Re: [RDA-L] Retrospective conversion to RDA
Matt Elrod m...@elrod.ca wrote:
I've already written a script to convert AACR2 to RDA, with some
limitations. For example, it makes a wild guess about 700 $e.
With some refinements and enhancements, I think I could offer
a more robust and generic AACR2-RDA converter, either online
or on demand. If online, it could be integrated with Paypal
to charge by the record.
The script Matt wrote was to convert AACR2 print records to RDA
electronic ones, which we are now doing. Matt may be contacted at
m...@elrod.ca.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Finding examples of RDA authority records for personal names and corporate bodies
Sevim There are examples in the BL Guide to RDA Name Authority Records, in the RDA Toolkit: Tools - Workflows - Global Workflows Go to Contents in this Guide, and click on Examples of RDA Name Authority Records. All are real NARs, present in LC/NAF. As they are examples, they have been kept up to date with all the changes and additions to RDA. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of MCCUTCHEON, SEVIM Sent: 13 October 2013 17:02 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Finding examples of RDA authority records for personal names and corporate bodies My colleague and I are preparing a presentation for people new to authority work about creating NARs in RDA (it's a presentation for participants in the Ohio NACO Funnel). We'd like to find examples of personal and corporate body names that use many of the 3xx fields. Both straightforward and interesting/challenging examples would be useful. 1. Is there a way to search the authority file for just RDA records? 2. Would anyone care to share NARs they have done or come across that fit the bill? Thank you, (Ms.) Sevim McCutcheon Catalog Librarian, Assoc. Prof. Kent State University Libraries 330-672-1703 lmccu...@kent.edu ** Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html 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] Finding examples of RDA authority records for personal names and corporate bodies
The search “dx:rda” in the OCLC authorities keyword search finds all the RDA-coded records, but since there are 785,362 of them this morning you might want to find some way to limit the search rather than go through them all ☺ Bob Robert L. Maxwell Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 1:19 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Finding examples of RDA authority records for personal names and corporate bodies Sevim There are examples in the “BL Guide to RDA Name Authority Records”, in the RDA Toolkit: Tools - Workflows - Global Workflows Go to “Contents” in this Guide, and click on “Examples of RDA Name Authority Records”. All are real NARs, present in LC/NAF. As they are examples, they have been kept up to date with all the changes and additions to RDA. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.ukmailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA]mailto:[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of MCCUTCHEON, SEVIM Sent: 13 October 2013 17:02 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Finding examples of RDA authority records for personal names and corporate bodies My colleague and I are preparing a presentation for people new to authority work about creating NARs in RDA (it’s a presentation for participants in the Ohio NACO Funnel). We’d like to find examples of personal and corporate body names that use many of the 3xx fields. Both straightforward and interesting/challenging examples would be useful. 1. Is there a way to search the authority file for just RDA records? 2. Would anyone care to share NARs they have done or come across that fit the bill? Thank you, (Ms.) Sevim McCutcheon Catalog Librarian, Assoc. Prof. Kent State University Libraries 330-672-1703 lmccu...@kent.edumailto:lmccu...@kent.edu ** Experience the British Library online at www.bl.ukhttp://www.bl.uk/ The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.htmlhttp://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. www.bl.uk/adoptabookhttp://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 postmas...@bl.ukmailto: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] Uniform titles in RDA
25.09.2013 17:44, Jack Wu: ... after some length of time, will the rule become the alternative again, and the alternative again become the rule? Will East and West, in this case, English and German, ever meet? No wonder there are endless change proposals and endless updating. Try as I might, I fail to see how the whole endeavor can possibly lead to anything but endless confusion in an inflation of inconsistencies. And a large part of these results from inadequacies of systems that cannot keep up with changes nor have ever been able to implement features that had been around in AACR2 and MARC for a long while. I mean, if even am annoying detail like this, criticized time and again long before RDA, is beyond repair, then what can we hope for? Even if we had all the qualified staff it would take... B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] Uniform titles in RDA
Very interesting. Bernhard's last sentence says it all. If his prediction holds, after some length of time, will the rule become the alternative again, and the alternative again become the rule? Will East and West, in this case, English and German, ever meet? No wonder there are endless change proposals and endless updating. Jack Wu Franciscan university of Steubenville Bernhard Eversberg e...@biblio.tu-bs.de 9/24/2013 7:43 AM 24.09.2013 13:01, Danskin, Alan: ... JSC recognised that the omission of the article is not good practice because the resulting title does not accurately represent the resource and (more importantly) may render the title ungrammatical in inflected languages. That antiquated omission rule was a mistake from the start and could easily have been avoided. The omission posed a significant barrier to adoption of RDA by German speaking communities. In 2011 the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek put forward a change proposal (6JSC/Chair/3) to designate the (existing) instructions (to omit the initial article) as alternative instructions and to introduce new instructions to enable the initial article to be retained. The proposal was agreed by JSC and was implemented in RDA in April 2012. A noble move, but as things are, the inflected language nations will abolish their inflections earlier than communities raised on AACR+MARC will implement any such change. B.Eversberg Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance
Re: [RDA-L] Uniform titles in RDA
As Kevin Randall pointed out:
The guidelines are clearly stated in RDA 6.2.1.7:
Initial Articles
When recording the title, include an
initial article, if present.
Alternative: Omit an initial article
(see appendix C) unless the title for a work is to be accessed under
that article (e.g., a title that begins with the name of a person or
place).
So, either approach is permitted. The choice will depend on your
context, as Kevin also noted:
The LC-PCC PS says to apply the alternative
The background to these alternative instructions is that theAACR2 rule
to omit the initial article from the Uniform Title (and other controlled
access points) was perpetuated in RDA instructions for Preferred Title
for the Work in order to avoid wholesale changes to authorised headings
in authority records. Nevertheless, JSC recognised that the omission
of the article is not good practice because the resulting title does not
accurately represent the resource and (more importantly) may render the
title ungrammatical in inflected languages.
The omission posed a significant barrier to adoption of RDA by German
speaking communities. In 2011 the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek put
forward a change proposal (6JSC/Chair/3) to designate the (existing)
instructions (to omit the initial article) as alternative instructions
and to introduce new instructions to enable the initial article to be
retained.
The proposal was agreed by JSC and was implemented in RDA in April 2012.
Alan
Alan Danskin
British Library Representative to JSC
British Library
Boston Spa
Wetherby
West Yorkshire
LS23 7BY
Tel: +44(0)1937 546669
mobile: 07833401117
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: 23 September 2013 21:57
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Uniform titles in RDA
Jay Shorten posted:
Is it now RDA practice to enter the uniform title with articles?
RDA practice aside, this would not work in our present ILS's. We should
not create records without regard for what our patrons must now use.
While most ILS have implemented the 245 filing indicator, I doubt many
have the 240 one. Also, when the 240 moves to a 600$t or 700$t, there
should be no initial article. There is also value in consistency with
legacy records for cross walk to Bibframe. We do not yet know how
Bibframe will deal with uniform initial articles do we?
I would follow the RDA alternative and LCPCCPS, dropping that article.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
**
Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/
The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts :
http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html
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] Uniform titles in RDA
24.09.2013 13:01, Danskin, Alan: ... JSC recognised that the omission of the article is not good practice because the resulting title does not accurately represent the resource and (more importantly) may render the title ungrammatical in inflected languages. That antiquated omission rule was a mistake from the start and could easily have been avoided. The omission posed a significant barrier to adoption of RDA by German speaking communities. In 2011 the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek put forward a change proposal (6JSC/Chair/3) to designate the (existing) instructions (to omit the initial article) as alternative instructions and to introduce new instructions to enable the initial article to be retained. The proposal was agreed by JSC and was implemented in RDA in April 2012. A noble move, but as things are, the inflected language nations will abolish their inflections earlier than communities raised on AACR+MARC will implement any such change. B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] Uniform titles in RDA
I think not. Stephen T. Early Cataloger Center for Research Libraries 6050 S. Kenwood Chicago, IL 60637 773-955-4545 x326 sea...@crl.edu CRL website: www.crl.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Shorten, Jay Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:23 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Uniform titles in RDA Is it now RDA practice to enter the uniform title with articles? Example: LCCN 2013002020 OCLC 828333810 has a 240 14 The new school counselor rather than 240 10 New school counselor Jay Shorten Cataloger, Monographs and Electronic Resources Associate Professor of Bibliography Catalog Department University Libraries University of Oklahoma jshor...@ou.edumailto:jshor...@ou.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Uniform titles in RDA
I certainly have no answer for yet another RDA mystery. My son who took a cataloging course this summer was thoroughly puzzled by some of the language in RDA. One big disappointment I've felt is that the 240 wasn't moved to 700 author-title. I'm wondering how we're going to explain this to non-librarians when they try to use RDA for their cataloging. Rich Aldred On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Shorten, Jay jshor...@ou.edu wrote: Is it now RDA practice to enter the uniform title with articles? Example: LCCN 2013002020 OCLC 828333810 has a *240 14 The new school counselor* rather than 240 10 New school counselor ** ** Jay Shorten Cataloger, Monographs and Electronic Resources Associate Professor of Bibliography Catalog Department University Libraries University of Oklahoma ** ** jshor...@ou.edu ** ** -- Rich Aldred Catalog Librarian Haverford College http://www.haverford.edu/library/ Haverford, PA 19041 Voice: 610-896-1273 Email: rald...@haverford.edu Fax: 610-896-1102
Re: [RDA-L] Uniform titles in RDA
Well, it's technically correct inasmuch as the MARC definition allows the second indicator to be used to account for nonfiling characters. But I have to say I've never seen it actually used. --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Stephen Early Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 3:31 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Uniform titles in RDA I think not. Stephen T. Early Cataloger Center for Research Libraries 6050 S. Kenwood Chicago, IL 60637 773-955-4545 x326 sea...@crl.edumailto:sea...@crl.edu CRL website: www.crl.eduhttp://www.crl.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Shorten, Jay Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:23 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Uniform titles in RDA Is it now RDA practice to enter the uniform title with articles? Example: LCCN 2013002020 OCLC 828333810 has a 240 14 The new school counselor rather than 240 10 New school counselor Jay Shorten Cataloger, Monographs and Electronic Resources Associate Professor of Bibliography Catalog Department University Libraries University of Oklahoma jshor...@ou.edumailto:jshor...@ou.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Uniform titles in RDA
The guidelines are clearly stated in RDA 6.2.1.7: Initial Articles When recording the title, include an initial article, if present. Alternative: Omit an initial article (see appendix C) unless the title for a work is to be accessed under that article (e.g., a title that begins with the name of a person or place). The LC-PCC PS says to apply the alternative. The record Jay Shorten cites appears to be in error. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edumailto:k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Shorten, Jay Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:23 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Uniform titles in RDA Is it now RDA practice to enter the uniform title with articles? Example: LCCN 2013002020 OCLC 828333810 has a 240 14 The new school counselor rather than 240 10 New school counselor Jay Shorten Cataloger, Monographs and Electronic Resources Associate Professor of Bibliography Catalog Department University Libraries University of Oklahoma jshor...@ou.edumailto:jshor...@ou.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Uniform titles in RDA
Jay Shorten posted:
Is it now RDA practice to enter the uniform title with articles?
