Re: [RDA-L] edition statements
But since first edition often means first printing, only updated edition is relevant. Peter Van: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] namens Kelleher, Martin [mart...@liverpool.ac.uk] Verzonden: vrijdag 18 oktober 2013 17:51 Aan: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Onderwerp: Re: [RDA-L] edition statements That makes the most sense to me. I guess if you want to stick with the language of the subject you’d put “updated first edition” or “first edition, updated”. If you’re going to put in edition twice, it only makes sense to me to put “first edition, updated edition” as is updated edition of the first edition. “Updated edition, First edition” sounds like the 1st edition of the updated edition (of possibly another edition?) to me. Martin Kelleher Metadata Manager University of Liverpool From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Goldfarb, Kathie Sent: 18 October 2013 16:36 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] edition statements From a patron’s point of view, but probably not according to the rules, would be Revised first edition, or First edition, revised. 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 Guy Vernon Frost Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 9:49 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] edition statements You can string them along separating one from the other by a comma 250;__; $a Updated edition, First edition. Sometime after the 2nd qtr OCLC update in 2104 you'll be able to repeat the 250 field. 250:__; $a Updated edition. 250;__; $a First edition. Guy Frost Associate Professor of Library Science Catalog Librarian Odum Library/Valdosta State University Valdosta, Georgia 31698-0150 229.259.5060 gfr...@valdosta.edumailto:gfr...@valdosta.edu FDLP 0125 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA on behalf of Baumgarten, Richard, JCL baumgart...@jocolibrary.orgmailto:baumgart...@jocolibrary.org Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 10:24 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] edition statements I cannot find anywhere in 2.5 about a situation where the title page says updated edition and the verso says First edition. The title was previously published. Do I record both statements or only the statement that I know to be true? Richard Baumgarten Cataloger Johnson County Library P.O. Box 2901 Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66201-1301 (913) 826-4494 baumgart...@jocolibrary.orgmailto:baumgart...@jocolibrary.org
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
Ø where navigate is about [snip] to find works related to a given work. So the real objective is to find which is already covered in FISO. The addition was discussed by the FRBR Review Group on 18 August 2005 and it was decided that to navigate is implicitly a component of the broader task to find. In discussion lists it may seem that large parts of the work to be done is overlooked, but the reality is that a lot of people are working very hard in a lot of different areas to make this work. Peter Schouten
Re: [RDA-L] 338 field for a volume of art prints
This is a resource consisting of one or more sheets, etc., housed in a single portfolio or case, so the carrier type is sheet. Peter Van: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] namens Rieger, Leslie [leslie.rie...@mso.umt.edu] Verzonden: donderdag 25 juli 2013 23:29 Aan: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Onderwerp: [RDA-L] 338 field for a volume of art prints Hello all! I am cataloging a collection of art prints which are packaged in a sort of portfolio (basically it’s a book cover, but the prints are not bound or attached to the spine in any way). I am struggling with whether to use “volume” or “other” in the 338. According the RDA glossary, a volume is “one or more sheets bound or fastened together to form a single unit.” Since my item is not bound, this would seem to indicate I should choose “other.” Thoughts? Is there another term I should be considering instead? Thanks for any assistance! Leslie Y. Rieger Music Cataloging Technician The University of Montana Mansfield Library (406) 243-6733 leslie.rie...@umontana.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Workflows in RDA Toolkit
No, it is not just you. The shared maps are not available either. Peter Van: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] namens Moore, Richard [richard.mo...@bl.uk] Verzonden: woensdag 10 juli 2013 8:27 Aan: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Onderwerp: [RDA-L] Workflows in RDA Toolkit Is anyone in a position to know what has happened to the Local and Global Workflows in the RDA Toolkit, following the July 2013 update? The links under Workflows have disappeared, leaving just Create Workflow, Shared Workflows and My Workflows. When clicked, Shared Workflows says Feature not yet implemented. Our cataloguers rely on Workflows for all our internal RDA documentation, and we also share documents internationally. As of this morning, no Workflow is visible. Alternatively, can anyone see the Workflows? Perhaps it’s just us … Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk
Re: [RDA-L] How would you relate these two works?
