis_vb2008_4/82/21177/5421435.cw/conte... A file containing ASCII characters. www.sitemasterinternet.co.uk/i_pps/glossary.htm the term text file is usually used to indicate a computer file that has no special formatting or additional structure that most word processor and spreadsheet programs use. Text files can be displayed on the screen with no garbage characters showing up. The AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG. ... www.morgancc.edu/abm/curric/reference/terms/ObsoleteCompT... -- John Hostage Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian // Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services // Langdell Hall 194 // Cambridge, MA 02138 host...@law.harvard.edumailto:host...@law.harvard.edu +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax) From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mitchell, Michael Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 08:34 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Size of PDF files I'm looking at http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd347.html and the first example under $b is 347 ##$atext file$bPDF$2rda so I'm a little confused as to what you mean when you say a PDF file is not a text file. What am I missing? Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of John Hostage
Re: [RDA-L] [MOUG-L] RDA copyright/phonogram symbols not on item
Although, according to Wikipedia and several other sources, Under the Berne Convention, copyrights for creative workshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_works do not have to be asserted or declared, as they are automatically in force at creation: an author need not register or apply for a copyright in countries adhering to the Berne Convention.[10]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#cite_note-Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works_Article_5-10 As soon as a work is fixed, that is, written or recorded on some physical medium, its author is automatically entitled to all copyrights in the work, and to any derivative works unless and until the author explicitly disclaims them, or until the copyright expires. The Berne Convention also resulted in foreign authors being treated equivalently to domestic authors, in any country signed onto the Convention. The UK signed the Berne Convention in 1887 but did not implement large parts of it until 100 years later with the passage of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988. The United States did not sign the Berne Convention until 1989.[11]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#cite_note-11 Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 5:09 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] [MOUG-L] RDA copyright/phonogram symbols not on item I would never assume any claim of protection under copyright if an explicit statement about copyright does not appear on the resource. Our bibliographic descriptions are exactly that: bibliographic DESCRIPTIONS. There may be some agencies that might require specific copyright information that doesn't appear on the resource, but libraries generally are NOT those agencies. Anyone using library metadata as a resource for researching copyright information is looking in the wrong place! Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edumailto:k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joe Scott Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 2:52 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] [MOUG-L] RDA copyright/phonogram symbols not on item I’ve sent this message to both MOUG-L and RDA-L. Apologies for the duplication to those who subscribe to both. 2.11.2.1 reads: “A copyright date▼ is a date associated with a claim of protection under copyright or a similar regime. Copyright dates include phonogram dates (i.e., dates associated with claims of protection for audio recordings).” Can one fairly assume a “claim of protection under copyright” has been made if neither symbol appears anywhere on the item? If so, is the phonogram symbol the default for recordings? Joe Joseph W. Scott Music Catalog/Metadata Librarian Resource Access Team Homer Babbidge Library Unit 1005-BC University of Connecticut Storrs, CT 06029-1005 (860) 486-2565 joe.sc...@lib.uconn.edumailto:joe.sc...@lib.uconn.edu inline: image001.gif
Re: [RDA-L] [MOUG-L] RDA copyright/phonogram symbols not on item
Yes, I wasn't sure if it was relevant or not. Just wanted to point it out in case it made a difference in this case. I was pretty sure I'd quickly learn its applicability. Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 9:30 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] [MOUG-L] RDA copyright/phonogram symbols not on item While all of that may be true, it is irrelevant to the argument I was making. I was not saying anything about assuming whether or not a resource IS under copyright. We're talking about library bibliographic metadata here. What I meant was that I would not assume any particular copyright claim-as in, what date something was copyrighted (the original question being discussed). If it's not stated on the resource, then there is no reason at all to put it into a bibliographic description, and a cataloger should certainly never make any assumptions about copyright date. Library bibliographic data is not a registry of copyright information. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edumailto:k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mitchell, Michael Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:41 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] [MOUG-L] RDA copyright/phonogram symbols not on item Although, according to Wikipedia and several other sources, Under the Berne Convention, copyrights for creative workshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_works do not have to be asserted or declared, as they are automatically in force at creation: an author need not register or apply for a copyright in countries adhering to the Berne Convention.[10]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#cite_note-Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works_Article_5-10 As soon as a work is fixed, that is, written or recorded on some physical medium, its author is automatically entitled to all copyrights in the work, and to any derivative works unless and until the author explicitly disclaims them, or until the copyright expires. The Berne Convention also resulted in foreign authors being treated equivalently to domestic authors, in any country signed onto the Convention. The UK signed the Berne Convention in 1887 but did not implement large parts of it until 100 years later with the passage of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988. The United States did not sign the Berne Convention until 1989.[11]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#cite_note-11 Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 5:09 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] [MOUG-L] RDA copyright/phonogram symbols not on item I would never assume any claim of protection under copyright if an explicit statement about copyright does not appear on the resource. Our bibliographic descriptions are exactly that: bibliographic DESCRIPTIONS. There may be some agencies that might require specific copyright information that doesn't appear on the resource, but libraries generally are NOT those agencies. Anyone using library metadata as a resource for researching copyright information is looking in the wrong place! Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edumailto:k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joe Scott Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 2:52 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] [MOUG-L] RDA copyright/phonogram symbols not on item I’ve sent this message to both MOUG-L and RDA-L. Apologies for the duplication to those who subscribe to both. 2.11.2.1 reads: “A copyright date▼ is a date associated with a claim of protection under copyright or a similar regime. Copyright dates include phonogram dates (i.e., dates associated with claims of protection for audio recordings).” Can one fairly assume a “claim of protection under copyright” has been made if neither symbol appears anywhere on the item? If so, is the phonogram symbol the default for recordings? Joe Joseph W. Scott Music Catalog/Metadata Librarian Resource Access Team Homer Babbidge Library Unit