RDA practice aside, this would not work in our present ILS's. We
should not create records without regard for what our patrons must now
use.
While most ILS have implemented the 245 filing indicator, I doubt many
have the 240 one. Also, when the 240 moves to a 600$t or 700$t, there
should be no initial article. There is also value in consistency with
legacy records for cross walk to Bibframe. We do not yet know how
Bibframe will deal with uniform initial articles do we?
I would follow the RDA alternative and LCPCCPS, dropping that article.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Good news re RDA guidance
Mac,
Would you please post the bibliographic citations and how to
order the two RDA guidance aids by Weihs and Fritz? Thank you
for your valuable guidance on the RDA listserv.
Lynne
J. LaBare
Senior
Librarian,
Cataloger
Provo Library
at Academy
Square
550 North
University
Avenue Provo,
Utah
84601-1618
801.852.7672
801.852.6670
(fax)
Email: lyn...@provo.lib.ut.us
On 8/4/2013 6:28 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Autocatters and RDA-Lers,
Help is on the way.
Excellent author Jean Riddle Weihs and another capable cataloguer are
working on an RDA/MARC21 manual for school libraries. Like Deborah
Fritz' helpful binder, it will combine the two not very harmonious
cataloguing and coding standards.
Although it is aimed at the school library, I suspect it will be
helpful to public libraries, college libraries, and even copy
cataloguers in academic libraries.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
attachment: lynnel.vcf
Re: [RDA-L] Good news re RDA guidance
I'm with Lynn. How do we order?
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 5:28 PM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
Autocatters and RDA-Lers,
Help is on the way.
Excellent author Jean Riddle Weihs and another capable cataloguer are
working on an RDA/MARC21 manual for school libraries. Like Deborah
Fritz' helpful binder, it will combine the two not very harmonious
cataloguing and coding standards.
Although it is aimed at the school library, I suspect it will be
helpful to public libraries, college libraries, and even copy
cataloguers in academic libraries.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Good news re RDA guidance
Lynn eBare requested:
Would you please post the bibliographic citations and how to order the
two RDA guidance aids by Weihs and Fritz?
The Weihs aid is still being written. I'm copying to the Jean and
Sheila, the authors.
The Fritz binder was AACR2, not RDA. I haven't heard if Deborah is
planning an RDA version.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Good news re RDA guidance
I emailed Deborah Fritz to see if she was going to do an RDA version. She said
she was not at this time. I am hoping she will change her mind. I usded her
AACR2 ver daily.
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access on
behalf of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Mon 8/5/2013 10:59 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Good news re RDA guidance
Lynn eBare requested:
Would you please post the bibliographic citations and how to order the
two RDA guidance aids by Weihs and Fritz?
The Weihs aid is still being written. I'm copying to the Jean and
Sheila, the authors.
The Fritz binder was AACR2, not RDA. I haven't heard if Deborah is
planning an RDA version.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
Re. Mac's two medieval stone masons being asked what they were doing. One
replied that he was chipping at a stone. The other replied that he was
building a cathedral. As cataloguers, we need to stop just chippping stones,
and return to cathedral building, a task we abandoned to the automation folk
when we moved from card catalogues. Our task should be to build catalogues,
not just create bibliographic records.
I love this idea. And it does not necessarily preclude continuing to shape the
best possible stones.
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 8:59 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
James said:
... we have seen lots and lots of discussion among catalogers about
the D (Description) but relatively little about A (Access).
Perhaps because RDA says nothing about indexing and display, both vital for
access?
... what about new methods of access *using the data we already have*?
Yes, what we most need is development of ILS/OPACs, as opposed to new rules or
a new coding scheme.
I seem to recall a story of two medieval stone masons being asked what they
were doing. One replied that he was chipping at a stone. The other replied
that he was building a cathedral. As cataloguers, we need to stop just
chippping stones, and return to cathedral building, a task we abandoned to the
automation folk when we moved from card catalogues. Our task should be to
build catalogues, not just create bibliographic records.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
31.07.2013 00:04, James Weinheimer: ... The refusal to accept that 99% of people do not fit into these little pre-conceived FRBR user tasks is why I think that perhaps librarianship may be destined for extinction. We must free our minds from these pre-conceptions! Visions of doom for libraries are nothing new, but their frequency seems to increase, and doomsaying for the catalog along with them. (And for MARC, not to forget.) Now that will most probably all be premature as long as physical resources of no small relevance continue to be produced in no small numbers, many of which can soon thereafter be obtained only in libraries and with a little help from their catalogs. Not, though, exclusively by using those catalogs, as it used to be. So, most resources, and most books among them, can now be found or serendipitously stumbled over in novel ways not imagined even 20 years ago. Books are therefore now perceived as items in the universe of accessible resources, among which you navigate with tools and methods that feel ever more as how things should be to many users, young and old. Among these tools and methods, library catalogs have lost a lot of their former significance. Need catalogs acquire new significance? And if yes, how can that be achieved? By perfectioning, electronically, a functional model that satisfied the needs of some people some of the time but could only ever respond to some specific types of user needs and in some very specific ways? Only subject access by controlled vocabularies, as has been mentioned many times, is where catalogs might regain significance in new ways. RDA, up until now, contributes nothing to this. Things RDA doesn't even touch on are already being done with pre-RDA data. And BIBFRAME cannot become better than the inconsistent input it gets. We might see two roads diverging from where we are, if indeed we gather up the resolve to escape extinction (for a while): A. Focus on the library as a place to be for work and talk and leisure. Reduce catalogs to their inventory function and only make sure that books found elsewhere, by ever improving search technologies the library community has no resources to develop or even keep up with, can be quickly located using their universal identifiers. (As happens now via GBS - WorldCat - Library) Libraries becoming mere storehouses for physical resources, but these storehouses will be needed for some while. B. A revolution. B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
On 31 July 2013 01:04, James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com wrote: Show us how you can do the FRBR user tasks in Google: to find/identify/select/obtain--*works* *expressions* *manifestations* *items* by their AUTHORS, TITLES and SUBJECTS. Also, please demonstrate how on the web, you can select something in Google without already obtaining it. I cannot do it. In Google with full-text, I select whether I want materials only AFTER I obtain it. I cannot do anything else. If I am wrong, please show me how. This is yet another reason why I maintain the FRBR user tasks are based on *physical objects* not virtual ones. Well, well, dear Jim. I do not recall that FRBR says find/identify/select/obtain (absolutely) in that succession (online or offline). A few days ago: my wife bought Bolano's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Savage_Detectives (an item exemplifying a manifestation of its Romanian expression :-) Tasks: a) (my wife) She was not looking specifically for it, just browsing the recently published section of the book-store. So: a.1. she identified an item which... famous author; a.2. she selected it; a.3. she obtained-it (paying :-( Almost FRBR orthodox sequence, no ? Without find (but which poet said to find means to choose ?). b) (me) got it without any effort: b.1. I obtained-it (for free :-); b.2. I selected-it (i.e. I decided to interrupt Raymond Aron's http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'Opium_des_intellectuels and jumped on Bolano). Not quite FRBR sequence, no ? However, exercising abstraction, we can identify the FRBR tasks no matter how acrobatically a 21st century user behaves when interacting with information resources. Dan On 31 July 2013 01:04, James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com wrote: On 30/07/2013 20:14, Kevin M Randall wrote: snip And yet again I get a long, rambling response that goes nowhere near answering my question. The only thing that comes remotely close is the statement: ** ** Today, there are brand new ways of searching, by keyword, by citations, by likes of others, or of your friends, of your friend's friends, or even their friends, by the idiosyncracies of your own personal profile, and by who knows what else, but the method uses all kinds of algorithms. ** ** And yet all of these things are very clearly part of the FRBR user tasks. They are all about FINDing, IDENTIFYing, SELECTing, and OBTAINing entities based on various criteria. How you can fail to see that is just beyond my comprehension. ** ** It is certainly possible to perform the FRBR user tasks in Google, in Yahoo, in Amazon, in the LC online catalog, or in an old card catalog. But they all have certain limitations, some minor and some very crippling. The FRBR user tasks are simply a description of what users have always done, and we can only assume will always be doing. They have nothing themselves to do with technology. We use technology to aid us in performing the tasks: in the modern era, we have used card catalogs, microfiche and microfilm catalogs, online catalogs, etc. The FRBR report merely identifies the entities and attributes that have traditionally made up the bibliographic metadata used in libraries, and how they operate to help the user FIND, IDENTIFY, SELECT, and OBTAIN the resources they are in search of. And RDA, with its basis on the FRBR report, is helping us to further refine the bibliographic metadata to work better in supporting the user tasks. ** ** If you want to deny that people no longer want to FIND, IDENTIFY, SELECT, or OBTAIN anything, then I don't know what world you are living in. Because everybody I know still wants to do that—all the time. (Yes, they also want to use things once they obtain them, but that's for other tools and applications to worry about. The bibliographic metadata are to help them get the things first, because users can't use things without first getting them.) /snip Pardon, I did not provide rambling response but very specific examples. Please, actually watch the video of that fellow from Google (please: watch it!) and demonstrate to all of us exactly how his example of when he shows the photo of the building, how the question: what is the phone number of the office where that picture was taken from? How is that an example of the FRBR user tasks? [I can provide other examples of such questions] Perhaps it would be possible to argue that an automobile is really a horse-and-buggy: both have wheels and a place to sit, both have engine that ingests fuel and both output (pardon!) waste. Such an argument might be interesting and even diverting. Also, one may argue that the periodic table of elements are not really different from anything before, but are just variations of the real elements of fire, water, earth and air. In reality of course, such attitudes shed more insight into those who advance them than into the topics themselves. The table
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Dan Matei wrote: snip On 31 July 2013 01:04, James Weinheimer wrote: Show us how you can do the FRBR user tasks in Google: to find/identify/select/obtain--*works* *expressions* *manifestations* *items* by their AUTHORS, TITLES and SUBJECTS. Also, please demonstrate how on the web, you can select something in Google without already obtaining it. I cannot do it. In Google with full-text, I select whether I want materials only AFTER I obtain it. I cannot do anything else. If I am wrong, please show me how. This is yet another reason why I maintain the FRBR user tasks are based on *physical objects* not virtual ones. Well, well, dear Jim. I do not recall that FRBR says find/identify/select/obtain (absolutely) in that succession (online or offline). /snip A good point. But if we obtain something before we have identified or selected it (which happens constantly when people are browsing the shelves), then it should at least call the model into question. The novel ideas surrounding find change matters too. snip However, exercising abstraction, we can identify the FRBR tasks no matter how acrobatically a 21st century user behaves when interacting with information resources. /snip Yes, but as I mentioned before, by using such abstraction, we can posit that an automobile is just another type of horse-and-buggy, or that a computer is just a jazzed-up typwriter. We can imagine that in some philosophical sense, these statements may be true, but the question is: what use is it to consider things that way? Is it done to soothe us, or what? I have in mind the Horsey Horselesss Carriage which looks just plain silly today. http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545_1657686,00.html Typewriters are long gone now, although there have been these--made as a joke, I hope! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2134208/Typewriter-obsolete-USB-joking-Technology-allows-vintage-models-used-modern-era.html It is vital to remember that the others in information retrieval: the Googlies and Yahoovians and Mendeleys and so on, are not enamored of--or weighed down--by such models. They are not trying to make eternal ideological/metaphysical statements about the structure of the information universe: they just want to make something that works and that people want. They have clearly succeeded. James L. Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