It still seems to me that Project Cain is Based on the creative work of Cain's blood, but Complemented by is indeed the alternative if the dependance is only in my mind. Another example of companion publications of the same kind are The regulators by Richard Bachman and Desperation by Stephen King where 2 personae/states of mind of the same human author worked from the same starting point, to create 2 different novels. Peter Van: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] namens Adam L. Schiff [asch...@u.washington.edu] Verzonden: donderdag 11 juli 2013 2:38 Aan: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Onderwerp: [RDA-L] How would you relate these two works? I'm trying to figure out what relationship designator to use to relate two novels, one of which is described as a spinoff for young adult readers. Here's the basic information: From http://geoffreygirard.wordpress.com/2013/02/: In September Simon Schuster will publish my first two novels at the same time. The first, Cain's Blood, is a techno thriller from Touchstone Books. The second, Project Cain, is a stand-alone companion novel for teen readers from Simon and Schuster Books for Young Readers. ... Cains Blood and Project Cain are two different novels written about the same fictional event. In both, scientists have been doing unpleasant things for the military and these unpleasant things escape. The two books explore the trouble/adventure that ensues and simply do so differently. Cains Blood uses the form/devices of a traditional thriller. It follows the story from a dozen viewpoints; mostly from former-army-Ranger Shawn Castilllos narrative Point of View (the character brought in to fix things), but also via chapters/scenes from the POV of various killers, military schemers, evil scientists, and victims. All capturing the big picture as the full horrifying story unfolds. Project Cain is told from the POV of one character: Jeff Jacobson, the sixteen-year-old clone of Jeffrey Dahmer who has recently discovered his true origins and who is recruited by Castillo into helping, we hope, save the day. Its a much more personal story/journey told with the voice and reflections of a smart, lost and thoughtful teen. A thriller specifically written for younger readers (PG-13) and those adults still interested in young heroes. From http://www.geoffreygirard.com/contact.html: Simon and Schuster will publish two Girard novels in 2013: Cain's Blood, a techno thriller, and Project Cain, a spinoff novel for teen/YA readers. Looking at Appendix J.2 of RDA, it looks to me that the only possible useable designator there is complemented by (work) A work paired with another work without either work being considered to predominate. I am wondering what others think. Use complemented by (work) to relate these two novels, or should I suggest a new term to be added to RDA. If so, what are the best suggestions for this new term? Adam ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~
Re: [RDA-L] ISSN placement in 490
As I see it, double is best for machine readable semantics (preferred), for humans it could suffice to present both $x and $v only once as last element (but we don't do that with $v because we want to maintain the language of the resource in transcription fields). Peter -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] Namens Adam L. Schiff Verzonden: donderdag 30 mei 2013 1:43 Aan: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Onderwerp: [RDA-L] ISSN placement in 490 I've got a question about where to record the ISSN when there is both a series title proper and a parallel series title. RDA doesn't provide any guidance or examples for this situation. Consider this situation: Series Title Proper: Frankfurt contributions to natural history Numbering Within Series: volume 55 Parallel Series Title Proper: Frankfurter Beitrage zur Naturkunde Parallel Numbering Within Series: Band 55 ISSN appears once in the resource: 1613-2327 For ISBD punctuation, RDA appendix D tells us that a comma precedes the ISSN, but it doesn't tell us where to put the ISSN when there is a series title proper and a parallel series title proper. I went to the ISBD consolidated and it doesn't address this situation EXCEPT with this example: . -- (Title proper of series, ISSN ; numbering within series = Parallel title of series, ISSN ; parallel numbering within series) Based on the ISBD example, it seems that we should repeat the ISSN: 490 1_ $a Frankfurt contributions to natural history, $x 1613-2327 ; $v volume 55 = $a Frankfurter Beitrage zur Naturkunde, $x 1613-2327 ; $v Band 55 Is this what we should do in RDA? Or should we just record the ISSN once, and if so, does it go after the series title proper or after the parallel series title? --Adam Schiff ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~
Re: [RDA-L] [MOUG-L] RDA copyright/phonogram symbols not on item
One could make the argument, however, that while it is a bad idea to include information not in the resource in the manifestation record, it may be very welcome in the work records (and both are bibliographic description). Peter Van: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] namens Mitchell, Michael [michael.mitch...@brazosport.edu] Verzonden: dinsdag 21 mei 2013 16:41 Aan: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Onderwerp: 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
Re: [RDA-L] Relationships and comic books/graphic novels
Interesting. I hadn't realized that artists of graphic novels are not commonly treated as creators (and still find it hard to reconcile that with the rules in AACR2 21.24 and RDA 19.2). Is this also common practice for coffee table books of the type photographs by ... text by ...? I had assumed that the first-named person gets main entry in these cases. (Comic book) artists and photographers are named creators, illustrators are not (illustrations are supplementary, as you said). See RDA Appendix I.2.1 Peter
Re: [RDA-L] Brackets in RDA
No you would not. Using square brackets is reserved for information not found anywhere in the resource. This is indeed different from previous practice, but should be more clear to users and new cataloguers. Peter Schouten Ingressus Van: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] namens Saunders, Mary [mary.saund...@maine.gov] Verzonden: woensdag 3 april 2013 16:56 Aan: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Onderwerp: [RDA-L] Brackets in RDA Good morning, I am a new subscriber and I apologize if this issue has been recently discussed. I have noticed that there are some differences in the use of square brackets in RDA and AACR2. I have an item in which the statement of responsibility appears on neither the title page nor on the verso, but responsibility is explained in the introduction. While “another source within the resource itself” is an acceptable source, I will need to formulate a statement of responsibility from the information in the introduction. I would enclose this in square brackets in AACR2. Do I enclose this in square brackets using RDA? Mary Saunders, Cataloger Maine State Library 64 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333-0064 mary.saund...@maine.govmailto:mary.saund...@maine.gov 207-287-5620 207-287-5638 FAX
Re: [RDA-L] RDA promoting the work entity?
