Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????
Jonathan Rochkind wrote: snip Because like I said, I suspect that whether illustrations are present in color or not is not of much concern to 99% of patrons 99% of the time. In fact, if you think about it too hard it's a bit frustrating that expensive cataloger time is being spent marking down whether illustrations are colored or not (let alone correcting or changing someone elses spelling of colored!), when our actual real world records generally can't manage to specify things the user DOES care about a lot -- like if there is full text version of the item on the web and what it's URL is. (Anyone that has tried to figure this out from our actual real world shared records knows what I'm talking about; it's pretty much a roll of the dice whether an 856 represents full text or something else, it can't be determined reliably from indicators or subfields.) /snip Hal Cain wrote: snip I don't agree -- maybe so in an academic environment, but for other kinds of libraries (school and public, and maybe specials too) the presence of illustrations can be a significant element in making a choice of the possibilities. The LCRI for AACR2 which enjoins just illus. for all kinds of illustrative material doesn't help! /snip I think Jonathan is absolutely right. Cataloger time is valuable, and at least I *very much* hope cataloger time will become increasingly valuable in the future (since the opposite is a terrifying possibility!). It has always been the case that creating bibliographic records/metadata involves a tradeoff of including some information at the expense of other information. For example, the rule as it states now is that a cataloger needs only to add the first of a number of authors, and use cataloger's judgment concerning adding any others. Why should there be such flexibility on rule as important as this one (and which I personally believe is unwarranted), but then worry so much over whether the illustrations are colored (or coloured)? And Jonathan is completely correct about the problems with the 856 field, which I see miscoded much of the time anyway. Yet, it is always interesting to compare matters with the rest of the metadata universe out there, since we should be trying to interoperate with them. If you look at the ONIX Best Practices http://www.bisg.org/docs/Best_Practices_Document.pdf look at p. 85 for 30. Illustration details description and see their guidelines. Frighteningly detailed, e.g. 500 illustrations, 210 in full color but we see it can also be: halftones, line drawings, figures, charts, etc. So, how are we supposed to handle this? If we get an ONIX record with 500 illustrations, 210 in full color, 35 figures, 26 line drawings, 8 charts, do we devote the labor to edit it down to AACR2/RDA thereby eliminating some very nice information? But if we just accept it, what do we do then with the materials we catalog originally? illustrations (some coloured) looks pretty lame in comparison and can certainly lead to confusion. Finally, we should ask: how important is this issue compared to the many others facing the cataloging world today, and how much time should we spend on this issue when, as Jonathan points out, one thing people really want to know is that there is a free copy of Byron's poems online for download in Google Books, the Internet Archive, plus lots of other places, and here are some links. While you're at it, you may be interested in these other links to related resources that deal with Byron's poetry in different ways. My own opinion is: people are confused in general by library catalogs and their records, while the illustrations section is one of the least important areas of confusion. Considering all of this, maybe illustrations (some coloured, a few beautiful, several less than aesthetically pleasing, and a couple downright nasty) isn't so bad after all! James Weinheimer j.weinhei...@aur.edu Director of Library and Information Services The American University of Rome via Pietro Roselli, 4 00153 Rome, Italy voice- 011 39 06 58330919 ext. 258 fax-011 39 06 58330992 First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????
Quoting Weinheimer Jim j.weinhei...@aur.edu: I think Jonathan is absolutely right. Cataloger time is valuable, and at least I *very much* hope cataloger time will become increasingly valuable in the future (since the opposite is a terrifying possibility!). It has always been the case that creating bibliographic records/metadata involves a tradeoff of including some information at the expense of other information. For example, the rule as it states now is that a cataloger needs only to add the first of a number of authors, and use cataloger's judgment concerning adding any others. Why should there be such flexibility on rule as important as this one (and which I personally believe is unwarranted), but then worry so much over whether the illustrations are colored (or coloured)? And Jonathan is completely correct about the problems with the 856 field, which I see miscoded much of the time anyway. Well, I'm not (generally) one to worry much about colour or no colour. But if you're cataloguing an illustrated study of the Book of Kells, it matters. snipIf you look at the ONIX Best Practices http://www.bisg.org/docs/Best_Practices_Document.pdf look at p. 85 for 30. Illustration details description and see their guidelines. Frighteningly detailed, e.g. 500 illustrations, 210 in full color but we see it can also be: halftones, line drawings, figures, charts, etc. So? So, how are we supposed to handle this? If we get an ONIX record with 500 illustrations, 210 in full color, 35 figures, 26 line drawings, 8 charts, do we devote the labor to edit it down to AACR2/RDA thereby eliminating some very nice information? But if we just accept it, what do we do then with the materials we catalog originally? illustrations (some coloured) looks pretty lame in comparison and can certainly lead to confusion. Leave it as it is, IF we're in the realm of using what's in the data that comes to us, unless the cataloguer is convinced there's confusion afoot. Finally, we should ask: how important is this issue compared to the many others facing the cataloging world today, and how much time should we spend on this issue when, as Jonathan points out, one thing people really want to know is that there is a free copy of Byron's poems online for download in Google Books, the Internet Archive, plus lots of other places, and here are some links. While you're at it, you may be interested in these other links to related resources that deal with Byron's poetry in different ways. A great deal of the detail provided in cataloguing has been irrelevant to the majority of users -- but vital to the people who manage the collections and make decisions about selection and discard, and significant to a fraction of end-users. If we're about to make a judgment that we can no longer afford to cater for that more demanding minority, let's be consistent. I see the Bibco Standard Record as leading us all in that direction. If 90% accuracy and 60% coverage of eligible detail are enough, why bother with more than bare bones description, controlled access for only the associated names that can be expected to appear in a reference/bibliography citation, authority control only by exception (do the work only when there's a conflict or references are required)? Then RDA was 75% waste of time and effort. My own opinion is: people are confused in general by library catalogs and their records, while the illustrations section is one of the least important areas of confusion. When the content and organization of the data presented in catalogues was less variable than it has been since system experts captured catalogues from cataloguers, there was less confusion. Mac Elrod's hated representation of defendant in a legal case under the generic label author comes to mind. My point is that what we provide in cataloguing should be accurate as far as it goes, and it should go as far as is reasonably foreseeable to be useful. Not all of what we've done has been useful. Nor has all of it been the most productive use of cataloguers' time, mine included. How many times have I tediously typed 504 Includes bibliographical references, when all that's really needed is to tick a box or click a button and have the not-very-intelligent computer create the required words? How many times have I stopped to find and count plates not forming part of the main pagination (and when I needed to verify the completeness of an older volume against a record discovered that the downloaded record had that element of collation wrong!)? Every now and again I remind myself that for half my career, the British Library/British Museum Catalogue of Printed Books, in book form, with little of the detail we're talking about and no separate authority file, was an immensely valuable source of bibliographical information. More isn't automatically
Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????
