Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Shana McDanold]

I didn't think you specifically were advocating cherry picking. I was
getting that vibe from other posts in this particular thread. And in my
experience the term "relevant" is basically a disguise for "cherry picking"
and does vary from institution to institution. A better/more complete
policy than "pick the relevant names" is needed. Defining "relevant" is key
(e.g. is someone is designated as "primary" then yes, they're relevant even
if they're the last name on the list!).

I really like your suggested local policy:

(1) Whenever possible, use the standard rule, i.e. transcribe all names.
(2) If this isn't possible, use the optional omission.
(3) When using the optional omission, do not only give the first name, but
the first x names ("x" being a number agreed on in your institution or a
standard which you make up for yourself and use consistently).
(4) Give names of persons, who are not listed under the first x names, only
for important reasons: Either because the person has special responsibility
(e.g. a main actor in a movie, who is nonethless listed at the end because
his or her surname starts with a "Z") or if there are special local
requirements (e.g. if the person in question is a professor at your
University and you're supposed to document that). In this case, transcribe
the first x names plus the names of the additional person(s).

Permission to suggest it for local use at my institution?

Thanks,
-Shana

*
Shana L. McDanold
Head, Metadata Services
Georgetown University Library
37th and O Streets, N.W.
Washington, DC  20057
(202) 687-3356
sm2...@georgetown.edu



On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller <
wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote:

>  Shana,
>
> It wasn't my intention to advocate arbitrary "cherry picking". I believe
> that the case I mentioned would (or should) appear only rarely. It probably
> got too much emphasis in the discussion here simply because it is a rather
> tricky one, but I still felt we should know how to handle it. I'd see it,
> as Ben called it, "as a practice of last resort, when you are faced with an
> extensive S-o-R and additional local requirements (for example: your
> library wants to record/trace people associated with your institution no
> matter where they appear in the s-o-r)."
>
> A good policy might, I believe, run like this:
>
> (1) Whenever possible, use the standard rule, i.e. transcribe all names.
> (2) If this isn't possible, use the optional omission.
> (3) When using the optional omission, do not only give the first name, but
> the first x names ("x" being a number agreed on in your institution or a
> standard which you make up for yourself and use consistently).
> (4) Give names of persons, who are not listed under the first x names,
> only for important reasons: Either because the person has special
> responsibility (e.g. a main actor in a movie, who is nonethless listed at
> the end because his or her surname starts with a "Z") or if there are
> special local requirements (e.g. if the person in question is a professor
> at your University and you're supposed to document that). In this case,
> transcribe the first x names plus the names of the additional person(s).
>
> Heidrun
>
>
>
>
>
> On 07.02.2013 18:36, Shana McDanold wrote:
>
> The idea of "cherry picking" who to include and who to exclude from the
> statement of responsibility really makes me uncomfortable. The idea of
> relevancy is very subjective depending on context, library, etc. Remember
> you can always pull out additional creators/access points LOCALLY as
> needed.
>
>  If someone is indicated to be the "primary" author/creator, much like
> there are "primary researchers" and assistant researchers, and you have a
> really long list of authors/creators on the piece, then yes, make sure you
> include them.
>
>  I also agree that putting in seemingly random marks of omission may be
> problematic, and support the solution offered by Heidrun Wiesenmuller:
> - transcribe the first name
> - transcribe other names, which you want to give, in the order in which
> they appear in the statement of responsibility - WITH THE CAVEAT of not
> cherry picking and using indicators on the piece itself to identify those
> with primary responsibilities
> - do not indicate if you've left out other names between the ones
> transcribed
> - instead summarize what was left out at the end
>
>  If you're omitting names in the statement of responsibility, then either
> omit consistently for all the names or not, including whether or not you
> list additional information like titles/degrees/etc. Don't "cherry 

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Shana McDanold]

The idea of "cherry picking" who to include and who to exclude from the
statement of responsibility really makes me uncomfortable. The idea of
relevancy is very subjective depending on context, library, etc. Remember
you can always pull out additional creators/access points LOCALLY as needed.

If someone is indicated to be the "primary" author/creator, much like there
are "primary researchers" and assistant researchers, and you have a really
long list of authors/creators on the piece, then yes, make sure you include
them.

I also agree that putting in seemingly random marks of omission may be
problematic, and support the solution offered by Heidrun Wiesenmuller:
- transcribe the first name
- transcribe other names, which you want to give, in the order in which
they appear in the statement of responsibility - WITH THE CAVEAT of not
cherry picking and using indicators on the piece itself to identify those
with primary responsibilities
- do not indicate if you've left out other names between the ones
transcribed
- instead summarize what was left out at the end

If you're omitting names in the statement of responsibility, then either
omit consistently for all the names or not, including whether or not you
list additional information like titles/degrees/etc. Don't "cherry pick"
who to include or what to include with each name on a name by name basis.

I also really want to stress the "be consistent" message. Not across all
records (different materials may warrant different decisions about options)
but WITHIN a record be consistent. It truly is important for each record to
be consistent internally. There will be wide variation from one record to
the next, but each record should be consistent internally regarding
application of decisions regarding RDA options. Don't mix practice/policy
on a single record.

Thanks,
-Shana

*
Shana L. McDanold
Head, Metadata Services
Georgetown University Library
37th and O Streets, N.W.
Washington, DC  20057
(202) 687-3356
sm2...@georgetown.edu



On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller <
wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote:

>  Thomas Brenndorfer wrote:
>
>  One could choose the optional omission and supply the element Note on 
> Statement of Responsibility (RDA 2.20.3) -- "... a note providing information 
> on a person, family or corporate body not named in the statement of 
> responsibility ..."
>
> So the statement of responsibility could have the first named only, and the 
> note could list additional names-- whichever names are important for 
> "identification or access" (RDA 2.20.3.5).
>
>
> I wouldn't feel comfortable with this solution. According to the defintion
> in 2.20.3.1 a note on statement of responsibility  "is a note providing
> information on a person, family, or corporate body not *named *in a
> statement of responsibility". Mind, it doesn't say "a person etc. not 
> *transcribed
> *in a statement of responsibility". In our case, the persons are
> certainly named in the statement of responsibility.
>
> I think it would be a rather roundabout way to use a note for conveying
> information which is explicitly stated in the statement of responsibility.
> It would be much better to solve the problem by transcribing the relevant
> part of the statement of responsibility, i.e. adapting the optional
> omission in 2.4.1.5.
>
> Heidrun
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> -
> Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
> Stuttgart Media University
> Faculty of Information and Communication
> Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germanywww.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
>
>

Re: [RDA-L] Clarification of LC's RDA implementation RE: [RDA-L] GMD revisited

[Shana McDanold]

Thank you for the clarification, Ana. I've added the information you shared
to my notes.

I'm guessing Beacher was referring to the monograph and serials cataloging
within the PSD in his remarks, and I missed that detail.

Thanks,
-Shana

*
Shana L. McDanold
Head, Metadata Services
Georgetown University Library
37th and O Streets, N.W.
Washington, DC  20057
(202) 687-3356
sm2...@georgetown.edu



On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Cristan, Ana Lupe  wrote:

> Responding on behalf of the Library of Congress to clarify statements made
> at recent ALA meetings.
>
> ** **
>
> All LC *authorities* will be created using RDA beginning on March 31, but
> units like NUCMC and Motion Picture, Broadcasting, and Recorded Sound
> Division, etc. will continue to create bibliographic records using their
> current non-AACR2 standards.  
>
> ** **
>
> It should also be clarified that NAL is implementing RDA for Authorities
> on March 31, but as of last Friday (25 Jan. 2013) had not announced an
> implementation date for bibliographic records.
>
> ** **
>
> Sincere apologies for any confusion caused by these remarks made at ALA.
> 
>
> Ana Lupe Cristán
>
> Library of Congress
>
> Policy and Standards Division
>
> 101 Independence Ave.
> Washington, DC 20540-4305
>
> Tel. +1.202.707.7921
> fax +1.202.707.6629
>
> Email: a...@loc.gov 
>
> [image: cid:3406095300_24711525]
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Shana McDanold
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:01 PM
> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] GMD revisited
>
> ** **
>
> While this is correct, it is notable that the Library of Congress is
> switching all bibliographic work over to RDA on the same date.
>
> ** **
>
> Per Beacher Wiggins at the RDA Update Forum at ALA Midwinter this past
> weekend: "everything coming out of LoC will follow RDA" (they will ensure
> access points in copy are RDA, but they are not recataloging/recoding
> existing bib records). The other national libraries (Agriculture, Medicine)
> are targeting the same time frame for bibliographic implementation.
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Shana
>
>
> 
>
> *
>
> Shana L. McDanold
>
> Head, Metadata Services
>
> Georgetown University Library
>
> 37th and O Streets, N.W.
>
> Washington, DC  20057
>
> (202) 687-3356
>
> sm2...@georgetown.edu
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:00 AM, Adam L. Schiff 
> wrote:
>
> Julie,
>
> The "RDA cutover date" applies only to authority records.  PCC libraries
> may continue to describe resources after March 31 using AACR2, but any new
> name authorities created for the LC/NACO Authority File must be formulated
> according to RDA instructions.
>
> ^^
> Adam L. Schiff
> Principal Cataloger
> University of Washington Libraries
> Box 352900
> Seattle, WA 98195-2900
> (206) 543-8409
> (206) 685-8782 fax
> asch...@u.washington.edu
> http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
> ~~
>
>
>
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2013, Julie Moore wrote:
>
> Please excuse the cross-posting ...
>
> Dear All,
>
> It is safe to say that many catalogers are disastisfied with the 336-338 as
> a replacement for the GMD.
> I know that many people are opting to do some sort of awkward work-around
> to insert a GMD into RDA records that come into their systems. (I really do
> not want to do that.)
> I know that some people are continuing to catalog using AACR2 and adding in
> the RDA fields, creating a hybrid record ... mainly so that they can keep
> the GMD ... until some more satisfactory solution comes about. (I'd rather
> not do that, either.)
> Has anyone come up with any other options or solutions as the RDA cutover
> date for the national and PCC libraries nears? (2 months to go!)
> Cheers,
> Julie Moore
>
> --
> Julie Renee Moore
> Head of Cataloging
> California State University, Fresno
> julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
> 559-278-5813
>
> “Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from
> themselves.”... James Matthew Barrie
>
> ** **
>

Re: [RDA-L] GMD revisited

[Shana McDanold]

While this is correct, it is notable that the Library of Congress is
switching all bibliographic work over to RDA on the same date.

Per Beacher Wiggins at the RDA Update Forum at ALA Midwinter this past
weekend: "everything coming out of LoC will follow RDA" (they will ensure
access points in copy are RDA, but they are not recataloging/recoding
existing bib records). The other national libraries (Agriculture, Medicine)
are targeting the same time frame for bibliographic implementation.

Thanks,
-Shana

*
Shana L. McDanold
Head, Metadata Services
Georgetown University Library
37th and O Streets, N.W.
Washington, DC  20057
(202) 687-3356
sm2...@georgetown.edu



On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:00 AM, Adam L. Schiff wrote:

> Julie,
>
> The "RDA cutover date" applies only to authority records.  PCC libraries
> may continue to describe resources after March 31 using AACR2, but any new
> name authorities created for the LC/NACO Authority File must be formulated
> according to RDA instructions.
>
> ^^**
> Adam L. Schiff
> Principal Cataloger
> University of Washington Libraries
> Box 352900
> Seattle, WA 98195-2900
> (206) 543-8409
> (206) 685-8782 fax
> asch...@u.washington.edu
> http://faculty.washington.edu/**~aschiff
> ~~**
>
>
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2013, Julie Moore wrote:
>
>  Please excuse the cross-posting ...
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> It is safe to say that many catalogers are disastisfied with the 336-338
>> as
>> a replacement for the GMD.
>> I know that many people are opting to do some sort of awkward work-around
>> to insert a GMD into RDA records that come into their systems. (I really
>> do
>> not want to do that.)
>> I know that some people are continuing to catalog using AACR2 and adding
>> in
>> the RDA fields, creating a hybrid record ... mainly so that they can keep
>> the GMD ... until some more satisfactory solution comes about. (I'd rather
>> not do that, either.)
>> Has anyone come up with any other options or solutions as the RDA cutover
>> date for the national and PCC libraries nears? (2 months to go!)
>> Cheers,
>> Julie Moore
>>
>> --
>> Julie Renee Moore
>> Head of Cataloging
>> California State University, Fresno
>> julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
>> 559-278-5813
>>
>> “Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from
>> themselves.”... James Matthew Barrie
>>
>

Re: [RDA-L] GMD revisited

[Shana McDanold]

[I'm posting the same thing here that I posted on AUTOCAT in response to
this question.]