VIAF already contains records for Works and Expressions. Search for Nachtmusik for some examples. A catalog with entries for Works and Expressions is feasible and would remove the need for computers to comb through data. The research by OCLC proved that based on current records, computers are not able to distinguish between Expressions, which is the biggest added value to Identify and Select. Peter Schouten Ingressus The Netherlands Van: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] namens Lisa McColl [lisa.abra.mcc...@gmail.com] Verzonden: woensdag 17 oktober 2012 23:58 Aan: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Onderwerp: [RDA-L] RDA promoting the work entity? I just attended an introductory webinar about RDA given by Chris Oliver. I'm wondering what changes RDA has that will help promote the collocation of the work entity. Is there an eye towards a web based authority file like VIAF, but for works, that can be integrated with our records? When Ms. Oliver spoke about particulars of the title statement being left to cataloger judgement, it seemed to me a move away from the uniformity that will be needed for computers to be able to compile and comb our data and group works. Thank you, Lisa
Re: [RDA-L] Authority 046 and periods of activity
Since it supports both the FRAD user tasks Identify and Contextualise, this makes perfect sense to me, and you are correct in saying that recording optional useful information is a separate issue from creating access points. Regards, Peter Van: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] namens Moore, Richard [richard.mo...@bl.uk] Verzonden: woensdag 19 september 2012 11:10 Aan: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Onderwerp: [RDA-L] Authority 046 and periods of activity I'm interested in the opinions of other people who are creating NACO authority records in RDA, on the use of the 046 field in personal NARs. We always record known dates of birth and death in 046, as specifically as they are known. We've also taken the view that, if dates of birth and death are not known, it is useful to record a person's period of activity, even if this is only as specific as the century. For example: 046 $s 1740 $t 1790 = active 1740-1790 046 $s 18 = active 19th century The above are formulated to ISO 8601, which MAR21 says should be used in this field. We do this whether or not the period of activity is included in the authorised access point, which is a separate issue. We think that it will always be useful to record a person's period of activity in machine-readable form. Clearly this can't be regarded as compulsory, as Period of Activity of the Person is not a core element when not needed to distinguish between persons. But I'd be interested to know whether people think this is a good idea, or a bad idea, and why. This is a practical question of RDA application, so I'm not hugely interested in the moral and aesthetic aspects ;-) Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.ukmailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk
Re: [RDA-L] Fw: What Goes into the 1xx Field?
In FRBR, the title of expression is an attribute for the entity expression. But I could not find it in the RDA Toolkit. Have you tried chapter 5, paragraph 5.5 in particular. It seems pretty straightforward. Also, if a work can have an uniform title, a parallel uniform title, and variant titles. What can be a title of an expression? I am a kind of confused with it. It can be the same, and added to it the form (e.g.) to make it distinct from other expressions. If the expression is for the French text, it makes sense to make the French title the main entry for the French expression, but in Anglo-American countries Original title (Language) may be kept. Peter Schouten Ingressus
Re: [RDA-L] What FRBR is not
Avram was not a librarian and part of the success of MARC in those days seems to have been that librarians needed to make the needed information units explicit to the techies. FRBR is a model that helps us do the same for tomorrow's data model. On a side note: when people say FRBRized catalog they often mean FRBRized display. Peter -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] Namens Gene Fieg Verzonden: maandag 20 februari 2012 18:11 Aan: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Onderwerp: Re: [RDA-L] What FRBR is not Decided to look up the history of MARC on Google and found this in Wikipedia; I was prompted to do this after reading Karen's remark that the creation of how FRBR should be organized should be left to computer scientists. MARC was created by such an expert, but I thought Avram was also a librarian. Anyway here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARC_standards On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Kevin M Randall k...@northwestern.edu wrote: I think the fundamental problem in some discussions on this list is that some people are still misunderstanding what FRBR actually is, and are talking about it as if it is something that in actuality it is not. FRBR is not about having the user think in terms of work, expression, manifestation, and item. FRBR is not about having the user approach the catalog with four steps of find, identify, select, and obtain in mind. FRBR is not a model for displaying bibliographic data to the user. FRBR is not about the user interface; it is about the underlying data. And I think that some of us who really do understand what FRBR is actually perpetuate that misunderstanding by using terminology such as FRBRized catalog and FRBRized display when talking about OPAC displays showing things like hierarchical diplays of related works and expressions. We need to come up with better terms (and probably better displays as well-no, not probably but certainly), because continuing this way we just reinforce the idea that FRBR is all about hierarchical displays of the WEMI entities. Because it's not. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Bibliographic Services Dept. Northwestern University Library 1970 Campus Drive Evanston, IL 60208-2300 email: k...@northwestern.edu phone: (847) 491-2939 fax: (847) 491-4345 -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology 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.
Re: [RDA-L] Why RDA deals so poorly with equipment?
That would be like describing the vcr for every video. The carrier is
not part of the resource (that is a question of definition, but a very
important one).
Peter
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] Namens Mercante, Mary Ann
Verzonden: vrijdag 1 juli 2011 16:38
Aan: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Onderwerp: Re: [RDA-L] Why RDA deals so poorly with equipment?
Isn't the traditional print book a carrier for its intellectual content?
With books, we catalog both the carrier (descriptive cataloging,
including pagination and size) and the content (subject cataloging and
classification). At our library, we do likewise with our Kindles and
Nooks, cataloging both the carrier and the content.
Mary Ann Mercante,
Assistant Dean Head, Technical Services Maryville University Library
650 Maryville University Drive St. Louis, MO. 63141 314-529-9650
fax: 314-529-9941
mmerca...@maryville.edu
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Arakawa, Steven
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 9:09 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Why RDA deals so poorly with equipment?
I'm struggling with the theoretical foundations myself, so take it with
a grain of salt as I try to walk my way through it. With regard to
electronic readers, library cataloging focuses on the content as modeled
by the FRBR WEMI. You catalog the e-book, not the Kindle reader. You
catalog the sound recording, not the iPod. The user's primary need is
for a specific work/expression (or form/genre, or series, or topic), not
'whatever' the library has loaded on the Kindle this month. (Secondary
needs are taken care of with the SMD, notes, or faceting.) You can
certainly uses an ILS system to inventory the carrier equipment, but to
present this to the public view I would argue is misleading; the library
catalog represents an intellectual collection; it's not the Best Buy
catalog. A carrier could still be categorized under the WEMI model if
the collection is treating it as an artifact rather than a carrier, for
example a special collection of reading tools, but for the purposes you
describe, the Kindle or Playaway is a carrier for the intellectual
content.
Steven Arakawa
Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata
Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240
(203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.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, June 30, 2011 8:18 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Why RDA deals so poorly with equipment?
http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/alcts/confevents/past/ala/annual/04/Ti
llett.pdf
In the fourth slide of this FRBR presentation, materials listed to be
catalogued include:
What Are We Cataloging?
Library collections
- Books
- Serials
- Maps, globes, etc
- Manuscripts.
- Musical scores
- A-V
sound recordings
motion pictures
photographs, slides
- Multimedia
- Remote digital
materials
Missing is equipment, e.g. electronic readers and players now being
acquired and circulated by libraries, whether with prerecorded material,
or as carriers for electronic resources available from the library.
Perhaps A-V could be interpreted to include A-V equipment?
Is a Kindle or Kobo A-V?
Also missing is realia.
I'll admit it is difficult to see items of equipment and much realia
(apart from works of art) as intellectual or artistic works. But we do
need to catalogue them. Is this early (2004) omission related to RDA's
failure to address this growing body of library material?
Is it too late to include such material in the redrafted RDA?
Computer would need to change from being a media type (replaced by
ISBD's electronic?), becoming instead a carrier term under a new media
term equipment, along with readers, players, etc. Many present
content terms would apply, but perhaps computer program shoud be
added.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] [sic] ?