This statement made me pause for thought: Also, please demonstrate how on the web, you can 'select' something in Google without already 'obtaining' it. I cannot do it. In Google with full-text, I select whether I want materials only AFTER I obtain it. I cannot do anything else. If I am wrong, please show me how. This is yet another reason why I maintain the FRBR user tasks are based on *physical objects* not virtual ones. Who is to say that there needs to be a definite order of the FRBR tasks? As you say, we must free out minds from preconceived notions- maybe we can mix things up a bit and leave room for such things as obtaining something before selecting it. I can't help but wonder how many times this happens for patrons. Someone finds a resource, digital or physical, that might be useful, they obtain it, only to find that it isn't that great. I can't tell you how many times I had that problem as a graduate student--yikes! Additionally, I have used Google and Google Scholar, which may or may not provide snippets of information that the user may read directly under the link-whether these actually match up with what is actually contained in the resource is only seen when the user selects the link they think they want, but I think there is still a form of selection method in this approach. I don't believe libraries are going to disappear anytime soon. We have been able to adapt thus far, I have every confidence that we will continue to do so in future. Don't give up hope! I haven't. Just my two cents. --- Lizzy Walker, MLS Metadata and Digital Initiatives Librarian http://works.bepress.com/lizzy_walker/ 316-978-5138 Wichita State University Libraries 1845 Fairmount St. Wichita, KS 67260-0068 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 5:05 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA On 30/07/2013 20:14, Kevin M Randall wrote: snip And yet again I get a long, rambling response that goes nowhere near answering my question. The only thing that comes remotely close is the statement: Today, there are brand new ways of searching, by keyword, by citations, by likes of others, or of your friends, of your friend's friends, or even their friends, by the idiosyncracies of your own personal profile, and by who knows what else, but the method uses all kinds of algorithms. And yet all of these things are very clearly part of the FRBR user tasks. They are all about FINDing, IDENTIFYing, SELECTing, and OBTAINing entities based on various criteria. How you can fail to see that is just beyond my comprehension. It is certainly possible to perform the FRBR user tasks in Google, in Yahoo, in Amazon, in the LC online catalog, or in an old card catalog. But they all have certain limitations, some minor and some very crippling. The FRBR user tasks are simply a description of what users have always done, and we can only assume will always be doing. They have nothing themselves to do with technology. We use technology to aid us in performing the tasks: in the modern era, we have used card catalogs, microfiche and microfilm catalogs, online catalogs, etc. The FRBR report merely identifies the entities and attributes that have traditionally made up the bibliographic metadata used in libraries, and how they operate to help the user FIND, IDENTIFY, SELECT, and OBTAIN the resources they are in search of. And RDA, with its basis on the FRBR report, is helping us to further refine the bibliographic metadata to work better in supporting the user tasks. If you want to deny that people no longer want to FIND, IDENTIFY, SELECT, or OBTAIN anything, then I don't know what world you are living in. Because everybody I know still wants to do that-all the time. (Yes, they also want to use things once they obtain them, but that's for other tools and applications to worry about. The bibliographic metadata are to help them get the things first, because users can't use things without first getting them.) /snip Pardon, I did not provide rambling response but very specific examples. Please, actually watch the video of that fellow from Google (please: watch it!) and demonstrate to all of us exactly how his example of when he shows the photo of the building, how the question: what is the phone number of the office where that picture was taken from? How is that an example of the FRBR user tasks? [I can provide other examples of such questions] Perhaps it would be possible to argue that an automobile is really a horse-and-buggy: both have wheels and a place to sit, both have engine that ingests fuel and both output (pardon!) waste. Such an argument might be interesting and even diverting. Also, one may argue that the periodic table of elements are not really different from anything before, but are just
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
Ø where navigate is about [snip] to find works related to a given work. So the real objective is to find which is already covered in FISO. The addition was discussed by the FRBR Review Group on 18 August 2005 and it was decided that to navigate is implicitly a component of the broader task to find. In discussion lists it may seem that large parts of the work to be done is overlooked, but the reality is that a lot of people are working very hard in a lot of different areas to make this work. Peter Schouten
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
On 29/07/2013 21:31, Kevin M Randall wrote: snip Even after a few years of hearing this, I'm still trying to figure out what are these other types of tasks users have that do not fit into the FRBR user tasks. Would it be possible to list just a few of them? And not dissertations about them, but just some succinct examples. I have a feeling (a very strong one) that if we're able to come to agreement about the meaning of the FRBR tasks there would be much less disagreement about what users are actually doing. /snip I have already done this several times. The FRBR user tasks (one more time) are to be able to find, identify, select, and obtain (what?) works, expressions, manifestations, and items (how?) by their authors, titles and subjects. (Again, this is short-hand because nobody wants to obtain all items of a work) Please show us how you can do this in Google, or Yahoo. Sure, you can search by Mark Twain, but there is no telling what you will get, and certainly not anywhere near works, expressions... and so on. Show us how you can do the FRBR user tasks even in the LC library catalog. I have demonstrated this often enough, for instance in my podcast Problems with Library Catalogs http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2013/02/catalog-matters-podcast-no-18-problems.html. I showed how something that worked more or less intuitively in print fell apart in the virtual, online environment. It is *impossible* to do the FRBR user tasks in Google, Yahoo, and the like, but the uncomfortable fact is: people prefer Google, Yahoo and the like to library catalogs--that is, unless someone wants to dispute that. While the FRBR user tasks can be done (after a fashion) in the current LC catalog, if you are to do it, you must search by left-anchored textual strings, and even then, things fall apart because of the problems of alphabetical arrangement in the computer. In printed library catalogs, or card catalogs, the uniform title Works came in logical order: first under a personal name heading. This was clear enough to the searcher from the arrangement of the catalog. In the OPAC however, you have to look under the author's name, and then scroll to W, so e.g. if you want the different versions of Twain's complete works, you have to search: find author: Twain, Mark,[date] and then scroll dozens of screens to W. *Nobody* will *ever* do that, unless as I mentioned earlier, someone wants to dispute that people will do it. Even I refuse to do it although I know how it works. Today, there are brand new ways of searching, by keyword, by citations, by likes of others, or of your friends, of your friend's friends, or even their friends, by the idiosyncracies of your own personal profile, and by who knows what else, but the method uses all kinds of algorithms. I did an entire podcast on Search http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2010/12/cataloging-matters-podcast-no-7-search.html. Plus there are all different new types of items that defy what anybody knew of before. To be blown away by new types of searching and new ideas, you can watch Daniel Russell's talk at Princeton University awhile back: What Does It Mean To Be Literate in the Age of Google? https://www.princeton.edu/WebMedia/flash/lectures/20120228_publect_russell.shtml This is the reality for those who want to accept it. The FRBR user tasks, although I won't argue that some people may still want to do them occasionally (such as myself), are 19th-century conceptions and comprise the minority of what people want. Let's at least bring these tasks up to late 20th century, if not to really modern times. We can pretend that nothing has changed since Panizzi's days; that what he and the other greats of the 19th century spoke of are immutable and forever. But don't be surprised if libraries end up totally forgotten and remembered as curious remnants of times past. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *First Thus Facebook Page* https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
FRBR defines the four user tasks for searching and making use of bibliographic records. They may not be so typical in Google or Yahoo. Also, they are general tasks. They generalize tasks that user would perform when searching and making use of bibliographic records. In an OPAC environment, we can understand find as searching (by title, author, whatever users already know). The searching can be at the work (for example, by author), expression (for example, limited by languages), or manifestation (for example, limited by publication years) level. When user get a list of searching result, they need to select a manifestation that meets their needs.This process is identify. Users make a discrimination and decision based on descriptions in bibliographic records. In this process, users may navigate from one record to related records. After users make a decision, users need to select one they want, and then request access to a manifest ion or an particular item (from a particular library). The select is generally at the manifestation level. Users may not require a particular copy. But when users obtain a resource such as a book or DVD, they actually have an item. The request process includes inter-library loan and online access to digital resources. So far, I think that the process for searching and making use of bibliographic records is fulfilled. The above is my (maybe limited) understanding of user tasks defined in FRBR :) Thank you! Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:39 AM, James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com wrote: On 29/07/2013 21:31, Kevin M Randall wrote: snip Even after a few years of hearing this, I'm still trying to figure out what are these other types of tasks users have that do not fit into the FRBR user tasks. Would it be possible to list just a few of them? And not dissertations about them, but just some succinct examples. I have a feeling (a very strong one) that if we're able to come to agreement about the meaning of the FRBR tasks there would be much less disagreement about what users are actually doing. /snip I have already done this several times. The FRBR user tasks (one more time) are to be able to find, identify, select, and obtain (what?) works, expressions, manifestations, and items (how?) by their authors, titles and subjects. (Again, this is short-hand because nobody wants to obtain all items of a work) Please show us how you can do this in Google, or Yahoo. Sure, you can search by Mark Twain, but there is no telling what you will get, and certainly not anywhere near works, expressions... and so on. Show us how you can do the FRBR user tasks even in the LC library catalog. I have demonstrated this often enough, for instance in my podcast Problems with Library Catalogs http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2013/02/catalog-matters-podcast-no-18-problems.html. I showed how something that worked more or less intuitively in print fell apart in the virtual, online environment. It is *impossible* to do the FRBR user tasks in Google, Yahoo, and the like, but the uncomfortable fact is: people prefer Google, Yahoo and the like to library catalogs--that is, unless someone wants to dispute that. While the FRBR user tasks can be done (after a fashion) in the current LC catalog, if you are to do it, you must search by left-anchored textual strings, and even then, things fall apart because of the problems of alphabetical arrangement in the computer. In printed library catalogs, or card catalogs, the uniform title Works came in logical order: first under a personal name heading. This was clear enough to the searcher from the arrangement of the catalog. In the OPAC however, you have to look under the author's name, and then scroll to W, so e.g. if you want the different versions of Twain's complete works, you have to search: find author: Twain, Mark,[date] and then scroll dozens of screens to W. *Nobody* will *ever* do that, unless as I mentioned earlier, someone wants to dispute that people will do it. Even I refuse to do it although I know how it works. Today, there are brand new ways of searching, by keyword, by citations, by likes of others, or of your friends, of your friend's friends, or even their friends, by the idiosyncracies of your own personal profile, and by who knows what else, but the method uses all kinds of algorithms. I did an entire podcast on Search http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2010/12/cataloging-matters-podcast-no-7-search.html. Plus there are all different new types of items that defy what anybody knew of before. To be blown away by new types of searching and new ideas, you can watch Daniel Russell's talk at Princeton University awhile back: What Does It Mean To Be Literate in the Age of Google? https://www.princeton.edu/WebMedia/flash/lectures/20120228_publect_russell.shtml This is the reality for those who want to accept it. The FRBR user tasks, although I won't argue that