Hal Cain wrote: snip My point is that what we provide in cataloguing should be accurate as far as it goes, and it should go as far as is reasonably foreseeable to be useful. /snip Absolutely agreed, but my point is: in the environment we are entering willy-nilly, where everyone and everything is supposed to interoperate, the definition of the word accurate must be reconsidered. This is why I added the ONIX example: 500 illustrations, 210 in full color, 35 figures, 26 line drawings, 8 charts vs. illustrations (some colo*u*red) as possible descriptions of the same item depending on who made it. How does accuracy figure into this? Are we to consider them equally accurate? How does looking at everything in the aggregate affect matters, i.e. multiple records displaying multiple methods and the user sees differing practices more or less randomly? Will this trouble the users, or will they not even notice? How does the librarian figure into this? Does trying to maintain consistency in this bibliographic area not matter? Also, in the huge metadata universe beyond RDA/AACR2/ONIX, there are even more practices. Personally, I don't think maintaining consistency is worthwhile in this case, but I am sure others would have different opinions. I grant that illustrations are less critical, but counting the pages (extent) is far more important to decide that we are--or are not--looking at the same resource. There are lots (and lots and LOTS) of ways to count the number of pages. I discussed this at some length in that book Conversations with Catalogers in the 21st Century. (I need to put my chapter up on the web) This is an area that certainly requires consistency. snip A great deal of the detail provided in cataloguing has been irrelevant to the majority of users -- but vital to the people who manage the collections and make decisions about selection and discard, and significant to a fraction of end-users. /snip This is a key point that needs to be kept in mind. Libraries have their own needs and purposes (collection management) and this is reflected in their metadata. For the ONIX community, illustration information is added for their purposes, and represents an important *advertising* point, as they say in the Best Practices document under Business Case (these sections are absolutely vital to understanding ONIX): For many illustrated books the details on the illustrations are a critical selling point. Customers purchasing art books, for example, want to know the number of color plates included in a book. Customers purchasing atlases want to know the number of maps included in the book. This information can only aid in the sales of illustrated books to both trading partners and end consumers. Of course, this is quite different from the collection management purpose within the library catalog since there it is not a matter of getting people to open up their wallets and actually purchase a book, but rather simply to help them decide whether to consult it. (ILL is another matter) I keep going back to the talk Michael Gorman gave at the RDA@yourlibrary conference. It still strikes me as the best way to move forward in the current environment. James Weinheimer j.weinhei...@aur.edu Director of Library and Information Services The American University of Rome via Pietro Roselli, 4 00153 Rome, Italy voice- 011 39 06 58330919 ext. 258 fax-011 39 06 58330992 First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????
Weinheimer Jim j.weinhei...@aur.edu: Considering all of this, maybe illustrations (some coloured, a few beautiful, several less than aesthetically pleasing, and a couple downright nasty) isn't so bad after all! That comment may be put in a paradata area by end users if we had really participated wiki-fied catalogs that seems particularly useful for sharing annotations, formal and informal peer-reviewing comments, and updates (for instance about current contents of journals). It should not be included in the area of the bibliographic / physical description of the object. Besides, I think that occasional / volunteer or not expert users should be educated to understand we have these rules in order to allow everybody to express their views. Put in the wrong place whatever element of information or opinion can generate laughing and mocking reactions that have the practical effect to suggest hilarious interpretation of the data offered and stop people thinking of other meanings and functions. Therefore is not such an innocent mistake without consequences. What seems incredibly irrelevant in one own research context can be extremely important in other fields but I will never learn these differences unless somebody (or some experiences) turn my mind on them, no matter how high is my intelligence quotient or the pace of my browsing and the depth and richness of my formal training about search tools. For these reasons, paradata uses of bibliographic and other data shared in digital formats may have immense editorial and media development but must be governed. For a definition of paradata check starting footnotes in full-text preliminary version of my paper Cataloguing the unfindable where I am sure I have quoted the source, whereas I have already self-promoted through my blog the idea of wiki-fied versions of classifications schemes (at http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brunella_Longo/blog/) For a definition of critical thinking skills... I am sure you do not need any further help ;) Brunella Longo http://www.brunellalongo.info (http://www.brunellalongo.it)
Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????
I too was troubled by the comment which Mike mentions below (NYPL would like to politicize it) Many of us have legitimate concerns both about RDA and about FRBR which underlies it. I did not think it was a political question when Ms. T from NYPL pointed out the extremely unusual 300 field. 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: Mike Tribby [mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 8:43 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s While NYPL would like to politicize it, An alleged initiative to which you are contributing by replying in this manner. As to whether patrons care whether illustrations are in color or in black and white, in my experience lots of public and school library patrons do care about that, and probably find that information somewhat more useful than the number of pages devoted to bibliographical references,* a term which I doubt most patrons understand any better than the frightful col. ill. or etc. Purely conjecture on my part. I'll stop now before I further politicize this thread. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????
I'm not going to involve myself in any politics, but I would like to say how much I enjoyed the 300 field in question. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk Private opinion, obviously. -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mike Tribby Sent: 02 March 2011 13:43 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s While NYPL would like to politicize it, An alleged initiative to which you are contributing by replying in this manner. As to whether patrons care whether illustrations are in color or in black and white, in my experience lots of public and school library patrons do care about that, and probably find that information somewhat more useful than the number of pages devoted to bibliographical references,* a term which I doubt most patrons understand any better than the frightful col. ill. or etc. Purely conjecture on my part. I'll stop now before I further politicize this thread. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com ** Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library’s new interactive Annual Report and Accounts 2009/10 : http://www.bl.uk/knowledge Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled * The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the mailto:postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. * Think before you print
Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????
What troubles me is the focus on incidentals (often misinterpreted) and not main issues. The original post said Thanks in advance for all information (and potential public drubbing of CGU?). So, although I agree it wasn't necessary to say, (NYPL would like to politicize it), it was certainly a natural response the rest of us should have understood and ignored--just as we did the first phrase. Mary L. Mastraccio, MLS Cataloging Authorities Librarian MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio Texas 78265 1-800-531-7678 ma...@marcive.com www.marcive.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kathleen Lamantia Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 8:13 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s I too was troubled by the comment which Mike mentions below (NYPL would like to politicize it) Many of us have legitimate concerns both about RDA and about FRBR which underlies it. I did not think it was a political question when Ms. T from NYPL pointed out the extremely unusual 300 field. 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: Mike Tribby [mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 8:43 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s While NYPL would like to politicize it, An alleged initiative to which you are contributing by replying in this manner. As to whether patrons care whether illustrations are in color or in black and white, in my experience lots of public and school library patrons do care about that, and probably find that information somewhat more useful than the number of pages devoted to bibliographical references,* a term which I doubt most patrons understand any better than the frightful col. ill. or etc. Purely conjecture on my part. I'll stop now before I further politicize this thread. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????
Everyone: The book in question was cataloged by University of Chicago, an American cataloging agency, presumably therefore supposed to be using American spellings for things. The book itself was in Swedish, so would not have said anywhere specifically that it had all beautiful colo(u)red illustrations. I do not correct British spellings when I see records by UKM etc., or generally, for that matter. I changed it here only because I was also editing out the phrase all beautiful, so thought I'd clean up both at the same time. IMNSHO not all the illustrations were beautiful. And frankly, this is the problem that I had with the record--not really whether illustrations were listed as colored or not (I tend to note this especially in art books, as others have mentioned). The problem is that subjective judgements have been allowed into cataloging, where I don't believe they should exist. Since this is an RDA record, and I am not entirely conversant with RDA rules, I sent this around to the wider cataloging public, to see if this is acceptable practice under the RDA framework. (After I had a good laugh, and then fixed the 300.) Since Mr. Cronin of University of Chicago has replied to RDA-L about the question of whether this is RDA practice, I'll consider it answered: My personal apologies to the cataloging community for what was put in the 300 field. This has nothing to do with RDA, nor does it reflect CGU's policy or philosophy. While NYPL would like to politicize it, this is nothing more than a demonstration of extremely poor judgment of a cataloger who, frankly, should have known better. I will only state, for the record, that I was not attempting to politicize the issue, but rather to get a handle on the new rule-set for cataloging, and discover how far my understanding of what goes into a cataloging record has to change. I'm glad to know that subjectivity is not standard RDA practice. I will admit to calling CGU out publicly for their cataloging in this instance, but I would also do it for an AACR2 cataloging agency that had made strange errors in records, if I knew with certainty which agency had done the cataloging (i.e., it's about the cataloging, and nothing more). Thanks to everyone for responses and opinions. It's been interesting reading! Deborah Tomaras, NACO Coordinator Librarian II Western European Languages Team New York Public Library Library Services Center 31-11 Thomson Ave. Long Island City, N.Y. 11101 (917) 229-9561 dtoma...@nypl.org Disclaimer: Alas, my ideas are merely my own, and not indicative of New York Public Library policy.
Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????
I agree. Loved it Jo Paterson Music cataloguer LAC Sent from my iPhone On 2011-03-02, at 9:33 AM, Moore, Richard richard.mo...@bl.uk wrote: I'm not going to involve myself in any politics, but I would like to say how much I enjoyed the 300 field in question. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk Private opinion, obviously. -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mike Tribby Sent: 02 March 2011 13:43 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s While NYPL would like to politicize it, An alleged initiative to which you are contributing by replying in this manner. As to whether patrons care whether illustrations are in color or in black and white, in my experience lots of public and school library patrons do care about that, and probably find that information somewhat more useful than the number of pages devoted to bibliographical references,* a term which I doubt most patrons understand any better than the frightful col. ill. or etc. Purely conjecture on my part. I'll stop now before I further politicize this thread. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com ** Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library’s new interactive Annual Report and Accounts 2009/10 : http://www.bl.uk/knowledge Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled * The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the mailto:postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. * Think before you print
Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????
Quoting Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu: Which is why in an ideal world, if we care about whether the illustrations are colored or not (and I suspect the time is LONG gone when our patrons or we actually DO), there would be a data element in the record which marked, in a machine interpretable way, whether there are illustrations (checkmark HERE), and whether they are colored/coloured (checkmark THERE). Which could then be translated to the appropriate spelling or even language for the given audience. The data elements for colour are among those in RDA that have standard lists. Those lists are: colour colour of moving image colour of still image colour of three-dimensional form As an example, colour has 3 values: chiefly coloured some coloured coloured All of these have identifiers that could be used in data entry (e.g. with a check box) and all could have different labels that could be used in display. http://metadataregistry.org/rdabrowse.htm In fact, I recently took a look at RDA/MARC comparisons, and RDA has 29 separate data elements that map to MARC 300 $b (and whose detail is thus lost when coded in MARC). Of these, 21 are covered by controlled lists. That aspect is lost when the data is typed into a MARC subfield. kc But this is really just an example of the principle of the thing, not a very good example in particular. Because like I said, I suspect that whether illustrations are present in color or not is not of much concern to 99% of patrons 99% of the time. In fact, if you think about it too hard it's a bit frustrating that expensive cataloger time is being spent marking down whether illustrations are colored or not (let alone correcting or changing someone elses spelling of colored!), when our actual real world records generally can't manage to specify things the user DOES care about a lot -- like if there is full text version of the item on the web and what it's URL is. (Anyone that has tried to figure this out from our actual real world shared records knows what I'm talking about; it's pretty much a roll of the dice whether an 856 represents full text or something else, it can't be determined reliably from indicators or subfields.) From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Bothmann, Robert L [robert.bothm...@mnsu.edu] Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 7:47 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s First, if an English speaker uses English as the language of cataloging rather than the American dialect as the language of cataloging, then Americans should leave that be and not change the spelling to the American dialect--that is not a correction and I don't agree with your choice to correct spelling that is not incorrect. I laughed out loud when I saw this--it's a great example of something, I'm just not sure what. I suppose that if you consider the principle of representation--that the description should represent the resource the way the resource represents itself--then this could be construed as an acceptable representation; particularly if the resource explicitly says beautiful all colour illustrations. *** Robert Bothmann Electronic Access/Catalog Librarian Associate Professor, Library Services -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Deborah Tomares Sent: Tuesday, 01 March, 2011 3:05 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s I just cataloged the book corresponding to OCLC #702491897. When I looked at the record, the 300 read: 319 pages : |b illustrations (some coloured, all beautiful), maps ; |c 25 cm. I've corrected the spelling of coloured to American usage--is there an RDA provision I'm missing about this, or was it a typo? But the part I can't understand is the inclusion of all beautiful. Are we allowed, under RDA provisions, to include value judgements about the illustrations? Are value judgements allowed elsewhere in cataloging under RDA? Under AACR2, we are supposed to be as objective as possible when creating records, and not allow personal biases in subjects, etc. But this is ridiculous. Aren't we supposed to just be transcribing in the 300 field? Is this a rogue cataloger, or is there a provision I should be cringing about now? Thanks in advance for all information (and potential public drubbing of CGU?). Deborah Tomaras, NACO Coordinator Librarian II Western European Languages Team New York Public Library Library Services Center 31-11 Thomson Ave. Long Island City, N.Y. 11101 (917) 229-9561 dtoma...@nypl.org Disclaimer: Alas, my ideas are merely my own, and not indicative of New York Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????
The plot thickens. So, since we are reduced to entering these labels directly in Marc 300 (in a way that can't be easily retrieved by machine) it looks like coloured rather than colored is the _correct_ RDA label to use, regardless of whether you are in America or the UK? Since that is the label contained in the RDA list of colo(u)rs? And correcting coloured to colored is actually not a correction, but an error? Do I have that right? [While in general, I think of it's of little import whether it shows up as colored or coloured in our display, probably not worth much cataloger time -- it actually IS useful if it's taken from a controlled list, to make it at least somewhat possible for a machine to interpret it and do something flexible with it. Still hard to do in Marc 300 as it is, but at least a step in the right directly. So if the official controlled list says coloured ] On 3/2/2011 10:58 AM, Karen Coyle wrote: Quoting Jonathan Rochkindrochk...@jhu.edu: Which is why in an ideal world, if we care about whether the illustrations are colored or not (and I suspect the time is LONG gone when our patrons or we actually DO), there would be a data element in the record which marked, in a machine interpretable way, whether there are illustrations (checkmark HERE), and whether they are colored/coloured (checkmark THERE). Which could then be translated to the appropriate spelling or even language for the given audience. The data elements for colour are among those in RDA that have standard lists. Those lists are: colour colour of moving image colour of still image colour of three-dimensional form As an example, colour has 3 values: chiefly coloured some coloured coloured All of these have identifiers that could be used in data entry (e.g. with a check box) and all could have different labels that could be used in display. http://metadataregistry.org/rdabrowse.htm In fact, I recently took a look at RDA/MARC comparisons, and RDA has 29 separate data elements that map to MARC 300 $b (and whose detail is thus lost when coded in MARC). Of these, 21 are covered by controlled lists. That aspect is lost when the data is typed into a MARC subfield. kc But this is really just an example of the principle of the thing, not a very good example in particular. Because like I said, I suspect that whether illustrations are present in color or not is not of much concern to 99% of patrons 99% of the time. In fact, if you think about it too hard it's a bit frustrating that expensive cataloger time is being spent marking down whether illustrations are colored or not (let alone correcting or changing someone elses spelling of colored!), when our actual real world records generally can't manage to specify things the user DOES care about a lot -- like if there is full text version of the item on the web and what it's URL is. (Anyone that has tried to figure this out from our actual real world shared records knows what I'm talking about; it's pretty much a roll of the dice whether an 856 represents full text or something else, it can't be determined reliably from indicators or subfields.) From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Bothmann, Robert L [robert.bothm...@mnsu.edu] Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 7:47 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s First, if an English speaker uses English as the language of cataloging rather than the American dialect as the language of cataloging, then Americans should leave that be and not change the spelling to the American dialect--that is not a correction and I don't agree with your choice to correct spelling that is not incorrect. I laughed out loud when I saw this--it's a great example of something, I'm just not sure what. I suppose that if you consider the principle of representation--that the description should represent the resource the way the resource represents itself--then this could be construed as an acceptable representation; particularly if the resource explicitly says beautiful all colour illustrations. *** Robert Bothmann Electronic Access/Catalog Librarian Associate Professor, Library Services -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Deborah Tomares Sent: Tuesday, 01 March, 2011 3:05 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s I just cataloged the book corresponding to OCLC #702491897. When I looked at the record, the 300 read: 319 pages : |b illustrations (some coloured, all beautiful), maps ; |c 25 cm. I've corrected the spelling of coloured to American usage--is there an RDA provision I'm missing about this, or was it a typo? But the part I can't understand
Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????
Karen was using the outdated full draft of RDA. The entries in the RDA Registry were also taken from that draft, and will need to be revised in the light of subsequent changes. In the published version, the element is called Colour Content; the British spelling is used because the editorial policy of RDA is the use that spelling when recognized as a legitimate variant in Webster's Third. There is no standard vocabulary for this element prescribed in RDA. Legitimate or not, the reason was that the constituencies were unable to agree on the spelling to use in recording color/colour content. The instructions simply says to record the presence of colour using an appropriate term. This allows either spelling to be used. I completely agree with Karen's point about encoding this in a language-neutral way and allowing users/applications to provide appropriate display labels. I would only point out that colour content is not limited to illustrations; the resource itself (e.g., a motion picture) may have colour content. Two additional points: 1) The term color or colour is used to indicate the presence of color/colour in the resource; the term colored or coloured is used to indicate that color/colour has been ADDED to the resource, i.e., hand coloured. 2) The granularity of the elements for carrier description in MARC was addressed by MARC Discussion Paper 2011-DP04, which suggested ways in which specific MARC coding for each RDA element could be achieved. We hope to see a proposal on the MARBI agenda at ALA Annual this year. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu On 3/2/2011 10:58 AM, Karen Coyle wrote: Quoting Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu: Which is why in an ideal world, if we care about whether the illustrations are colored or not (and I suspect the time is LONG gone when our patrons or we actually DO), there would be a data element in the record which marked, in a machine interpretable way, whether there are illustrations (checkmark HERE), and whether they are colored/coloured (checkmark THERE). Which could then be translated to the appropriate spelling or even language for the given audience. The data elements for colour are among those in RDA that have standard lists. Those lists are: colour colour of moving image colour of still image colour of three-dimensional form As an example, colour has 3 values: chiefly coloured some coloured coloured All of these have identifiers that could be used in data entry (e.g. with a check box) and all could have different labels that could be used in display. http://metadataregistry.org/rdabrowse.htm In fact, I recently took a look at RDA/MARC comparisons, and RDA has 29 separate data elements that map to MARC 300 $b (and whose detail is thus lost when coded in MARC). Of these, 21 are covered by controlled lists. That aspect is lost when the data is typed into a MARC subfield.
Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????
Jonathan: On 3/2/11 11:27 AM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: The plot thickens. So, since we are reduced to entering these labels directly in Marc 300 (in a way that can't be easily retrieved by machine) it looks like coloured rather than colored is the _correct_ RDA label to use, regardless of whether you are in America or the UK? Since that is the label contained in the RDA list of colo(u)rs? And correcting coloured to colored is actually not a correction, but an error? Yes, the UK-ish spelling is very much one of those compromises that bites back if you're dealing with text, but is irrelevant if you're actually using URIs that lead you into prefLabels and altLabels that can be different, identified, spellings. Do I have that right? [While in general, I think of it's of little import whether it shows up as colored or coloured in our display, probably not worth much cataloger time -- it actually IS useful if it's taken from a controlled list, to make it at least somewhat possible for a machine to interpret it and do something flexible with it. Still hard to do in Marc 300 as it is, but at least a step in the right directly. So if the official controlled list says coloured ] The vocabulary approach allows you to choose whether you want the UK or the US spelling, and if your application is done correctly and the vocabulary is too, it becomes a non-issue (which is where it should be, IMO). Diane On 3/2/2011 10:58 AM, Karen Coyle wrote: Quoting Jonathan Rochkindrochk...@jhu.edu: Which is why in an ideal world, if we care about whether the illustrations are colored or not (and I suspect the time is LONG gone when our patrons or we actually DO), there would be a data element in the record which marked, in a machine interpretable way, whether there are illustrations (checkmark HERE), and whether they are colored/coloured (checkmark THERE). Which could then be translated to the appropriate spelling or even language for the given audience. The data elements for colour are among those in RDA that have standard lists. Those lists are: colour colour of moving image colour of still image colour of three-dimensional form As an example, colour has 3 values: chiefly coloured some coloured coloured All of these have identifiers that could be used in data entry (e.g. with a check box) and all could have different labels that could be used in display. http://metadataregistry.org/rdabrowse.htm In fact, I recently took a look at RDA/MARC comparisons, and RDA has 29 separate data elements that map to MARC 300 $b (and whose detail is thus lost when coded in MARC). Of these, 21 are covered by controlled lists. That aspect is lost when the data is typed into a MARC subfield. kc But this is really just an example of the principle of the thing, not a very good example in particular. Because like I said, I suspect that whether illustrations are present in color or not is not of much concern to 99% of patrons 99% of the time. In fact, if you think about it too hard it's a bit frustrating that expensive cataloger time is being spent marking down whether illustrations are colored or not (let alone correcting or changing someone elses spelling of colored!), when our actual real world records generally can't manage to specify things the user DOES care about a lot -- like if there is full text version of the item on the web and what it's URL is. (Anyone that has tried to figure this out from our actual real world shared records knows what I'm talking about; it's pretty much a roll of the dice whether an 856 represents full text or something else, it can't be determined reliably from indicators or subfields.) From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Bothmann, Robert L [robert.bothm...@mnsu.edu] Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 7:47 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s First, if an English speaker uses English as the language of cataloging rather than the American dialect as the language of cataloging, then Americans should leave that be and not change the spelling to the American dialect--that is not a correction and I don't agree with your choice to correct spelling that is not incorrect. I laughed out loud when I saw this--it's a great example of something, I'm just not sure what. I suppose that if you consider the principle of representation--that the description should represent the resource the way the resource represents itself--then this could be construed as an acceptable representation; particularly if the resource explicitly says beautiful all colour illustrations. *** Robert Bothmann Electronic Access/Catalog Librarian Associate Professor, Library Services -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L
Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????
What I do not understand is, since this was a PCC BIBCO record, and since the BIBCO liaisons are easily found on the PCC website (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/bibcoliaisons.html), why Ms. Tomares did not simply write in private to the University of Chicago to inquire about the record. There certainly could not then have been any accusations of politicizing this and no need for any public drubbing. Adam Schiff UW BIBCO Liaison ^^ 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, 2 Mar 2011, Deborah Tomares wrote: Everyone: IMNSHO not all the illustrations were beautiful. And frankly, this is the problem that I had with the record--not really whether illustrations were listed as colored or not (I tend to note this especially in art books, as others have mentioned). The problem is that subjective judgements have been allowed into cataloging, where I don't believe they should exist. Since this is an RDA record, and I am not entirely conversant with RDA rules, I sent this around to the wider cataloging public, to see if this is acceptable practice under the RDA framework. (After I had a good laugh, and then fixed the 300.) Since Mr. Cronin of University of Chicago has replied to RDA-L about the question of whether this is RDA practice, I'll consider it answered: My personal apologies to the cataloging community for what was put in the 300 field. This has nothing to do with RDA, nor does it reflect CGU's policy or philosophy. While NYPL would like to politicize it, this is nothing more than a demonstration of extremely poor judgment of a cataloger who, frankly, should have known better. I will only state, for the record, that I was not attempting to politicize the issue, but rather to get a handle on the new rule-set for cataloging, and discover how far my understanding of what goes into a cataloging record has to change. I'm glad to know that subjectivity is not standard RDA practice. I will admit to calling CGU out publicly for their cataloging in this instance, but I would also do it for an AACR2 cataloging agency that had made strange errors in records, if I knew with certainty which agency had done the cataloging (i.e., it's about the cataloging, and nothing more). Thanks to everyone for responses and opinions. It's been interesting reading! Deborah Tomaras, NACO Coordinator Librarian II Western European Languages Team New York Public Library Library Services Center 31-11 Thomson Ave. Long Island City, N.Y. 11101 (917) 229-9561 dtoma...@nypl.org Disclaimer: Alas, my ideas are merely my own, and not indicative of New York Public Library policy.
Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????
Deborah Tomaras commented:
I do not correct British spellings when I see records by UKM etc.
I'm not sure correct is the right word here, because from the point
of view of some, you are changing the standard spelling to a dialect
one, apart from the standardization Karen Coyle proposes.
With AACR2, an international effort, the British, Canadian and
Australian view prevailed, and standard international spelling was
used. The inconsistency arises with RDA, which is a more US centric
effort, particularly in its toolkit incarnation.
Far more problematic than the variation in spelling of colour, are
the long phrases replacing ISBD abbreviations, making records unusable
internationally without expensive editing.
Our French, German, Chinese, and Japanese language of catalogue
clients might accept those phrases in English in a record for English
language items, but certainly not in records for items in their own or
other languages, We see our choice as being between phrases in a
multitude of languages of the text, or staying with ISBD inclusions.
One of the things I like about ISBD punctuation is / replacing
having to come with [by] in a variety of languages. We are taking a
giant step backward in terms of international standardization of
cataloguing, in which color vs. colour is far far less than the
tip of an iceberg.
One of the features I most like in our SLC OPAC is that any field can
be searched. I often use that feature to search 300 to see how we
have treated a particular genre. Now we can search col.. With RDA
I assume we would have to search col., color and colour.
!@#$%^.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????
Nerissa: I think what this discussion points out is a gap in how we think about who contributes to data and how it is created. In libraries we have this fantasy that catalogers are 'objective' and that's what we're trying to do when catalogers create data--provide one-size-fits-all, all-purpose objective data. The problem is that isn't necessarily what our users want, we just think that's it and go on serving it out (no matter that it's not objectivity we were aiming for, but consistency). And the issue of costs keeps coming up to justify why we can't do anything different from what we've always done. But once you start thinking outside of the usual library silo and consider what users might *contribute* and how we might change our value system a bit so that we could accept their contributions (whether reviews, ratings, additional description, whatever), it upends our thinking a bit (which is good, IMO). To do that requires that we think of catalogers as just another contributor, in a panoply of contributors, and their viewpoint can be important or not, depending on what you want your data to do. So all the arguments about that one record and whether it's right, wrong, silly, charming, should be fixed (or not), etc., are really not the point. We should instead be thinking about how we can figure out the bigger questions--what can we do with our data that is outside our current model of data creation and maintenance, that would accommodate what our users want to contribute? Surely, we can't come up with all the answers from a 'top-down' perspective that we have now, but it's an important question, and we should by now have stopped the endless detailed discussions that we've seen on this issue, that get us exactly nowhere. Nerissa, I'm depending on your and your buddies to move us along on this--you're definitely on the right track. Diane On 3/2/11 11:26 AM, Nerissa Lindsey wrote: I got a kick out of this as well. My cataloger friends and I had a long playful discussions about how that particular 300 seemed like a cataloging culture jam designed to elicit ironic or satirical commentary about the nature of description. I highly doubt that was the original catalogers intention, but boy what fun. On a serious note (I know us catalogers are supposed to be serious and *ahem objective) I think Jonathan and Jim brought up some good points. It /would/ be ideal if the colored/not colored could be a machine interpretable check box, and it /would/ be a shame to strip an ONIX description down from something very detailed to something less so. However the issue is not detail it's subjectivity. It's a fine line to walk between value added detail and stating personal opinions in records. However, I really don't think it bears any new criticism to RDA. I could be wrong, please let me know if there is a specific rule in RDA that states cataloger must express subjective judgment about the quality or aesthetics of illustrations in the resource being cataloged. Nerissa Lindsey Cataloging Librarian Texas AM International University On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Joanne Paterson jopater...@gmail.com mailto:jopater...@gmail.com wrote: I agree. Loved it Jo Paterson Music cataloguer LAC Sent from my iPhone On 2011-03-02, at 9:33 AM, Moore, Richard richard.mo...@bl.uk mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk wrote: I'm not going to involve myself in any politics, but I would like to say how much I enjoyed the 300 field in question. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 tel:%2B44%20%280%291937%20546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk Private opinion, obviously. -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mike Tribby Sent: 02 March 2011 13:43 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s While NYPL would like to politicize it, An alleged initiative to which you are contributing by replying in this manner. As to whether patrons care whether illustrations are in color or in black and white, in my experience lots of public and school library patrons do care about that, and probably find that information somewhat more useful than the number of pages devoted to bibliographical references,* a term which I doubt most patrons understand any better than the frightful col. ill. or etc. Purely conjecture on my part. I'll stop now before I further politicize this thread. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger
Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????
Mr. Schiff: I rarely look at the PCC website, since its overstuffed with information, and sometimes annoying to navigate; thank you for the link for future reference. However, I sent the question around publicly because I was not sure if this was a hitherto-unknown RDA provision that I was coming across, instead of a single rogue cataloger. My posting was a request for information, albeit worded a bit strongly in places. As such, I don't believe that what I did is extraordinary, or an unusual response to the circumstances, and I see no need for hush-hush emails. Deborah Tomaras, NACO Coordinator Librarian II Western European Languages Team New York Public Library Library Services Center 31-11 Thomson Ave. Long Island City, N.Y. 11101 (917) 229-9561 dtoma...@nypl.org Disclaimer: Alas, my ideas are merely my own, and not indicative of New York Public Library policy. From: Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.edu To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Date: 03/02/2011 12:40 PM Subject:Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s Sent by:Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA What I do not understand is, since this was a PCC BIBCO record, and since the BIBCO liaisons are easily found on the PCC website (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/bibcoliaisons.html), why Ms. Tomares did not simply write in private to the University of Chicago to inquire about the record. There certainly could not then have been any accusations of politicizing this and no need for any public drubbing. Adam Schiff UW BIBCO Liaison ^^ 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, 2 Mar 2011, Deborah Tomares wrote: Everyone: IMNSHO not all the illustrations were beautiful. And frankly, this is the problem that I had with the record--not really whether illustrations were listed as colored or not (I tend to note this especially in art books, as others have mentioned). The problem is that subjective judgements have been allowed into cataloging, where I don't believe they should exist. Since this is an RDA record, and I am not entirely conversant with RDA rules, I sent this around to the wider cataloging public, to see if this is acceptable practice under the RDA framework. (After I had a good laugh, and then fixed the 300.) Since Mr. Cronin of University of Chicago has replied to RDA-L about the question of whether this is RDA practice, I'll consider it answered: My personal apologies to the cataloging community for what was put in the 300 field. This has nothing to do with RDA, nor does it reflect CGU's policy or philosophy. While NYPL would like to politicize it, this is nothing more than a demonstration of extremely poor judgment of a cataloger who, frankly, should have known better. I will only state, for the record, that I was not attempting to politicize the issue, but rather to get a handle on the new rule-set for cataloging, and discover how far my understanding of what goes into a cataloging record has to change. I'm glad to know that subjectivity is not standard RDA practice. I will admit to calling CGU out publicly for their cataloging in this instance, but I would also do it for an AACR2 cataloging agency that had made strange errors in records, if I knew with certainty which agency had done the cataloging (i.e., it's about the cataloging, and nothing more). Thanks to everyone for responses and opinions. It's been interesting reading! Deborah Tomaras, NACO Coordinator Librarian II Western European Languages Team New York Public Library Library Services Center 31-11 Thomson Ave. Long Island City, N.Y. 11101 (917) 229-9561 dtoma...@nypl.org Disclaimer: Alas, my ideas are merely my own, and not indicative of New York
Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????