In MARC it would be a useful addition for 246 to have indicator value 9: Type of title: Corrected title. Peter Schouten -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access namens Schupbach, William Verzonden: di 10-5-2011 12:54 Aan: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Onderwerp: Re: [RDA-L] [sic] ? So one could search for genuine misprints in RDA titles by searching for the misprint in records in which a variant title does not exist, or in MARC21 terms, in records lacking a 246 field. William Schupbach Wellcome Library, 183 Euston Road, London NW1 2BE Visit the Wellcome Library Blog at: http://wellcomelibrary.blogspot.com -Original Message- From: Adam L. Schiff [...] The world of television Title proper recorded as: The wolrd of television [...] Kathleen Lamantia wrote: The presence of the [sic] is very helpful in determining which records I need to look at more closely. This message has been scanned for viruses by Websense Hosted Email Security - www.websense.com
Re: [RDA-L] Dr. Snoopy
2 personae of the same fictional character need not be the same Person. One could even state that Dr. Snoopy needs to be filed under D, instead of S (it's not a title associated with a name but the name itself). Then again, it won't cause problems as long as manifestations by Joe Cool and Flashbeagle are presented as such, because even fictional characters are entitled to their own Personae. Peter Schouten -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access namens Adger Williams Verzonden: wo 27-4-2011 13:42 Aan: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Onderwerp: Re: [RDA-L] Where to Direct Questions about RDA Examples? I think we've missed something important in this discussion. Deborah brought up other works by Snoopy, and, as Adam quotes, we are to look for preferred access points in resources associated with the person. There is a work called The wit and wisdom of Snoopy. (OCLC #6910980). I assume this might count as a resource associated with the person. That said, it seems fair to consider her concerns that Snoopy is not always presented as a doctor, and should not be entered as such. snip 9.2.2.2 Determine the preferred name for a person from the following sources (in order of preference): a) the preferred sources of information (see 2.2.2 rdalink) in resources associated with the person snip It was very instructive to have Adam's careful walk-through of the process of preferred access point choice with all its delightful wrinkles. This is where understanding comes from. -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Dr. Snoopy
Unless one assumes that Dr. Snoopy is somehow different from plain Snoopy, and would advocate a series of maybe linked authorities for each differing guise of a character. Mr. Schouten, for example, claims that: even fictional characters are entitled to their own Personae. But I would argue against this route for multiple reasons. Fictitious character cannot truly have professions, so they aren't really different persons despite the guise; But in this example, the publication presents Dr. Snoopy as the author, which causes the fictional character to have the profession of author. Would you also have 1 heading for both Clark Kent and Superman? Peter Schouten
Re: [RDA-L] Conference names : use of annual, etc.
A change in the first few words of the title of a serial has always been, and
under RDA still is, a reason for a new bibliographic record. We have seen the
problems arising from collating all titles under their current ISSN, when
online archives displayed the current title on an historical articles, so let's
not make the same mistake.
And most non-cataloguers will agree that Atlantic monthly and Atlantic are
not the same title.
Quoting RDA 2.3.2.13.1
In general, consider the following to be major changes in a title proper:
1. the addition, deletion, change, or reordering of any of the first five words
(the first six words if the title begins with an article) unless the change
belongs to one or more of the categories listed under minor changes (see
2.3.2.13.2 )
2. the addition, deletion, or change of any word after the first five words
(the first six words if the title begins with an article) that changes the
meaning of the title or indicates a different subject matter
3. a change in a corporate body name given anywhere in the title if it is a
different corporate body.
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access namens
Jonathan Rochkind
Verzonden: ma 18-4-2011 17:50
Aan: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Onderwerp: Re: [RDA-L] Conference names : use of annual, etc.
Only catalogers? The ISSN authority considers them to be different too,
changing the title like that gets you a new ISSN. Note the different
ISSNs at each point monthly and/or the was added/removed.
The Atlantic 1072-7825
Former titles (until 1993): Atlantic (United States) (0276-9077)
(until 1981): Atlantic Monthly (United States) (0004-6795)
(until 1971): Atlantic (United States) (0160-6506)
(until 1932): Atlantic Monthly (United States) (0160-6514)
I am not sure if the suggestion is that NO title change should ever be
considered a new resource, or that a judgement be made about when a
title change is significant enough. I don't know if ISSN has ever
considered changing their practices, but there is some value in ours
being consistent with ISSNs. Playing with ISSN is an awfully useful
thing.