Re: [RDA-L] The A in RDA
I liked this comment: The fact is, it is important to keep in mind that the Googles are *not* really finding/discovery tools similar to library catalogs and I think it is a mistake to look at them that way: the Googles are advertising agencies and probably the greatest advertising agencies that have ever existed. Why are they the greatest? Because they have more information about the public than any other advertising agency has ever had before. And they use that information to their own advantages, in all sorts of different ways. I am also concerned about this. For so many years now we kept reading articles about how tech savvy our users are, but with the contradiction that users don't really want to search, they just want to find. This mentality has turned many of our users into lazy researchers while flattering them as tech-savvy consumers. This savvy consumer concept falls apart when every so often, search engines and tech magazines feel the need to outline special search tips and tricks, like the ones we kept trying to teach catalog users who were convinced they didn't need to learn such methods. These aren't secret tips, they are skills that everyone should have. While our users don't have to learn everything about MARC, RDA and AACR2, it would help them to get a better understanding of how the bibliographic data is parceled out, which includes wording of certain fields and controlled vocabularies. I think that our users are smart enough to learn how to really search the catalog, we just gave up on giving them a chance because of the push to think of their searching as consuming and our doing all the work and thinking for them as a service. I don't have to speak in tech services language to them, but it is the language of my profession and I won't apologize for it when I use among my peers. Every profession has their own language and we don't have to make it all understandable to everyone outside the profession. We are also catalog users and we need information others may not want. I am interested in learning how RDA and Bibframe will develop and how they will translate into the development of new discovery tools. I think we have a new opportunity to provide robust information to our users and our users have a right to be better informed and taught as opposed to being sold something. Cindy Wolff
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
And yet again I get a long, rambling response that goes nowhere near answering my question. The only thing that comes remotely close is the statement: Today, there are brand new ways of searching, by keyword, by citations, by likes of others, or of your friends, of your friend's friends, or even their friends, by the idiosyncracies of your own personal profile, and by who knows what else, but the method uses all kinds of algorithms. And yet all of these things are very clearly part of the FRBR user tasks. They are all about FINDing, IDENTIFYing, SELECTing, and OBTAINing entities based on various criteria. How you can fail to see that is just beyond my comprehension. It is certainly possible to perform the FRBR user tasks in Google, in Yahoo, in Amazon, in the LC online catalog, or in an old card catalog. But they all have certain limitations, some minor and some very crippling. The FRBR user tasks are simply a description of what users have always done, and we can only assume will always be doing. They have nothing themselves to do with technology. We use technology to aid us in performing the tasks: in the modern era, we have used card catalogs, microfiche and microfilm catalogs, online catalogs, etc. The FRBR report merely identifies the entities and attributes that have traditionally made up the bibliographic metadata used in libraries, and how they operate to help the user FIND, IDENTIFY, SELECT, and OBTAIN the resources they are in search of. And RDA, with its basis on the FRBR report, is helping us to further refine the bibliographic metadata to work better in supporting the user tasks. If you want to deny that people no longer want to FIND, IDENTIFY, SELECT, or OBTAIN anything, then I don't know what world you are living in. Because everybody I know still wants to do that-all the time. (Yes, they also want to use things once they obtain them, but that's for other tools and applications to worry about. The bibliographic metadata are to help them get the things first, because users can't use things without first getting them.) Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edumailto:k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 11:40 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA On 29/07/2013 21:31, Kevin M Randall wrote: snip Even after a few years of hearing this, I'm still trying to figure out what are these other types of tasks users have that do not fit into the FRBR user tasks. Would it be possible to list just a few of them? And not dissertations about them, but just some succinct examples. I have a feeling (a very strong one) that if we're able to come to agreement about the meaning of the FRBR tasks there would be much less disagreement about what users are actually doing. /snip I have already done this several times. The FRBR user tasks (one more time) are to be able to find, identify, select, and obtain (what?) works, expressions, manifestations, and items (how?) by their authors, titles and subjects. (Again, this is short-hand because nobody wants to obtain all items of a work) Please show us how you can do this in Google, or Yahoo. Sure, you can search by Mark Twain, but there is no telling what you will get, and certainly not anywhere near works, expressions... and so on. Show us how you can do the FRBR user tasks even in the LC library catalog. I have demonstrated this often enough, for instance in my podcast Problems with Library Catalogs http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2013/02/catalog-matters-podcast-no-18-problems.html. I showed how something that worked more or less intuitively in print fell apart in the virtual, online environment. It is *impossible* to do the FRBR user tasks in Google, Yahoo, and the like, but the uncomfortable fact is: people prefer Google, Yahoo and the like to library catalogs--that is, unless someone wants to dispute that. While the FRBR user tasks can be done (after a fashion) in the current LC catalog, if you are to do it, you must search by left-anchored textual strings, and even then, things fall apart because of the problems of alphabetical arrangement in the computer. In printed library catalogs, or card catalogs, the uniform title Works came in logical order: first under a personal name heading. This was clear enough to the searcher from the arrangement of the catalog. In the OPAC however, you have to look under the author's name, and then scroll to W, so e.g. if you want the different versions of Twain's complete works, you have to search: find author: Twain, Mark,[date] and then scroll dozens of screens to W. *Nobody* will *ever* do that, unless as I mentioned earlier, someone wants to dispute
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
I agree with Kevin on this one. Here's my own FISO example involving an online commercial search engine. Recently, I intended to purchase a book for my Amazon Kindle, but couldn't remember the author or the title, only recalling that it was a collection of short stories on a particular topic. I guessed on some search-words in Google (FIND) which led to an entry containing an exact author and title that appeared to match what I was looking for (can't remember if it was a direct link to Amazon, a review, or a Wikipedia article) (IDENTIFY). I then opened up Amazon and searched the exact author and title, found the exact entry I was looking for, then clicked on the Kindle version, (SELECT) and then completed my purchase (OBTAIN). Steve Stephen T. Early Cataloger Center for Research Libraries 6050 S. Kenwood Chicago, IL 60637 773-955-4545 x326 sea...@crl.edu CRL website: www.crl.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 1:15 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA And yet again I get a long, rambling response that goes nowhere near answering my question. The only thing that comes remotely close is the statement: Today, there are brand new ways of searching, by keyword, by citations, by likes of others, or of your friends, of your friend's friends, or even their friends, by the idiosyncracies of your own personal profile, and by who knows what else, but the method uses all kinds of algorithms. And yet all of these things are very clearly part of the FRBR user tasks. They are all about FINDing, IDENTIFYing, SELECTing, and OBTAINing entities based on various criteria. ... Etc. ... Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edumailto:k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 11:40 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA On 29/07/2013 21:31, Kevin M Randall wrote: snip Even after a few years of hearing this, I'm still trying to figure out what are these other types of tasks users have that do not fit into the FRBR user tasks. Would it be possible to list just a few of them? And not dissertations about them, but just some succinct examples. I have a feeling (a very strong one) that if we're able to come to agreement about the meaning of the FRBR tasks there would be much less disagreement about what users are actually doing. /snip I have already done this several times. The FRBR user tasks (one more time) are to be able to find, identify, select, and obtain (what?) works, expressions, manifestations, and items (how?) by their authors, titles and subjects. (Again, this is short-hand because nobody wants to obtain all items of a work) Please show us how you can do this in Google, or Yahoo. Sure, you can search by Mark Twain, but there is no telling what you will get, and certainly not anywhere near works, expressions... and so on. Show us how you can do the FRBR user tasks even in the LC library catalog. I have demonstrated this often enough, for instance in my podcast Problems with Library Catalogs http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2013/02/catalog-matters-podcast-no-18-problems.html. I showed how something that worked more or less intuitively in print fell apart in the virtual, online environment. It is *impossible* to do the FRBR user tasks in Google, Yahoo, and the like, but the uncomfortable fact is: people prefer Google, Yahoo and the like to library catalogs--that is, unless someone wants to dispute that. While the FRBR user tasks can be done (after a fashion) in the current LC catalog, if you are to do it, you must search by left-anchored textual strings, and even then, things fall apart because of the problems of alphabetical arrangement in the computer. In printed library catalogs, or card catalogs, the uniform title Works came in logical order: first under a personal name heading. This was clear enough to the searcher from the arrangement of the catalog. In the OPAC however, you have to look under the author's name, and then scroll to W, so e.g. if you want the different versions of Twain's complete works, you have to search: find author: Twain, Mark,[date] and then scroll dozens of screens to W. *Nobody* will *ever* do that, unless as I mentioned earlier, someone wants to dispute that people will do it. Even I refuse to do it although I know how it works. Today, there are brand new ways of searching, by keyword, by citations, by likes of others, or of your friends, of your friend's friends, or even their friends, by the idiosyncracies of your own personal