I'll be frank...when I was at the University of Pennsylvania we redesigned
the OPAC. We removed the GMD entirely from the results lists. The only
place you could view it was in the full record view. AND NO ONE NOTICED. We
received no complaints about it's absence.

Why?

We replaced the use of the GMD, which is general and lacks specificity
(most notably with the [electronic resource] that applies to multiple
different formats), with the use of facets and icons.

Here at Georgetown we have *no* intention of re-creating the GMD or a
GMD-substitute. Instead, we will be using format icons based on a
combination of coding (LDR, 008, 007, 006, locations, etc.). There is no
one-to-one relationship between the 33x fields and the GMD to begin with,
nor are the 33x fields options comprehensive (there are notable formats
missing such as a way to separate unpublished textual manuscripts from
published texts), which is why creating the icons from coding is
preferable. Not to mention that using a combination of codes is more
reliable and specific than the 33x fields.

So STOP focusing on the GMD. Find another solution that's actually *useful*
and *specific* for users and catalogers alike. Personally as a cataloger I
*hate* the GMD because it is pretty much useless for most of the materials
I deal with (ex.: a website and a USB drive and a streaming video ALL get
electronic resource, rendering it useless for my purposes when it comes to
limiting).

Given my past and current experience, icons generated from coding have
received nothing but positive responses from users and public services
librarians alike.

Thanks,
-Shana

*
Shana L. McDanold
Head, Metadata Services
Georgetown University Library
37th and O Streets, N.W.
Washington, DC  20057
(202) 687-3356
sm2...@georgetown.edu



On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Kadri, Carolyn J  wrote:

> Has  anyone using Voyager decided to do this? That is, add back 245/ $h
> gmd in the local system? I agree that the 336, 337, 338 don’t need to be
> viewable which ours are not. 
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks.
>
> ** **
>
> Carolyn Kadri
>
> Special Collections Cataloger
>
> University of Texas at Arlington
>
> Arlington, TX 76019
>
> 817-272-7153
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Kathleen Lamantia
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 31, 2013 7:33 AM
>
> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] GMD revisited
>
> ** **
>
> We will do the same, and, we will add gmd back in manually to the 245|h.
> I am not sure that part will continue, but staff will be very unhappy if we
> discontinue them.  GMD in 245|h is used very heavily by circ staff when
> assisting patrons.  We are also a III library, so icons work for the public
> display, but do not show in the Millennium view which staff use. Those
> miserable 3xx fields convey no comprehensible information to staff.
>
> ** **
>
> [image: SA vcard logo]
>
> Kathleen F. Lamantia, MLIS
>
> Technical Services Librarian
>
> 330-458-2723
>
> klaman...@starklibrary.org
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Adger Williams [mailto:awilli...@colgate.edu]
>
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 31, 2013 7:40 AM
> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] GMD revisited
>
> ** **
>
> Julie,
>
> We have been doing Mac's option 1 (don't display 33x fields, do
> generate an icon, based on fixed field values), and it seems quite
> satisfactory.  We're an Innovative library.  The icons appear on browse
> summary screens to the side of the record, and, on full-display in the top
> right corner, after the title.  It seems to work.
>
> ** **
>
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:57 PM, J. McRee Elrod  wrote:***
> *
>
> Julie Moore asked:
>
>
> >Has anyone come up with any other options or solutions as the RDA cutover
> >date for the national and PCC libraries nears? (2 months to go!)
>
> The best option we have seen are icons based on fixed fields, and
> suppressing 33X from display.
>
> Next best, I think, is displaying [338 : 336] at end of title proper
> (as per the MRIs), or at head of all other data (as per ISBD Area 0).
> If either of these is done,  longer phrases should be truncated, e.g.,
> just display "tactile", "cartographic", "moving image".  You might
> consider suppressing [volume : text].
>
> So far, most of our clients are opting to have GMD inserted.
>
>
>__   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
>   {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
>   ___} |__ \__
>
>
>
>
> --
> Adger Williams
> Colgate University Library
> 315-228-7310
> awilli...@colgate.edu 
>