Re: [RDA-L] Recording alternate content and physical forms -- Bibframe
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 3:16 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording alternate content and physical forms -- Bibframe On 13/05/2013 20:48, Mitchell, Michael wrote: snip ... as I understand Bibframe there will no longer be records. There will be data points and triplets instead. This will be a critical difference and as Deborah says about RDA thinking will be even more true about Bibframe. This frame shift from records to relational data points (I know, I still don't have the terminology down) is a big reason why I'm so skeptical of anything to do with RDA. I understand that RDA is trying to create rules for more discreet content entry (better data points) but I just think we are spinning our wheels for the most part until Bibframe is closer to development. This is not to take away from the many folks who have been and are working hard on the implementation of RDA but we've designed a cart before we know if we're going to hook it to a horse or a jet. /snip I personally don't know if it is helpful not to think in terms of records. From the public's point of view, and that of the catalogers and anyone other than a systems person, they will experience a totality of the information associated with a specific information resource, and we will interpret that as a record.[...] Therefore, calling them records and thinking about them in that way is fine in my opinion, because that is what everyone will continue to experience. -- James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.commailto:weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com === The difference I see is that to my mind record implies a database entry with fields and subfields. BibFrame will not entail database records, fields, or subfields. It will be much closer to an XML file which is quite different structurally and semantically from a database record although I realize crosswalks are common. You can call it Frank but it still is a different animal with a different structure and some content rules will fit it better than others. My apologies if I took us off topic on this tangent. I don't mean to belabor the point but I do think the more we can understand where, and where we are not, headed with RDA and BibFrame, the better we can understand what is important to address now (punctuation, capitalization?). I also think the more of us catalogers involved in BibFrame development the better the fit will be in the end. There seem to be precious few practicing catalogers in the mix now. I don't know much about the info sci end of the development but I do know cataloging and can cry foul when I recognize a problem. Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Recording alternate content and physical forms -- Bibframe
Mac,
You keep referring to records and as I understand Bibframe there will
no longer be records. There will be data points and triplets instead. This
will be a critical difference and as Deborah says about RDA thinking will be
even more true about Bibframe. This frame shift from records to relational data
points (I know, I still don't have the terminology down) is a big reason why
I'm so skeptical of anything to do with RDA. I understand that RDA is trying to
create rules for more discreet content entry (better data points) but I just
think we are spinning our wheels for the most part until Bibframe is closer to
development. This is not to take away from the many folks who have been and are
working hard on the implementation of RDA but we've designed a cart before we
know if we're going to hook it to a horse or a jet.
Michael Mitchell
Technical Services Librarian
Brazosport College
Lake Jackson, TX
Michael.mitchell at brazosport.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: Friday, May 10, 2013 3:39 PM
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..
Deborah, I suspect we differ less than this discussion implies. If there is a
difference between us, my guess is you are more wedded to the letter of the
rules, while I am more wedded to their spirit. No finite set of rules and
cover all possibilities, so we must fall back on analogy. No
work/expression/manifestation theory should impede our records containing the
data patrons need, in the most efficient way possible. Field 520 is where we
convey the nature and content of what we have. That may differ amongst
instances.
If/when we have Bibframe work/instance records, I assume abstract / summary
will be repeating, as 520 is now. If we can't change the abstract / summary in
the work record as displayed with instance data, a second abstract / asummary
might be in the instance record. For use, it is better to have the data which
began thhis discussion in zn exact field, i.e.. repeating 520 in MARC, as
opposed to 500, or whatever the Bibframe equivalent of 500 may be.
There are also ;egacy records with 520s, which may apply to the work or to the
instance. That distinction can not be made by automted means.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] cm period/no period and sample records
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Hinchcliff, Marilou Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 9:06 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] cm period/no period and sample records Per RDA Abbreviations, metric dimensions (e.g., cm) are not considered abbreviations and so should not end with a period. If there is a 490 series statement, however, cm IS followed by a period based on the ISBD requirement that a series statement be PRECEDED by space full stop space (D1.2.7). ISBD also requires that each NOTE be preceded by space full stop space dash space or start a new paragraph for each. Does this mean that if you start a new paragraphs, as for the 1st note, you don't need to precede it by a space full stop, let alone the space full stop dash space? The sample records in RDA Toolkit (Tools/Examples of RDA records) show a period after every instance of cm except for the example on p. 15-16. Of the examples with cm., most do NOT have series statements but DO have at least one note. The one example on p. 16 with cm has no series but does have a note. Is this one example an error? Or are all the examples with cm. and no series the erroneous ones? Marilou Z. Hinchcliff, Coordinator of Cataloging and Interim Coordinator of Collection Development Harvey A. Andruss Library Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania 400 E. 2nd St. Bloomsburg PA 17815 570-389-4226 mhinc...@bloomu.edumailto:mhinc...@bloomu.edu == After about two weeks of discussion of this topic on Autocat I think we decided that seven periods could dance on the head of a pin and the moderator halted all further discussion. I hope it goes better here! Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu