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
I have memories of a job in an interlibrary loan department where I occasionally had to work with whatever scrap of data I could lay my hands on to find the books people had requested. On one occasion, I had limited information to use to search for nearly identical books, which were otherwise not well distinguished from each other. I turned to the page count to be the deciding factor to find the match requested. RDA Chapter 3 describes Extent as fulfilling the Select user task, but there is an additional blurb in RDA 3.0 that speaks to the real world situation I encountered: These elements are also used to identify a resource (i.e., to distinguish between resources with similar characteristics). [By the way, note James' mischaracterization of the FRBR user tasks as limited to left-anchored browse searches. His critique of the user tasks as limited to finding, identifying, selecting, and obtaining entities (in his words) by their authors, titles and subjects indicates he has not read FRBR. All the elements come into play, not just those used to form left-anchored search strings. And all the entities are potential entities of interest, not just WEMI. In addition, the critique breaks down further when one considers FRAD and FRSAD, with the much wider scope of entities considered, and additional user tasks identified.] Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Stephen Early Sent: July-30-13 3:10 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA I agree with Kevin on this one. Here's my own FISO example involving an online commercial search engine. Recently, I intended to purchase a book for my Amazon Kindle, but couldn't remember the author or the title, only recalling that it was a collection of short stories on a particular topic. I guessed on some search-words in Google (FIND) which led to an entry containing an exact author and title that appeared to match what I was looking for (can't remember if it was a direct link to Amazon, a review, or a Wikipedia article) (IDENTIFY). I then opened up Amazon and searched the exact author and title, found the exact entry I was looking for, then clicked on the Kindle version, (SELECT) and then completed my purchase (OBTAIN). Steve Stephen T. Early Cataloger Center for Research Libraries 6050 S. Kenwood Chicago, IL 60637 773-955-4545 x326 sea...@crl.edumailto:sea...@crl.edu CRL website: www.crl.eduhttp://www.crl.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 1:15 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA And yet again I get a long, rambling response that goes nowhere near answering my question. The only thing that comes remotely close is the statement: Today, there are brand new ways of searching, by keyword, by citations, by likes of others, or of your friends, of your friend's friends, or even their friends, by the idiosyncracies of your own personal profile, and by who knows what else, but the method uses all kinds of algorithms. And yet all of these things are very clearly part of the FRBR user tasks. They are all about FINDing, IDENTIFYing, SELECTing, and OBTAINing entities based on various criteria. ... Etc. ... Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edumailto:k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 11:40 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA On 29/07/2013 21:31, Kevin M Randall wrote: snip Even after a few years of hearing this, I'm still trying to figure out what are these other types of tasks users have that do not fit into the FRBR user tasks. Would it be possible to list just a few of them? And not dissertations about them, but just some succinct examples. I have a feeling (a very strong one) that if we're able to come to agreement about the meaning of the FRBR tasks there would be much less disagreement about what users are actually doing. /snip I have already done this several times. The FRBR user tasks (one more time) are to be able to find, identify, select, and obtain (what?) works, expressions, manifestations, and items (how?) by their authors, titles and subjects. (Again, this is short-hand because nobody wants to obtain all items of a work) Please show us how you can do this in Google, or Yahoo. Sure, you can search by Mark Twain, but there is no telling what you will get, and certainly not anywhere near works
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
On 30/07/2013 20:14, Kevin M Randall wrote: snip And yet again I get a long, rambling response that goes nowhere near answering my question. The only thing that comes remotely close is the statement: Today, there are brand new ways of searching, by keyword, by citations, by likes of others, or of your friends, of your friend's friends, or even their friends, by the idiosyncracies of your own personal profile, and by who knows what else, but the method uses all kinds of algorithms. And yet all of these things are very clearly part of the FRBR user tasks. They are all about FINDing, IDENTIFYing, SELECTing, and OBTAINing entities based on various criteria. How you can fail to see that is just beyond my comprehension. It is certainly possible to perform the FRBR user tasks in Google, in Yahoo, in Amazon, in the LC online catalog, or in an old card catalog. But they all have certain limitations, some minor and some very crippling. The FRBR user tasks are simply a description of what users have always done, and we can only assume will always be doing. They have nothing themselves to do with technology. We use technology to aid us in performing the tasks: in the modern era, we have used card catalogs, microfiche and microfilm catalogs, online catalogs, etc. The FRBR report merely identifies the entities and attributes that have traditionally made up the bibliographic metadata used in libraries, and how they operate to help the user FIND, IDENTIFY, SELECT, and OBTAIN the resources they are in search of. And RDA, with its basis on the FRBR report, is helping us to further refine the bibliographic metadata to work better in supporting the user tasks. If you want to deny that people no longer want to FIND, IDENTIFY, SELECT, or OBTAIN anything, then I don't know what world you are living in. Because everybody I know still wants to do that---all the time. (Yes, they also want to use things once they obtain them, but that's for other tools and applications to worry about. The bibliographic metadata are to help them get the things first, because users can't use things without first getting them.) /snip Pardon, I did not provide rambling response but very specific examples. Please, actually watch the video of that fellow from Google (please: watch it!) and demonstrate to all of us exactly how his example of when he shows the photo of the building, how the question: what is the phone number of the office where that picture was taken from? How is that an example of the FRBR user tasks? [I can provide other examples of such questions] Perhaps it would be possible to argue that an automobile is really a horse-and-buggy: both have wheels and a place to sit, both have engine that ingests fuel and both output (pardon!) waste. Such an argument might be interesting and even diverting. Also, one may argue that the periodic table of elements are not really different from anything before, but are just variations of the real elements of fire, water, earth and air. In reality of course, such attitudes shed more insight into those who advance them than into the topics themselves. The table of elements have nothing to do with fire, water, earth and air, while thinking so only retards everything. Automobiles are fundamentally different from horses and buggies. In the same way, I maintain that what is happening now in search is fundamentally different from the 19th-century FRBR user tasks. It is obvious, once you see it. Show us how you can do the FRBR user tasks in Google: to find/identify/select/obtain--*works* *expressions* *manifestations* *items* by their AUTHORS, TITLES and SUBJECTS. Also, please demonstrate how on the web, you can select something in Google without already obtaining it. I cannot do it. In Google with full-text, I select whether I want materials only AFTER I obtain it. I cannot do anything else. If I am wrong, please show me how. This is yet another reason why I maintain the FRBR user tasks are based on *physical objects* not virtual ones. And then, demonstrate why most people really and truly want to obtain items only after selecting them, and how this fits in with identify and the new ideas of find (as the fellow at Google demonstrates). When you say that people no longer want to FIND, IDENTIFY, SELECT, or OBTAIN anything please note that I didn't mention anything. I explicitly pointed out that *I* actually want to do those tasks occasionally, but I confess that I am an inveterate bookman, while the vast majority of people are not. Perhaps you don't know what world I am living in, but I fear that you are stuck in the 1880s. The refusal to accept that 99% of people do not fit into these little pre-conceived FRBR user tasks is why I think that perhaps librarianship may be destined for extinction. We must free our minds from these pre-conceptions! It makes me very sad, but it may be. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First
Re: [RDA-L] The A in RDA
29.07.2013 00:10, Karen Coyle: This may be out of date, because I found it on a 2010 license [1], but it says: GRANT OF LICENSE ... Such bibliographic records and metadata may display DDC numbers, but shall not display DDC captions; This is from WebDewey, and I don't have any information about any restrictions coming from DDC in print. You may, or so I think, hand-copy a caption from the DDC printed edition and insert it into a record display. You may not, by some ingenious scheme, machine-copy a caption from DDC online for display in your catalog. To everybody, apart from lawyers, this must appear ridiculous as well as hugely annoying. For the library profession, the DDC case should habe been a warning to not ever again trust a basic tool of the profession to the exclusive care of free enterprise for exploitation as they find fit. Esp. this should not have happened with RDA. But then, as Jim Weinheimer made it clear, the profession is discussing only the D aspects of RDA, not the A in it although the A is much more important. OTOH, RDA doesn't even touch on many of the access criteria actually being used in library catalog databases but it deals with not much more than the very traditional access points that were already familiar in the 19th century. Further, if we hear that Google is doing a better job than library catalogs, then such ratings do not refer to the descriptions that G. presents but they refer to Access, nothing but Access. The ways G is presenting results are well thought-out, make no mistake about that, but they are 100% algorithmic, not based on rules to be observed by human inputters, and what you get to see is excerpts from the data, not augmented by artificial labels or by supplied data or modified by abbreviations or de-abbreviations or punctuation - nothing but raw data from the source, with search terms highlighted wherever possible. Are searchers confused or unhappy with this? Not as long as they can go on from that and Access something relevant or good enough straight away. Or in fewer words: With catalogs and cataloging, the journey is not the destination nor its own reward or half the fun, as Confucian thinking may have it, but there's no desire for a journey, or no interest in a catalog as such, nor in its use. B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] The A in RDA