Adam L. Schiff said:
What I do not understand is, since this was a PCC BIBCO record ...
why Ms. Tomares did not simply write in private to the University of
Chicago ...
But then we would have missed a very informative exchange for all, e.g.,
whether or not there are standard values in RDA for the colour element.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????
When one has questions about RDA and is so closely involved in the import of RDA to one's work, wouldn't prudence argue for acquiring a copy of the standard in question? Even if one wishes to eschew RDA's use generally and wants to avoid the ongoing subscription costs, there is now a paper version available for use as a reference text: pairing strongly worded with being unknowledgeable is rarely a felicitous combination. John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian Schaffer Library, Union College 807 Union St. Schenectady NY 12308 518-388-6623 mye...@union.edu -Original Message- Deborah Tomares wrote: I sent the question around publicly because I was not sure if this was a hitherto-unknown RDA provision that I was coming across, instead of a single rogue cataloger. My posting was a request for information, albeit worded a bit strongly in places.
Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????
Quoting John Attig jx...@psu.edu: Karen was using the outdated full draft of RDA. The entries in the RDA Registry were also taken from that draft, and will need to be revised in the light of subsequent changes. Actually, I was looking at the registry list of vocabularies which were derived from the RDA text and the ERDs. Both of these are attempts to move from imprecise language to something that can be made clear for machine processing. The *data element* is Colour Content,[1] and that data element *should* point to the vocabulary that that terms should be chosen from.[2] Changing the name of that list from colour to colour content is trivial, as is adding an EN-US display for color. The important thing is that the identifier for the list and for the members of the list will not be changed when the human-readable name of the list changes. Note that these lists of terms essentially parallel coded data in MARC -- data that was presumably added because folks recognized that computers don't work with ambiguous language terms. For a computer, colour and color are as different as apples and football, and all language terms are just meaningless strings of bits. Color is an interesting area because it allows the cataloger to either use standard terminology or to create terminology as needed. This of course makes any data processing on that area to be difficult. It would be sensible, though, to have a small set of coded values that cover the waterfront (color, bw, ??) and then allow notation to be added in a textual form. This would allow both for retrieval (books with colored illustrations v. bw) and additional information for the human decider (Title and headings printed in red) when deemed appropriate. I hope folks understand that if we ARE going to have a carrier for RDA that it needs to be based on *something like* the registered elements and lists. There is no way to go from the RDA text directly to code. The registry is an attempt to make an RDA record possible. It may not be perfect, but something like it is absolutely essential. Think about the difference between AACR and the design of MARC -- that is like the relationship between RDA and the registered elements and lists. That's why we need to try to translate the RDA text to something that is machine-usable. If not, I can't see how we'll ever be creating RDA as machine-readable data. kc [1] http://rdvocab.info/Elements/colourContent [2] http://rdvocab.info/termList/RDAcolour In the published version, the element is called Colour Content; the British spelling is used because the editorial policy of RDA is the use that spelling when recognized as a legitimate variant in Webster's Third. There is no standard vocabulary for this element prescribed in RDA. Legitimate or not, the reason was that the constituencies were unable to agree on the spelling to use in recording color/colour content. The instructions simply says to record the presence of colour using an appropriate term. This allows either spelling to be used. I completely agree with Karen's point about encoding this in a language-neutral way and allowing users/applications to provide appropriate display labels. I would only point out that colour content is not limited to illustrations; the resource itself (e.g., a motion picture) may have colour content. Two additional points: 1) The term color or colour is used to indicate the presence of color/colour in the resource; the term colored or coloured is used to indicate that color/colour has been ADDED to the resource, i.e., hand coloured. 2) The granularity of the elements for carrier description in MARC was addressed by MARC Discussion Paper 2011-DP04, which suggested ways in which specific MARC coding for each RDA element could be achieved. We hope to see a proposal on the MARBI agenda at ALA Annual this year. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu On 3/2/2011 10:58 AM, Karen Coyle wrote: Quoting Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu: Which is why in an ideal world, if we care about whether the illustrations are colored or not (and I suspect the time is LONG gone when our patrons or we actually DO), there would be a data element in the record which marked, in a machine interpretable way, whether there are illustrations (checkmark HERE), and whether they are colored/coloured (checkmark THERE). Which could then be translated to the appropriate spelling or even language for the given audience. The data elements for colour are among those in RDA that have standard lists. Those lists are: colour colour of moving image colour of still image colour of three-dimensional form As an example, colour has 3 values: chiefly coloured some coloured coloured All of these have identifiers that could be used in data entry (e.g. with a check box) and all could have different labels that could be
Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????
It's often quicker, when one has a large workload and backlog piling up, to send a request to the universe, instead of hunting around oneself. Especially in the RDA toolkit, which I find confusing at best. And I thought that those who've had more experience with it could perhaps provide some information about an obscure provision that I could miss in a surface scan. I think, however, that responses such as these by Mr. Myers, Mr. Schiff, etc. are more about my tone than about my request. I'll apologize once more, and finally, for the brashness, which I regret, and should have excised. But I won't apologize for asking publicly for information, particularly in forums where knowledge might exist. That should not be problematic. Deborah Tomaras Librarian II Western European Languages Team New York Public Library Library Services Center 31-11 Thomson Ave. Long Island City, N.Y. 11101 (917) 229-9561 dtoma...@nypl.org Disclaimer: Alas, my ideas are merely my own, and not indicative of New York Public Library policy. From: Myers, John F. mye...@union.edu To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Date: 03/02/2011 02:17 PM Subject:Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s Sent by:Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA When one has questions about RDA and is so closely involved in the import of RDA to one's work, wouldn't prudence argue for acquiring a copy of the standard in question? Even if one wishes to eschew RDA's use generally and wants to avoid the ongoing subscription costs, there is now a paper version available for use as a reference text: pairing strongly worded with being unknowledgeable is rarely a felicitous combination. John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian Schaffer Library, Union College 807 Union St. Schenectady NY 12308 518-388-6623 mye...@union.edu -Original Message- Deborah Tomares wrote: I sent the question around publicly because I was not sure if this was a hitherto-unknown RDA provision that I was coming across, instead of a single rogue cataloger. My posting was a request for information, albeit worded a bit strongly in places.
Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????
While I have never, in all my years of cataloging, done anything like that (and now surely would never do, especially after today's discussion ;-)), I think that if I had encountered this record myself, I would have smiled and said, Now there's a cataloger who has perhaps had a long, hard day and wanted to end it on an upbeat note. I thought it was nice--thoroughly non-standard, of course, but rather refreshing. (I certainly hope that our rogue cataloger/colleague didn't get in trouble over this.) Michael Bernhard Cataloger, Library Materials Support Services (formerly Technical Services) Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Library System 501 Copper Avenue NW Albuquerque, NM 87102 Tel: (505) 768-5190 Email: mbernh...@cabq.gov http://www.cabq.gov/library -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Deborah Tomares Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 2:05 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s I just cataloged the book corresponding to OCLC #702491897. When I looked at the record, the 300 read: 319 pages : |b illustrations (some coloured, all beautiful), maps ; |c 25 cm. I've corrected the spelling of coloured to American usage--is there an RDA provision I'm missing about this, or was it a typo? But the part I can't understand is the inclusion of all beautiful. Are we allowed, under RDA provisions, to include value judgements about the illustrations? Are value judgements allowed elsewhere in cataloging under RDA? Under AACR2, we are supposed to be as objective as possible when creating records, and not allow personal biases in subjects, etc. But this is ridiculous. Aren't we supposed to just be transcribing in the 300 field? Is this a rogue cataloger, or is there a provision I should be cringing about now? Thanks in advance for all information (and potential public drubbing of CGU?). Deborah Tomaras, NACO Coordinator Librarian II Western European Languages Team New York Public Library Library Services Center 31-11 Thomson Ave. Long Island City, N.Y. 11101 (917) 229-9561 dtoma...@nypl.org Disclaimer: Alas, my ideas are merely my own, and not indicative of New York Public Library policy.
Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????
know if there is a specific rule in RDA that states cataloger must express subjective judgment about the quality or aesthetics of illustrations in the resource being cataloged. Nerissa Lindsey Cataloging Librarian Texas AM International University On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Joanne Paterson jopater...@gmail.commailto: jopater...@gmail.com wrote: I agree. Loved it Jo Paterson Music cataloguer LAC Sent from my iPhone On 2011-03-02, at 9:33 AM, Moore, Richard richard.mo...@bl.uk mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk wrote: I'm not going to involve myself in any politics, but I would like to say how much I enjoyed the 300 field in question. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 tel:%2B44%20%280%291937%20546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk Private opinion, obviously. -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mike Tribby Sent: 02 March 2011 13:43 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s While NYPL would like to politicize it, An alleged initiative to which you are contributing by replying in this manner. As to whether patrons care whether illustrations are in color or in black and white, in my experience lots of public and school library patrons do care about that, and probably find that information somewhat more useful than the number of pages devoted to bibliographical references,* a term which I doubt most patrons understand any better than the frightful col. ill. or etc. Purely conjecture on my part. I'll stop now before I further politicize this thread. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com ** Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library’s new interactive Annual Report and Accounts 2009/10 : http://www.bl.uk/knowledge Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled * The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the mailto:postmas...@bl.uk mailto:postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. * Think before you print
Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca] Sent: March-02-11 11:43 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s Far more problematic than the variation in spelling of colour, are the long phrases replacing ISBD abbreviations, making records unusable internationally without expensive editing. Our French, German, Chinese, and Japanese language of catalogue clients might accept those phrases in English in a record for English language items, but certainly not in records for items in their own or other languages, We see our choice as being between phrases in a multitude of languages of the text, or staying with ISBD inclusions. The expectation in RDA is that specific terms (such as 'publisher not identified') and controlled vocabulary terms would be modified by agencies to reflect their own language or script preferences. Authorized translations of RDA would also replace these terms. (RDA 0.11.2) So 'publisher not identified' would vary, as would terms like 'pages', 'volumes', 'score', 'online resource', 'microfiches', 'computer disc', and 'colour/color'. All non-transcribed, non-quoted information in elements are to be generally recorded in the language and script preferred by the agency creating the data. In the case of one agency, the Library of Congress, a choice has been made to use 'color' for the English language variation in color/colour (LCPS 7.17.13). But I don't think this is being presented as a controlled vocabulary decision-- it's just a style guide preference. I think there are some points being missed in the discussion about controlled vocabulary. The reality would seem to be that any long, descriptive information that is not transcribed would be in the language of the agency. Specific terms and phrases that are registered opens up the possibility in future systems of recasting that data on the fly for users in different languages. So 'colour'/'color' could be registered and resolved to different values, as could, in principle, 'publisher not identified.' But the values for many RDA elements can vary considerably, and don't lend themselves to control. The element 'Colour Content' in RDA consolidates all colour information into one element, whether it's these common examples: colour some color chiefly colour [these are the actual examples from RDA 7.17.1.3 -- note that both spellings are used in examples] or phrases like: Displays in red, yellow, and blue 2 maps in colour The RDA-MARC map in the RDA Toolkit doesn't even assume that 300 $b is the field for colour information-- tag 500 is assumed for most values. There is only one element for Colour Content in RDA, not different elements. There are not separate RDA elements for controlled vocabulary and for free-text notes. The consolidation of colour information into one element in RDA does seem to simplify things. Compare the simple instruction in RDA with the convoluted instructions in AACR2 and MARC: An instruction in RDA 7.17.3.3 for colour of moving images: If the moving images are in sepia, record 'sepia'. Compare this simple instruction with the tortured instructions in AACR2 7.5C4 and 7.7B10: For other physical details (AACR2 7.5C4): Give 'bw' for a sepia print. For the note (AACR2 7.7B10), give 'Sepia print'. And consider also 007/03 for motion pictures and videorecordings, where colour is linked to the manifestation, whereas in RDA, colour is an expression-level element. The RDA element Colour Content is for recording the presence of colour in the content (where 'content' here means the expression). Manifestation details such as the binding being blue or the edge of a map having colour are not covered by the element Colour Content. That FRBR-entity distinction in RDA allows cataloguers to focus on what's important-- the attributes of the intellectual or creative content, of which colour is one that helps people identify and select the content. But the 007 examples do highlight a challenge, in that controlling the specific values for an element like Colour Content is not always simple. So while there might be a place for a controlled vocabulary term for 'black and white', or a fixed field equivalent for that term, the RDA element allows for free-text values such as black and white with colour introductory sequence (RDA 7.17.3). More to the point, the English phrase black and white with colour introductory sequence may very well be in a different language, if the resource is in a different language and catalogued by an agency with its own policy on the language to be used with RDA. The argument seems to be the about the best method to have cataloguing data accessible to all users as well as to machines. Registered values would do that better at that than forcing some abbreviated Latin
[RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????
I just cataloged the book corresponding to OCLC #702491897. When I looked at the record, the 300 read: 319 pages : |b illustrations (some coloured, all beautiful), maps ; |c 25 cm. I've corrected the spelling of coloured to American usage--is there an RDA provision I'm missing about this, or was it a typo? But the part I can't understand is the inclusion of all beautiful. Are we allowed, under RDA provisions, to include value judgements about the illustrations? Are value judgements allowed elsewhere in cataloging under RDA? Under AACR2, we are supposed to be as objective as possible when creating records, and not allow personal biases in subjects, etc. But this is ridiculous. Aren't we supposed to just be transcribing in the 300 field? Is this a rogue cataloger, or is there a provision I should be cringing about now? Thanks in advance for all information (and potential public drubbing of CGU?). Deborah Tomaras, NACO Coordinator Librarian II Western European Languages Team New York Public Library Library Services Center 31-11 Thomson Ave. Long Island City, N.Y. 11101 (917) 229-9561 dtoma...@nypl.org Disclaimer: Alas, my ideas are merely my own, and not indicative of New York Public Library policy.
Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????