And of course, this is really a debate about successive entry vs
latest entry cataloging of serials, which has been going on for
decades. No reason for the debate to stop now (or ever) I guess. But
AACR2 made the decision that Mac does not like, many years ago. But one
could try to look back at what people argued 30+ years ago that resulted
in AACR2 deciding on successive entry cataloging of serials, I am sure
there were reasons.
On 4/18/2011 11:25 AM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Mary Charles Lasater said:
Do you think that decision could be reconsidered ... the less
problematic change would be to treat fairs, exhibitions, festivals
like conferences.
Agreed. And extend it to serials, getting rid of the confusing flip
flop successive entries of Atlantic and Atlantic monthly, which our
clients refuse to accept.
Neither the Atlantic editors* nor conference orgainizers consider
including or omitting the frequency as a title/name change. Only
cataloguers have seen it as such. Aren't we supposed to be playing
with others?
RDA fails to address the problems we have with AACR2, and changes
things with which we had no problem.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
*Based on answers to e-mail protests to them about the title change.
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
Ask yourself: is the movie a valid alternative to the book? Is the creator of the movie the same as the creator of the book (if the answer is no to either, it can't be a work). The purpose of FRBR has never been to put related works together in one hiërarchy, but the works will of course be related by association (which currently they often are not). Peter Schouten Ingressus -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] Namens Kathleen Lamantia Verzonden: vrijdag 8 april 2011 14:41 Aan: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Onderwerp: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR Wait, wait! I thought the entire purpose of FRBR/RDA was to collocate everything together so that patrons would see an entity-relationship display... therefore the book and the movie are only different expressions of the same work. So now, this is NOT the case? Please excuse me while I go in a closet and scream! Kathleen F. Lamantia, MLIS Technical Services Librarian Stark County District Library 715 Market Avenue North Canton, OH 44702 330-458-2723 klaman...@starklibrary.org Inspiring Ideas ∙ Enriching Lives ∙ Creating Community The Stark County District Library is a winner of the National Medal for library service, is one of the best 100 libraries in the U.S. according to the HAPLR rating, and is a Library Journal 5 Star library. -Original Message- From: Jonathan Rochkind [mailto:rochk...@jhu.edu] Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 5:19 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR In conventional cataloging practice, and in what is suggested by FRBR/RDA as I understand it... no, it doesn't really matter. A movie version is a different work. I think an argument could be made that a _very simple_ movie version, that is really just video of a bunch of actors sitting around a table doing a reading of the _exact_ text of the novel --- should be treated as the same work to be consistent -- If an audio-book of the exact text is considered the same work -- is it? But I'm not sure about that, and I think that, otherwise, no, conventional practice is to consider the movie version a different work. Conventional practice, as represented by legacy cataloging and FRBR/RDA's suggestions is NOT to have catalogers considering how much the movie differs from the book, and figuring out exactly how much is too much.[Consider again, in AACR2 -- is the main entry (not an added entry) on a film version of Pride and Prejudice _ever_ Jane Austen? If it sometimes is, that might be a case where it is indeed being modelled as the same work. I don't think this is ever done? But I'm not a cataloger.] It's not an unreasonable thing to suggest, but it's not conventional practice. My main point is that it's not about which choice is closer to reality of whether two things are the same work or not. There kind of isn't a reality of that, there isn't an actual work we can go touch and open up and see. It's just about our modelling choices, and in order to share our data we need to do this somewhat consistently. It's totally fine to think it would be _better_ (more useful) if the convention were different -- just like you could disagree with what, say, AACR2 or other legacy cataloging practice dictated about when to use the same title authority record and when to make a different one. But if you want to be able to share your authority records and linked bibs cooperatively, you've got to try to make choices consistent with everyone else, even if you think a different choice would be more useful. On 4/7/2011 4:55 PM, Mark Rose wrote: Wouldn't the determining factor of whether a movie version of Pride and Prejudice shared the same work as the novelization depend on the the intent of the expression as a motion picture of the novel or as a retelling? If the movie took enough liberties with the text, it might be a different work, but if it were an almost verbatim representation of the novel then it might be the same work. Another example might be whether the film Prospero's Books share the same work as the RSC film production of The Tempest? The text is very similar in each version. What about remakes then? For example, do the original film version of Arthur and the 2011 remake of the film Arthur share the work Arthur or because there is substantial deviation in text do we view it as a separate work. The whole notion of Work in FRBR seems unnecessary in my view. We don't deal in Platonic ideals of what a work is but in actual productions, the physicality of the work, i.e. expression down to item. Mark Rose, B.A.Hons., M.I.St. Librarian and Information Systems Manager ICURR = Cirur mr...@icurr.org (647) 345-7004 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access on behalf of Jonathan Rochkind Sent: Thu 4/7/2011 4:35 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC
Re: [RDA-L] Combining book e-book bibs and RDA prep
In other words FRBR has failed to be justified by experience in our library, at least in this respect. Multiple formats means different Expression in FRBR, so different manifestations/records. FRBR does not prescribe attaching multiple formats to the same record. Peter Schouten -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] Namens Kelleher, Martin Verzonden: maandag 15 november 2010 11:10 Aan: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Onderwerp: Re: [RDA-L] Combining book e-book bibs and RDA prep We found that the opposite of all this was true: Having multiple formats attached to the same records only confused our readers, leading many to assume there was only 1 format, and to fail to notice (often) one of the other. In other words FRBR has failed to be justified by experience in our library, at least in this respect. Proximity to the physical site of the library, and nature of users also has temendous influence on requirement of format, and, increasingly it does matter to them what format's they use. Distance users do not want to know about print materials, particularly, for example. Amazon, Play et al. don't stick multiple formats on the same records either, and for once I agree with them. In a world of unstable (and enormous) e-book collections, the manual monitoring of individual records, and work required for integration with print collections, do not appear to me to be justifiable by our experience. So we will almost certainly not be following the new orthodoxy in this fashion (if it is ever really established! Have LoC accepted it all yet? It still all looks a bit vague to me) Best wishes Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Ed Jones Sent: 13 November 2010 17:04 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Combining book e-book bibs and RDA prep What one does locally is of course one's own business. From the time-constrained remote user's point of view, an argument could be made for doing the opposite, i.e. attaching holdings for the physical item to the bibliographic record for the electronic form. This would allow one to take advantage of codes in the MARC leader (record label) and 008 to restrict a search to resources instantly available to the user. Ed Jones National University (San Diego, Calif.) From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Wardroper, Lawrence [lawrence.wardro...@cas-satj.gc.ca] Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 7:08 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Combining book e-book bibs and RDA prep I am no expert on RDA but, have been wanting to do something like that for some time. Yes, it is work but, seems more in tune with the reality of what people want: I want this work (?), I will decide later if I want print, fiche, braille, PDF via the web... you fill in the blank. I don't care but, to me, they are all copies of the same thing. and a user would / could be most interested in the content first, format second. All in all, it means getting off the 'Biblio'graphic orientation that we have had for a long time. Which I think is part of what RDA is all about. Lawrence Wardroper Service de la bibliothèque | Library Services Service administratif des tribunaux judiciaires | Courts Administration Service 90, rue Sparks, Ottawa ON K1A 0H9 lawrence.wardro...@cas-satj.gc.ca Téléphone | Telephone 613-996-8735 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 7:09 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Combining book e-book bibs and RDA prep Megan Curran said: Currently in our catalog (SirsiDynix Horizon) we have e-book records = separate from the records of the same title in print, although in the = print record we include a 856 that has the URL to the e-book version. = Currently our e-book records do not have item records attached. We are = considering changing our records so that the bib record for the print book = will have item records representing both the print and electronic forms, = with no e-book bib record. This would seem a backward step to me, and contrary to both AACR2 and RDA, which would have you catalogue the electronic resource, not its original. The need for a GMD in AACR2 electronic resource records, and different 3XX fields in RDA, as well as differing fixed fields (even if you use multiple terms in 3XX) would be a compromise. We do not yet have expression level records. Were I you I would use separate
Re: [RDA-L] Combining book e-book bibs and RDA prep
I don't know if I understand what you are asking, if I don't, I'm sorry for pointing out the obvious below :) Bibliographic descriptions can be grouped by the uniform Work title, but for identification purposes the title proper of the manifestations are as accurately transcribed or harvested as possible. Each manifestation record will have a media type, carrier type and content type, which can be displayed in text or as an image, so the user can quickly identify the resource for the format the description represents. Regards, Peter Schouten Ingressus BV -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] Namens Kelleher, Martin Verzonden: maandag 15 november 2010 11:28 Aan: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Onderwerp: Re: [RDA-L] Combining book e-book bibs and RDA prep Ooops, just realised that So in that case, and fairly unusually, I'm supporting RDA against dissent! Still finding this all confusing in a way OK, if I get this right, all RDA really does is re-emphasize the practice for using uniform titles over and above individual title, making it difficult to represent format in title at all by removing the option Am I right? Cheers, Martin