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Bernhard Eversberg wrote: snip With catalogs and cataloging, the journey is not the destination nor its own reward or half the fun, as Confucian thinking may have it, but there's no desire for a journey, or no interest in a catalog as such, nor in its use. /snip I hesitate to give up on catalogs so easily. Yes, I have spent a good deal of my life with them, but it is not just a matter of nostalgia. I honestly believe that catalogs could provide something vital for the public that the Googles cannot and will not provide. The latest NSA revelations should not be ignored in this regard. The fact is, it is important to keep in mind that the Googles are *not* really finding/discovery tools similar to library catalogs and I think it is a mistake to look at them that way: the Googles are advertising agencies and probably the greatest advertising agencies that have ever existed. Why are they the greatest? Because they have more information about the public than any other advertising agency has ever had before. And they use that information to their own advantages, in all sorts of different ways. The public does not understand this subtle difference, and it's hard enough for me to keep it straight sometimes. I am currently reading Edward Bernays' Propaganda (1928) where he discusses what is public relations. I found it interesting when he explains what it is: His [i.e. the public relations expert] work and that of the advertising agency do not conflict with or duplicate each other. His first efforts are, naturally, devoted to analyzing his client's problems and making sure that what he has to offer the public is something which the public accepts or can be brought to accept. It is futile to attempt to sell an idea or to prepare the ground for a product that is basically unsound. He gives some examples, then continues: His next effort is to analyze his public. He studies the groups which must be reached, and the leaders through whom he may approach these groups. Social groups, economic groups, geographical groups, age groups, doctrinal groups, language groups, cultural groups, all these represent the divisions through which, on behalf of his client, he may talk to the public. Only after this double analysis has been made and the results collated, has the time come for the next step, the formulation of policies governing the general practice, procedure and habits of the client in all those aspects in which he comes in contact with the public. http://archive.org/stream/Propaganda1928ByEdwardL.Bernays/Propaganda(1928)%20by%20Edward%20L.%20Bernays#page/n31/mode/2up In another place, Bernays mentions how the public can be molded to accept what you have to offer (this has obvious political overtones and Bernays worked as a propagandist during WW), but it is true that if something is basically unsound, any attempts to work with it are futile. Instead of molding the public to accept catalogs, I would prefer that the library community mold the product (the finding tool for libraries) to the needs of their public. But of course, there has not been the research that Bernays mentioned so that we can discover *if* what we are making is basically unsound today, and if so, what can be done to improve it. It would also be important to get the public to know that that libraries are not in the business of getting gullible people to open their wallets, or trying to convert people to a way of thinking or a religion or something. I submit that such a tool would be strange for many people to even imagine today but if they did understand, I think it would be appreciated. That is, if it actually *worked* for people who used it. I just see no real attempts to get the catalog to work in practical ways for the mass of the public. James L. Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules
Re: [RDA-L] The A in RDA
29.07.2013 13:51, James L Weinheimer On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Bernhard Eversberg wrote: snip With catalogs and cataloging, the journey is not the destination nor its own reward or half the fun, as Confucian thinking may have it, but there's no desire for a journey, or no interest in a catalog as such, nor in its use. /snip I hesitate to give up on catalogs so easily. Yes, I have spent a good deal of my life with them, but it is not just a matter of nostalgia. I honestly believe that catalogs could provide something vital for the public that the Googles cannot and will not provide. The latest NSA revelations should not be ignored in this regard. Fully agreed, with all the rest you are saying about advertising! We only have to see that not just the general public but members of our profession are contemplating the catalog as being in a contest with advertisers' tools, instead of realizing that catalogs are meant and made to do different things for different reasons. The fact is, it is important to keep in mind that the Googles are *not* really finding/discovery tools similar to library catalogs and I think it is a mistake to look at them that way: the Googles are advertising agencies ... Fully agreed. To improve what catalogs are doing should be the motivation for new rules. On top of which should be the aspect of bringing together what belongs together, and this in more ways than RDA has in mind. Briefly: Augmeted and improved Access. Improved Description can be in the service of this, of course, but only in secondary ways. ... That is, if it actually *worked* for people who used it. I just see no real attempts to get the catalog to work in practical ways for the mass of the public. It does so in one rather indirect way though: to locate what users want, routed via WorldCat after they find a reference to a book in G. Booksearch. This may end up in the user's local library. The WorldCat out of itself and on its own, for all its retrieval power, might not have achieved that level of awareness and visibility in the public. B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
RDA is about describing bibliographic resources and their relationships and enabling access to those resources to meet our users needs. It is intended to be used as an online tool that can be consulted as needed once a cataloger has learned the basics. That is not different from earlier cataloging codes. What is different, is that now we can access those instructions online and we can build on the expertise of thousands of people to help improve those instructions and vocabularies to offer even better descriptions and access to those resources for our users -- now. - Brabara Tillett JSC Chair On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Ford Davey ford_da...@hotmail.com wrote: I don’t mean to be offensive; not to demean the hard work that has gone into (and the ongoing work) making RDA …. But, RDA is a nonsense! It’s about cataloguing the sake of cataloguing! I has nothing to do with access, or the user! Looking at this forum, and a couple of others; the discussion by “cataloguers” – and I recognize “names” who I would consider have experience of, and know their cataloguing seems to me to suggest that nobody really seems to know what they’re on about! That disturbs me, a lot! I would like to know how those of you who can “explain” to the rest of what the 33x fields are all about (and to be honest those explanations are far too wordy for me to follow!) …. How do you explain them to your users, you know the folks who actually want to find stuff! Who don’t want, or have the time to read through the equivalent of a 1,000 page manual (that at times looks as if t was put together by Lewis Carroll and a bunch of lawyer!); just in case there has been any changes since they last looked at it?? ** ** It’ll be OK when at some undetermined point in time (how long did RDA take?), some undetermined solution is put in place? ** ** Sorry to rant. ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *James Weinheimer *Sent:* 27 July 2013 14:59 *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA ** ** On 26/07/2013 22:10, JSC Chair wrote: snip Taking the bigger view is precisely what RDA will help us do - stop focusing on creating records and see how the resources we are describing fit into the bibliographic universe. We are living with lots of MARC limitations for now, but the data built using RDA will be especially useful when we can move beyond MARC. It is still usable in MARC just as records created with AAACR2 were useful in MARC, and RDA can even be used to create catalog card records, if that is your limited environment for now, but we want to look beyond the current limitations of just building a catalog to re-use of bibliographic data in the broader information community - to enable libraries to interact better in that larger realm where our users are - to connect users to the rich resources and related resources we have to offer and beyond. - Barbara Tillett JSC Chair /snip The idea that the problem is with records and that things will get better once they are discombobulated into various bits of data is a theory that has never been demonstrated. It also goes against reason: why should a separate bit of information such as Paging300/Paging or TitlePoems/Title make such a big difference? On their own, these little bits and pieces of information are completely meaningless and they must be brought together again--or recombobulated--if anything is to make sense. ( http://s3-media2.ak.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/Ao1Tpjx5r0ZFwHDZHb49Pg/l.jpg. This area apparently really exists at the airport in Milwaukee. I love it!) The fact is: catalogs currently do not have records as such, because in any catalog based on an RDBMS, everything is already discombobulated into separate tables for headings, language codes, perhaps dates and all sorts of things. Internally, each catalog may separate the information in different ways. Anyway, there is *nothing at all new* about getting rid of the record--it's been the case for decades. When a searcher of the catalog sees a record, these bits and pieces are brought together, and the human experiences the same thing as a record, although it can be displayed completely, partially, or it could be in many, many unique and novel ways. I think the argument has confused database structure with data transfer. For instance, I can't imagine anybody wanting just the Paging information or the SubjectChronologicalSubdivision without a lot of the rest of the record so that the final product will be coherent and useful. And internal database structure will continue to vary as tremendously as it does now no matter what library formats become. In my opinion, these are side issues and the fundamental question is: *if* there arrives the FRBR universe that is fragmented into little bits of atoms based on works
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
James has introduced a new word that I have not seen before discombobulated from combobulated also recombobulated. I looked up its definition and would recommend its meaning from the Urban Dictionary at http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=combobulation Meaning # 2 seems to fit RDA well, in my opinion or not?. Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 9:58 AM, James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com wrote: On 26/07/2013 22:10, JSC Chair wrote: snip Taking the bigger view is precisely what RDA will help us do - stop focusing on creating records and see how the resources we are describing fit into the bibliographic universe. We are living with lots of MARC limitations for now, but the data built using RDA will be especially useful when we can move beyond MARC. It is still usable in MARC just as records created with AAACR2 were useful in MARC, and RDA can even be used to create catalog card records, if that is your limited environment for now, but we want to look beyond the current limitations of just building a catalog to re-use of bibliographic data in the broader information community - to enable libraries to interact better in that larger realm where our users are - to connect users to the rich resources and related resources we have to offer and beyond. - Barbara Tillett JSC Chair /snip The idea that the problem is with records and that things will get better once they are discombobulated into various bits of data is a theory that has never been demonstrated. It also goes against reason: why should a separate bit of information such as Paging300/Paging or TitlePoems/Title make such a big difference? On their own, these little bits and pieces of information are completely meaningless and they must be brought together again--or recombobulated--if anything is to make sense. ( http://s3-media2.ak.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/Ao1Tpjx5r0ZFwHDZHb49Pg/l.jpg. This area apparently really exists at the airport in Milwaukee. I love it!) The fact is: catalogs currently do not have records as such, because in any catalog based on an RDBMS, everything is already discombobulated into separate tables for headings, language codes, perhaps dates and all sorts of things. Internally, each catalog may separate the information in different ways. Anyway, there is *nothing at all new* about getting rid of the record--it's been the case for decades. When a searcher of the catalog sees a record, these bits and pieces are brought together, and the human experiences the same thing as a record, although it can be displayed completely, partially, or it could be in many, many unique and novel ways. I think the argument has confused database structure with data transfer. For instance, I can't imagine anybody wanting just the Paging information or the SubjectChronologicalSubdivision without a lot of the rest of the record so that the final product will be coherent and useful. And internal database structure will continue to vary as tremendously as it does now no matter what library formats become. In my opinion, these are side issues and the fundamental question is: *if* there arrives the FRBR universe that is fragmented into little bits of atoms based on works/expressions/manifestations/items, I wonder who will own what? We have already had serious issues of who owns which records, so if there are work instances, or as BIBFRAME seems to be leaning toward work-expression instances, I wonder who will own those work-expression instances? Without that information (in essence the headings but other info as well, such as language and maybe dates, etc.) the manifestation records lose the majority of their value. Will those work-expression instances be placed into the public domain? If not, it would be like within the internal structures of your own library's catalog, you suddenly didn't own the information in your subject tables or the personal names in your names tables. Or will work-expression instances be owned by some agency? And if they are owned, who will they be and how much will they charge? I think that's a pretty important issue to settle. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *First Thus Facebook Page* https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html -- Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz New York Public Library Library Services Center 31-11 Thompson Ave. Long Island City, N.Y. 11101 (917) 229-9603 e-mail: wojciechsiemaszkiew...@bookops.org Please note, any opinions expressed above do not necessarily reflect those of The New York Public Library.