My personal apologies to the cataloging community for what was put in the 300 field. This has nothing to do with RDA, nor does it reflect CGU's policy or philosophy. While NYPL would like to politicize it, this is nothing more than a demonstration of extremely poor judgment of a cataloger who, frankly, should have known better. ___ Christopher Cronin Director of Metadata Cataloging Services University of Chicago Library 1100 E. 57th Street Chicago, IL 60637 Phone: 773-702-8739 Fax: 773-702-3016 Skype: christopher-cronin E-mail: cron...@uchicago.edu ___ -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Deborah Tomares Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 3:05 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s I just cataloged the book corresponding to OCLC #702491897. When I looked at the record, the 300 read: 319 pages : |b illustrations (some coloured, all beautiful), maps ; |c 25 cm. I've corrected the spelling of coloured to American usage--is there an RDA provision I'm missing about this, or was it a typo? But the part I can't understand is the inclusion of all beautiful. Are we allowed, under RDA provisions, to include value judgements about the illustrations? Are value judgements allowed elsewhere in cataloging under RDA? Under AACR2, we are supposed to be as objective as possible when creating records, and not allow personal biases in subjects, etc. But this is ridiculous. Aren't we supposed to just be transcribing in the 300 field? Is this a rogue cataloger, or is there a provision I should be cringing about now? Thanks in advance for all information (and potential public drubbing of CGU?). Deborah Tomaras, NACO Coordinator Librarian II Western European Languages Team New York Public Library Library Services Center 31-11 Thomson Ave. Long Island City, N.Y. 11101 (917) 229-9561 dtoma...@nypl.org Disclaimer: Alas, my ideas are merely my own, and not indicative of New York Public Library policy.
Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????
First, if an English speaker uses English as the language of cataloging rather than the American dialect as the language of cataloging, then Americans should leave that be and not change the spelling to the American dialect--that is not a correction and I don't agree with your choice to correct spelling that is not incorrect. I laughed out loud when I saw this--it's a great example of something, I'm just not sure what. I suppose that if you consider the principle of representation--that the description should represent the resource the way the resource represents itself--then this could be construed as an acceptable representation; particularly if the resource explicitly says beautiful all colour illustrations. *** Robert Bothmann Electronic Access/Catalog Librarian Associate Professor, Library Services -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Deborah Tomares Sent: Tuesday, 01 March, 2011 3:05 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s I just cataloged the book corresponding to OCLC #702491897. When I looked at the record, the 300 read: 319 pages : |b illustrations (some coloured, all beautiful), maps ; |c 25 cm. I've corrected the spelling of coloured to American usage--is there an RDA provision I'm missing about this, or was it a typo? But the part I can't understand is the inclusion of all beautiful. Are we allowed, under RDA provisions, to include value judgements about the illustrations? Are value judgements allowed elsewhere in cataloging under RDA? Under AACR2, we are supposed to be as objective as possible when creating records, and not allow personal biases in subjects, etc. But this is ridiculous. Aren't we supposed to just be transcribing in the 300 field? Is this a rogue cataloger, or is there a provision I should be cringing about now? Thanks in advance for all information (and potential public drubbing of CGU?). Deborah Tomaras, NACO Coordinator Librarian II Western European Languages Team New York Public Library Library Services Center 31-11 Thomson Ave. Long Island City, N.Y. 11101 (917) 229-9561 dtoma...@nypl.org Disclaimer: Alas, my ideas are merely my own, and not indicative of New York Public Library policy.
Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????
Which is why in an ideal world, if we care about whether the illustrations are colored or not (and I suspect the time is LONG gone when our patrons or we actually DO), there would be a data element in the record which marked, in a machine interpretable way, whether there are illustrations (checkmark HERE), and whether they are colored/coloured (checkmark THERE). Which could then be translated to the appropriate spelling or even language for the given audience. But this is really just an example of the principle of the thing, not a very good example in particular. Because like I said, I suspect that whether illustrations are present in color or not is not of much concern to 99% of patrons 99% of the time. In fact, if you think about it too hard it's a bit frustrating that expensive cataloger time is being spent marking down whether illustrations are colored or not (let alone correcting or changing someone elses spelling of colored!), when our actual real world records generally can't manage to specify things the user DOES care about a lot -- like if there is full text version of the item on the web and what it's URL is. (Anyone that has tried to figure this out from our actual real world shared records knows what I'm talking about; it's pretty much a roll of the dice whether an 856 represents full text or something else, it can't be determined reliably from indicators or subfields.) From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Bothmann, Robert L [robert.bothm...@mnsu.edu] Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 7:47 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s First, if an English speaker uses English as the language of cataloging rather than the American dialect as the language of cataloging, then Americans should leave that be and not change the spelling to the American dialect--that is not a correction and I don't agree with your choice to correct spelling that is not incorrect. I laughed out loud when I saw this--it's a great example of something, I'm just not sure what. I suppose that if you consider the principle of representation--that the description should represent the resource the way the resource represents itself--then this could be construed as an acceptable representation; particularly if the resource explicitly says beautiful all colour illustrations. *** Robert Bothmann Electronic Access/Catalog Librarian Associate Professor, Library Services -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Deborah Tomares Sent: Tuesday, 01 March, 2011 3:05 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s I just cataloged the book corresponding to OCLC #702491897. When I looked at the record, the 300 read: 319 pages : |b illustrations (some coloured, all beautiful), maps ; |c 25 cm. I've corrected the spelling of coloured to American usage--is there an RDA provision I'm missing about this, or was it a typo? But the part I can't understand is the inclusion of all beautiful. Are we allowed, under RDA provisions, to include value judgements about the illustrations? Are value judgements allowed elsewhere in cataloging under RDA? Under AACR2, we are supposed to be as objective as possible when creating records, and not allow personal biases in subjects, etc. But this is ridiculous. Aren't we supposed to just be transcribing in the 300 field? Is this a rogue cataloger, or is there a provision I should be cringing about now? Thanks in advance for all information (and potential public drubbing of CGU?). Deborah Tomaras, NACO Coordinator Librarian II Western European Languages Team New York Public Library Library Services Center 31-11 Thomson Ave. Long Island City, N.Y. 11101 (917) 229-9561 dtoma...@nypl.org Disclaimer: Alas, my ideas are merely my own, and not indicative of New York Public Library policy.
Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????
Quoting Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu: Which is why in an ideal world, if we care about whether the illustrations are colored or not (and I suspect the time is LONG gone when our patrons or we actually DO), there would be a data element in the record which marked, in a machine interpretable way, whether there are illustrations (checkmark HERE), and whether they are colored/coloured (checkmark THERE). Which could then be translated to the appropriate spelling or even language for the given audience. I don't agree -- maybe so in an academic environment, but for other kinds of libraries (school and public, and maybe specials too) the presence of illustrations can be a significant element in making a choice of the possibilities. The LCRI for AACR2 which enjoins just illus. for all kinds of illustrative material doesn't help! In reality, though, as important is to know how many illustrations there are (even approximately). Likewise, for the content expressed as Includes bibliographic references and coded in the 008 fixed field, this is far less than the user wants to know. The extent of pages (in a printed or fixed-format document) may help or may be misleading. What would be useful to know would be the number of resources referenced. I don't think RDA has addressed these. Hal Cain Melbourne, Victoria hec...@dml.vic.edu.au This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????
Deborah Tomares posted:
319 pages : |b illustrations (some coloured, all beautiful), maps ; |c 25
cm.
One of the disadvantages of RDA's spelled out words, is that spellings
vary. My understanding is that each library is to follow its own
practice, and the rest of us should leave it alone.
The all beautiful is not standard, and IMNSHO should be removed as a
value judgement, while coloured should not have been changed.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