Kelleher -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Peter Schouten Sent: 15 November 2010 10:21 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Combining book e-book bibs and RDA prep In other words FRBR has failed to be justified by experience in our library, at least in this respect. Multiple formats means different Expression in FRBR, so different manifestations/records. FRBR does not prescribe attaching multiple formats to the same record. Peter Schouten -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] Namens Kelleher, Martin Verzonden: maandag 15 november 2010 11:10 Aan: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Onderwerp: Re: [RDA-L] Combining book e-book bibs and RDA prep We found that the opposite of all this was true: Having multiple formats attached to the same records only confused our readers, leading many to assume there was only 1 format, and to fail to notice (often) one of the other. In other words FRBR has failed to be justified by experience in our library, at least in this respect. Proximity to the physical site of the library, and nature of users also has temendous influence on requirement of format, and, increasingly it does matter to them what format's they use. Distance users do not want to know about print materials, particularly, for example. Amazon, Play et al. don't stick multiple formats on the same records either, and for once I agree with them. In a world of unstable (and enormous) e-book collections, the manual monitoring of individual records, and work required for integration with print collections, do not appear to me to be justifiable by our experience. So we will almost certainly not be following the new orthodoxy in this fashion (if it is ever really established! Have LoC accepted it all yet? It still all looks a bit vague to me) Best wishes Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Ed Jones Sent: 13 November 2010 17:04 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Combining book e-book bibs and RDA prep What one does locally is of course one's own business. From the time-constrained remote user's point of view, an argument could be made for doing the opposite, i.e. attaching holdings for the physical item to the bibliographic record for the electronic form. This would allow one to take advantage of codes in the MARC leader (record label) and 008 to restrict a search to resources instantly available to the user. Ed Jones National University (San Diego, Calif.) From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Wardroper, Lawrence [lawrence.wardro...@cas-satj.gc.ca] Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 7:08 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Combining book e-book bibs and RDA prep I am no expert on RDA but, have been wanting to do something like that for some time. Yes, it is work but, seems more in tune with the reality of what people want: I want this work (?), I will decide later if I want print, fiche, braille, PDF via the web... you fill in the blank. I don't care but, to me, they are all copies of the same thing. and a user would / could be most interested in the content first, format second. All in all, it means getting off
Re: [RDA-L] RDA @ Your Library conference announcement
Fees are listed on the registration page: https://www.peopleware.net/secure/index.cfm?siteCode=2787asiteID=636 Hope this helps, Peter Schouten Ingressus Library Services Van: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] Namens Joanne Tupper Verzonden: donderdag 4 november 2010 12:07 Aan: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Onderwerp: Re: [RDA-L] RDA @ Your Library conference announcement Hello, I don't see a price on the website. Would you tell me how much it costs, please? Thank you. Joanne Tupper Carol Seiler sei...@amigos.org 11/3/2010 4:18 PM Registration Open for RDA @ Your Library Online Conference - Seating limited! When: Friday, February 4, 2011 What time: 9:00 - 4:00 central standard time Where: Online - The comfort of your office Website: http://rda.amigos.org http://rda.amigos.org/ RDA @ Your Library will provide both basic and advanced information on Resource Description and Access (RDA), covering a variety of topics including an RDA background/overview (FRBR and FRAD concepts), RDA training, RDA as Data (including a background on the concept of changes needed to library metadata), and why RDA might not be the right choice for libraries. Additionally, various Integrated Library Systems vendors will present on their intentions towards RDA. ALA Publishing will present on AACR2 to RDA from the co-publishers perspective. An OCLC representative will discuss the OCLC plans regarding RDA. Resource Description and Access (RDA) was released June 23, 2010. It was designed to replace the existing Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, 2nd Edition (AACR2). Prior to implementation, the USA National Libraries (Library of Congress, National Library of Medicine, and the National Agriculture Library) determined to test RDA to assure the operational, technical, and economic feasibility of RDA. See more on the testing process and partnerships on the Library of Congress website http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/RDAtest/rdatest.html. Come to the RDA @ Your Library conference to get the information you need to make an informed decision for your library. Seating is limited and early bird registration ends Jan 21, 2011. To learn more and to register, visit the conference website http://rda.amigos.org. http://rda.amigos.org./ Carol Seiler, MLS Continuing Education Librarian Amigos Library Services 14400 Midway Rd. Dallas, TX 75244 (800) 843-8482 ext. 2828 (972) 340-2828 (direct) (972) 991-6061 (fax) www.amigos.org sei...@amigos.org RDA @ Your Library An Online Conference about Resource Description Access February 4, 2011 Register at: http://rda.amigos.org http://rda.amigos.org/