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
Let's help our users. This is the reason we discuss issues here and assist with proposals to improve RDA :) Happy Monday! Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:53 AM, JSC Chair jscch...@rdatoolkit.org wrote: RDA is about describing bibliographic resources and their relationships and enabling access to those resources to meet our users needs. It is intended to be used as an online tool that can be consulted as needed once a cataloger has learned the basics. That is not different from earlier cataloging codes. What is different, is that now we can access those instructions online and we can build on the expertise of thousands of people to help improve those instructions and vocabularies to offer even better descriptions and access to those resources for our users -- now. - Brabara Tillett JSC Chair On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Ford Davey ford_da...@hotmail.comwrote: I don’t mean to be offensive; not to demean the hard work that has gone into (and the ongoing work) making RDA …. But, RDA is a nonsense! It’s about cataloguing the sake of cataloguing! I has nothing to do with access, or the user! Looking at this forum, and a couple of others; the discussion by “cataloguers” – and I recognize “names” who I would consider have experience of, and know their cataloguing seems to me to suggest that nobody really seems to know what they’re on about! That disturbs me, a lot! I would like to know how those of you who can “explain” to the rest of what the 33x fields are all about (and to be honest those explanations are far too wordy for me to follow!) …. How do you explain them to your users, you know the folks who actually want to find stuff! Who don’t want, or have the time to read through the equivalent of a 1,000 page manual (that at times looks as if t was put together by Lewis Carroll and a bunch of lawyer!); just in case there has been any changes since they last looked at it??*** * ** ** It’ll be OK when at some undetermined point in time (how long did RDA take?), some undetermined solution is put in place? ** ** Sorry to rant. ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *James Weinheimer *Sent:* 27 July 2013 14:59 *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA ** ** On 26/07/2013 22:10, JSC Chair wrote: snip Taking the bigger view is precisely what RDA will help us do - stop focusing on creating records and see how the resources we are describing fit into the bibliographic universe. We are living with lots of MARC limitations for now, but the data built using RDA will be especially useful when we can move beyond MARC. It is still usable in MARC just as records created with AAACR2 were useful in MARC, and RDA can even be used to create catalog card records, if that is your limited environment for now, but we want to look beyond the current limitations of just building a catalog to re-use of bibliographic data in the broader information community - to enable libraries to interact better in that larger realm where our users are - to connect users to the rich resources and related resources we have to offer and beyond. - Barbara Tillett JSC Chair /snip The idea that the problem is with records and that things will get better once they are discombobulated into various bits of data is a theory that has never been demonstrated. It also goes against reason: why should a separate bit of information such as Paging300/Paging or TitlePoems/Title make such a big difference? On their own, these little bits and pieces of information are completely meaningless and they must be brought together again--or recombobulated--if anything is to make sense. ( http://s3-media2.ak.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/Ao1Tpjx5r0ZFwHDZHb49Pg/l.jpg. This area apparently really exists at the airport in Milwaukee. I love it!) The fact is: catalogs currently do not have records as such, because in any catalog based on an RDBMS, everything is already discombobulated into separate tables for headings, language codes, perhaps dates and all sorts of things. Internally, each catalog may separate the information in different ways. Anyway, there is *nothing at all new* about getting rid of the record--it's been the case for decades. When a searcher of the catalog sees a record, these bits and pieces are brought together, and the human experiences the same thing as a record, although it can be displayed completely, partially, or it could be in many, many unique and novel ways. I think the argument has confused database structure with data transfer. For instance, I can't imagine anybody wanting just the Paging information or the SubjectChronologicalSubdivision without a lot of the rest of the record so that the final product will be coherent and useful. And internal database structure
Re: [RDA-L] The A in RDA
-Original Message- From: James L Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 13:51:25 +0200 I hesitate to give up on catalogs so easily. Me too ! I still hope to see a catalog able to answer my favourite query: fiction written by German speaking female authors (born in 19th century) I do not expect Google to do that. Or should I ? Dan -- Dan Matei director, Direcția Patrimoniu Cultural Mobil, Imaterial și Digital [Movable, Intangible and Digital Heritage Department] (aka CIMEC) Institutul Național al Patrimoniului [National Heritage Institute], București [Bucharest, Romania] tel. 0725 253 222, (+4)021 317 90 72; fax (+4)021 317 90 64, www.cimec.ro
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
I'm afraid Mr. Davey's assessment is much closer to present reality than Dr. Tillett's. Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of JSC Chair Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 8:53 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA RDA is about describing bibliographic resources and their relationships and enabling access to those resources to meet our users needs. It is intended to be used as an online tool that can be consulted as needed once a cataloger has learned the basics. That is not different from earlier cataloging codes. What is different, is that now we can access those instructions online and we can build on the expertise of thousands of people to help improve those instructions and vocabularies to offer even better descriptions and access to those resources for our users -- now. - Brabara Tillett JSC Chair On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Ford Davey ford_da...@hotmail.commailto:ford_da...@hotmail.com wrote: I don't mean to be offensive; not to demean the hard work that has gone into (and the ongoing work) making RDA But, RDA is a nonsense! It's about cataloguing the sake of cataloguing! I has nothing to do with access, or the user! Looking at this forum, and a couple of others; the discussion by cataloguers - and I recognize names who I would consider have experience of, and know their cataloguing seems to me to suggest that nobody really seems to know what they're on about! That disturbs me, a lot! I would like to know how those of you who can explain to the rest of what the 33x fields are all about (and to be honest those explanations are far too wordy for me to follow!) How do you explain them to your users, you know the folks who actually want to find stuff! Who don't want, or have the time to read through the equivalent of a 1,000 page manual (that at times looks as if t was put together by Lewis Carroll and a bunch of lawyer!); just in case there has been any changes since they last looked at it?? It'll be OK when at some undetermined point in time (how long did RDA take?), some undetermined solution is put in place? Sorry to rant. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer Sent: 27 July 2013 14:59 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA On 26/07/2013 22:10, JSC Chair wrote: snip Taking the bigger view is precisely what RDA will help us do - stop focusing on creating records and see how the resources we are describing fit into the bibliographic universe. We are living with lots of MARC limitations for now, but the data built using RDA will be especially useful when we can move beyond MARC. It is still usable in MARC just as records created with AAACR2 were useful in MARC, and RDA can even be used to create catalog card records, if that is your limited environment for now, but we want to look beyond the current limitations of just building a catalog to re-use of bibliographic data in the broader information community - to enable libraries to interact better in that larger realm where our users are - to connect users to the rich resources and related resources we have to offer and beyond. - Barbara Tillett JSC Chair /snip The idea that the problem is with records and that things will get better once they are discombobulated into various bits of data is a theory that has never been demonstrated. It also goes against reason: why should a separate bit of information such as Paging300/Paging or TitlePoems/Title make such a big difference? On their own, these little bits and pieces of information are completely meaningless and they must be brought together again--or recombobulated--if anything is to make sense. (http://s3-media2.ak.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/Ao1Tpjx5r0ZFwHDZHb49Pg/l.jpg. This area apparently really exists at the airport in Milwaukee. I love it!) The fact is: catalogs currently do not have records as such, because in any catalog based on an RDBMS, everything is already discombobulated into separate tables for headings, language codes, perhaps dates and all sorts of things. Internally, each catalog may separate the information in different ways. Anyway, there is *nothing at all new* about getting rid of the record--it's been the case for decades. When a searcher of the catalog sees a record, these bits and pieces are brought together, and the human experiences the same thing as a record, although it can be displayed completely, partially, or it could be in many, many unique and novel ways. I think the argument has confused database structure with data transfer. For instance, I can't imagine anybody wanting
Re: [RDA-L] The A in RDA
I still hope to see a catalog able to answer my favourite query: fiction written by German speaking female authors (born in 19th century) I do not expect Google to do that. Or should I? Wikipedia actually does do that: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frauenliteratur#Deutschsprachige_Autorinnen_1870.E2.80.931945 However, as a feminist I do object strenuously to this sort of thing: http://www.freakonomics.com/2013/04/26/is-wikipedia-ghettoizing-female-writers/ Christina Linklater Technical Services Houghton Library Harvard Yard Harvard University Cambridge, MA 02138 e: link...@fas.harvard.edu t: (617) 496-9190 f: (617) 495-1376 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Dan Matei [d...@cimec.ro] Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 10:33 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] The A in RDA -Original Message- From: James L Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 13:51:25 +0200 I hesitate to give up on catalogs so easily. Me too ! I still hope to see a catalog able to answer my favourite query: fiction written by German speaking female authors (born in 19th century) I do not expect Google to do that. Or should I ? Dan -- Dan Matei director, Direcția Patrimoniu Cultural Mobil, Imaterial și Digital [Movable, Intangible and Digital Heritage Department] (aka CIMEC) Institutul Național al Patrimoniului [National Heritage Institute], București [Bucharest, Romania] tel. 0725 253 222, (+4)021 317 90 72; fax (+4)021 317 90 64, www.cimec.ro
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
I've not seen James' word before either. Even with everyone's help here, I cannot decided for myself, whether A in RDA stands for Ambiguous, Alternative, or Aught. If I tell our patrons RDA is a Combobulation of content, media, and carrier, would I be wrong, or just unintelligible? Jack Jack Wu Franciscan University of Steubenville j...@franciscan.edu Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz wojciechsiemaszkiew...@bookops.org 7/29/2013 10:00 AM James has introduced a new word that I have not seen before discombobulated from combobulated also recombobulated. I looked up its definition and would recommend its meaning from the Urban Dictionary at http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=combobulation Meaning # 2 seems to fit RDA well, in my opinion or not?. Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 9:58 AM, James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com wrote: On 26/07/2013 22:10, JSC Chair wrote: snip Taking the bigger view is precisely what RDA will help us do - stop focusing on creating records and see how the resources we are describing fit into the bibliographic universe. We are living with lots of MARC limitations for now, but the data built using RDA will be especially useful when we can move beyond MARC. It is still usable in MARC just as records created with AAACR2 were useful in MARC, and RDA can even be used to create catalog card records, if that is your limited environment for now, but we want to look beyond the current limitations of just building a catalog to re-use of bibliographic data in the broader information community - to enable libraries to interact better in that larger realm where our users are - to connect users to the rich resources and related resources we have to offer and beyond. - Barbara Tillett JSC Chair /snip The idea that the problem is with records and that things will get better once they are discombobulated into various bits of data is a theory that has never been demonstrated. It also goes against reason: why should a separate bit of information such as Paging300/Paging or TitlePoems/Title make such a big difference? On their own, these little bits and pieces of information are completely meaningless and they must be brought together again--or recombobulated--if anything is to make sense. (http://s3-media2.ak.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/Ao1Tpjx5r0ZFwHDZHb49Pg/l.jpg. This area apparently really exists at the airport in Milwaukee. I love it!) The fact is: catalogs currently do not have records as such, because in any catalog based on an RDBMS, everything is already discombobulated into separate tables for headings, language codes, perhaps dates and all sorts of things. Internally, each catalog may separate the information in different ways. Anyway, there is *nothing at all new* about getting rid of the record--it's been the case for decades. When a searcher of the catalog sees a record, these bits and pieces are brought together, and the human experiences the same thing as a record, although it can be displayed completely, partially, or it could be in many, many unique and novel ways. I think the argument has confused database structure with data transfer. For instance, I can't imagine anybody wanting just the Paging information or the SubjectChronologicalSubdivision without a lot of the rest of the record so that the final product will be coherent and useful. And internal database structure will continue to vary as tremendously as it does now no matter what library formats become. In my opinion, these are side issues and the fundamental question is: *if* there arrives the FRBR universe that is fragmented into little bits of atoms based on works/expressions/manifestations/items, I wonder who will own what? We have already had serious issues of who owns which records, so if there are work instances, or as BIBFRAME seems to be leaning toward work-expression instances, I wonder who will own those work-expression instances? Without that information (in essence the headings but other info as well, such as language and maybe dates, etc.) the manifestation records lose the majority of their value. Will those work-expression instances be placed into the public domain? If not, it would be like within the internal structures of your own library's catalog, you suddenly didn't own the information in your subject tables or the personal names in your names tables. Or will work-expression instances be owned by some agency? And if they are owned, who will they be and how much will they charge? I think that's a pretty important issue to settle. -- James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com First Thus http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ First Thus Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus Cooperative Cataloging Rules http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ Cataloging Matters Podcasts http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html -- Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz New York Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
29.07.2013 8:53, Tillett, Barbara: RDA is about describing bibliographic resources and their relationships and enabling access to those resources to meet our users needs. It is intended to be used as an online tool that can be consulted as needed once a cataloger has learned the basics. That is not different from earlier cataloging codes. One cannot help but interject: Except for the price. What is different, is that now we can access those instructions online and we can build on the expertise of thousands of people to help improve those instructions and vocabularies... Here, one wonders how many thousands are actually participating in this way. What statistics are there? How many subscriptions, how many searches and rule accesses per day? How many participants in discussions inside the Toolkit environment, having tackled how many issues? And how many are staying out because of the costs or for other reasons? Is the latter figure very low or, if not, a matter of concern for the JSC? I understand that the online aspect, with all it entails, is something radically new that will take its time to fully evolve. But still, making those statistics, and the growth of those figures, available might create more confidence in this endeavor. B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Ford Davey Sent: July-28-13 9:57 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA ... That disturbs me, a lot! I would like to know how those of you who can explain to the rest of what the 33x fields are all about (and to be honest those explanations are far too wordy for me to follow!) How do you explain them to your users, you know the folks who actually want to find stuff! Separating content from carrier is a basic deduplication issue. One should be able to easily assert: This text in this volume is the same text as found in that microfilm and the same text you see online. as well as The text in this volume is the same work as that spoken word form found in that e-audiobook. Various methods have arisen that help users find and distinguish these various forms for the same content. Currently my online catalog uses a mixture of descriptive fields and authority headings, along with icons and terms generated off of MARC fixed fields. All of this already capture some of the essence of what RDA is about, but not to the extent that would be most helpful to users. The main problem now is the vast complexity of the AACR2/MARC structure, originally and still rooted to a large extent in card display restrictions requiring vast manuals to wade through to figure what works and what doesn't in any one online environment. Consider the complexity of how MARC fixed fields work-- selecting certain general codes trigger subsequent groupings. Selecting certain Leader fields will generate different 008 fields. The first code in a 006 or 007 determines the sequence that follows. The RDA content-media-carrier terms follow very closely what MARC has always done-- general categories give way to more specific attributes related to the general category. So in explaining this to other librarians and to users, there are really only two salient points to get across: 1. Recognize that the same content can be found in different carriers, and there are ways of defining the character of this content separate from the details for the carrier. 2. General categories are used to group more specific categories. Users will often need those specific categories to select what they need (they may want Blu-Ray and may not find the general term videodisc that useful). But general categories do what they've always done-- group related information together, and allow for a layer of comparison between different things. Basically RDA took all of our existing general categories (from the GMD, from MARC fixed fields, etc.) and hammered out a general layer of categories that are more consistent among themselves. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
Barbara said:
That is not different from earlier cataloging codes.
RDA is *very* different from earlier codes in that:
1) The expense of consulting RDA is a recurring license fee, rather
than a one time capital expenditure.
2) Unlike the clear English of AAR2 (thanks to Michael Gorman), the
language is complex and difficult to comprehend.
3) The arrangement of RDA is not parallel to ISBD or MARC, but rather
according to FRBR/WEMI, which not even the proposed Bibframe (at
present) follows.
4) Although the A stands for access, there is not one word about
indexing or display.
5) Standareds which have evolved since Panizzi are abandoned (e.g,
srandardization of capitalization).
6) Practices seen as basic by Margaret Mann are abandoned (e.g.,
justification of entries).
7) Internationalization is abandoned (4.g., ISBD inclusions).
I've catalogued during the Red/Green books, AACR1, and AACR2. The
present situation is unprecidented.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
Thank you!
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: 29 July 2013 17:27
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
Barbara said:
That is not different from earlier cataloging codes.
RDA is *very* different from earlier codes in that:
1) The expense of consulting RDA is a recurring license fee, rather than a
one time capital expenditure.
2) Unlike the clear English of AAR2 (thanks to Michael Gorman), the language
is complex and difficult to comprehend.
3) The arrangement of RDA is not parallel to ISBD or MARC, but rather
according to FRBR/WEMI, which not even the proposed Bibframe (at
present) follows.
4) Although the A stands for access, there is not one word about indexing
or display.
5) Standareds which have evolved since Panizzi are abandoned (e.g,
srandardization of capitalization).
6) Practices seen as basic by Margaret Mann are abandoned (e.g.,
justification of entries).
7) Internationalization is abandoned (4.g., ISBD inclusions).
I've catalogued during the Red/Green books, AACR1, and AACR2. The present
situation is unprecidented.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
-Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod Sent: July-29-13 12:27 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA Barbara said: That is not different from earlier cataloging codes. RDA is *very* different from earlier codes in that: There will always be those say it's gone too far and those that say it's not gone far enough. 2) Unlike the clear English of AAR2 (thanks to Michael Gorman), the language is complex and difficult to comprehend. As was demonstrated on cataloging mailing lists over the years many of the wording difficulties that you cited as problems in RDA actually had their roots in AACR2 and were often lifted straight out of the old context into the new. Do you remember multiple statements of responsibility and functions of persons? Your critique of RDA at the time was based on a misreading of the poor language originating in AACR2. 3) The arrangement of RDA is not parallel to ISBD or MARC, but rather according to FRBR/WEMI, which not even the proposed Bibframe (at present) follows. Both RDA and Bibframe follow modern data modeling techniques, such as the entity-relationship analysis. Surely you're not suggesting that Bibframe has a closer affinity with the flat file card catalog paradigm of AACR2? 4) Although the A stands for access, there is not one word about indexing or display. There are appendixes and tools and links that link to all sorts of display and encoding schemes. There is a word on display and indexing-- one shouldn't mix it in with the content standard, which would have (and has had) the effect of precluding better displays and fouling up opportunities for better systems. 5) Standareds which have evolved since Panizzi are abandoned (e.g, srandardization of capitalization). Except it's still there, and there is recognition that for local practices and for special projects and for varying international traditions different approaches can be taken given the priorities of the cataloging institution while still maintaining compatibility in ways that matter. 7) Internationalization is abandoned (4.g., ISBD inclusions). Registered elements and vocabulary is a better basis for internationalization than overreliance on free text. There is little logic in selective Latin when the rest of the description is in the language of the agency, and then ignoring the major new emphasis in RDA on controlled vocabulary for many elements. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
You would be wrong - Barbara On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Jack Wu j...@franciscan.edu wrote: I've not seen James' word before either. Even with everyone's help here, I cannot decided for myself, whether A in RDA stands for Ambiguous, Alternative, or Aught. If I tell our patrons RDA is a Combobulation of content, media, and carrier, would I be wrong, or just unintelligible? Jack Jack Wu Franciscan University of Steubenville j...@franciscan.edu Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz wojciechsiemaszkiew...@bookops.org 7/29/2013 10:00 AM James has introduced a new word that I have not seen before discombobulated from combobulated also recombobulated. I looked up its definition and would recommend its meaning from the Urban Dictionary at http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=combobulation Meaning # 2 seems to fit RDA well, in my opinion or not?. Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 9:58 AM, James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com wrote: On 26/07/2013 22:10, JSC Chair wrote: snip Taking the bigger view is precisely what RDA will help us do - stop focusing on creating records and see how the resources we are describing fit into the bibliographic universe. We are living with lots of MARC limitations for now, but the data built using RDA will be especially useful when we can move beyond MARC. It is still usable in MARC just as records created with AAACR2 were useful in MARC, and RDA can even be used to create catalog card records, if that is your limited environment for now, but we want to look beyond the current limitations of just building a catalog to re-use of bibliographic data in the broader information community - to enable libraries to interact better in that larger realm where our users are - to connect users to the rich resources and related resources we have to offer and beyond. - Barbara Tillett JSC Chair /snip The idea that the problem is with records and that things will get better once they are discombobulated into various bits of data is a theory that has never been demonstrated. It also goes against reason: why should a separate bit of information such as Paging300/Paging or TitlePoems/Title make such a big difference? On their own, these little bits and pieces of information are completely meaningless and they must be brought together again--or recombobulated--if anything is to make sense. ( http://s3-media2.ak.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/Ao1Tpjx5r0ZFwHDZHb49Pg/l.jpg. This area apparently really exists at the airport in Milwaukee. I love it!) The fact is: catalogs currently do not have records as such, because in any catalog based on an RDBMS, everything is already discombobulated into separate tables for headings, language codes, perhaps dates and all sorts of things. Internally, each catalog may separate the information in different ways. Anyway, there is *nothing at all new* about getting rid of the record--it's been the case for decades. When a searcher of the catalog sees a record, these bits and pieces are brought together, and the human experiences the same thing as a record, although it can be displayed completely, partially, or it could be in many, many unique and novel ways. I think the argument has confused database structure with data transfer. For instance, I can't imagine anybody wanting just the Paging information or the SubjectChronologicalSubdivision without a lot of the rest of the record so that the final product will be coherent and useful. And internal database structure will continue to vary as tremendously as it does now no matter what library formats become. In my opinion, these are side issues and the fundamental question is: *if* there arrives the FRBR universe that is fragmented into little bits of atoms based on works/expressions/manifestations/items, I wonder who will own what? We have already had serious issues of who owns which records, so if there are work instances, or as BIBFRAME seems to be leaning toward work-expression instances, I wonder who will own those work-expression instances? Without that information (in essence the headings but other info as well, such as language and maybe dates, etc.) the manifestation records lose the majority of their value. Will those work-expression instances be placed into the public domain? If not, it would be like within the internal structures of your own library's catalog, you suddenly didn't own the information in your subject tables or the personal names in your names tables. Or will work-expression instances be owned by some agency? And if they are owned, who will they be and how much will they charge? I think that's a pretty important issue to settle. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *First Thus Facebook Page* https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
On 29/07/2013 15:53, JSC Chair wrote: snip RDA is about describing bibliographic resources and their relationships and enabling access to those resources to meet our users needs. It is intended to be used as an online tool that can be consulted as needed once a cataloger has learned the basics. That is not different from earlier cataloging codes. What is different, is that now we can access those instructions online and we can build on the expertise of thousands of people to help improve those instructions and vocabularies to offer even better descriptions and access to those resources for our users -- now. /snip These are the sorts of platitudes that we have heard over and over but everything remains abstract because nothing is ever demonstrated. As a result, everyone can interpret for him- or herself what e.g. user needs means. I think that very few catalogers today would maintain that the FRBR user tasks are what people really and truly want more than other types of tasks. With the introduction of keyword searching, the traditional, logical arrangements in the card catalogs was destroyed in OPACs and was replaced with arrangement by latest date of publication, or now with the term I do not understand (at least in catalogs) of relevance ranking. Only in the last few years has it been possible to do the FRBR user tasks in catalogs with facets, such as Worldcat, it's easier to do the FRBR user tasks than ever before! And yet nobody flies up and announces Mission Accomplished. Why haven't people been happy with this accomplishment? The answer is obvious: the FRBR user tasks are *not* what people really want to do. Therefore, words such as user needs wind up meaningless because nobody has done the work to find out what those user needs are. Additionally, things are changing so fast that it is probable that once someone determines a genuine user need it already will have changed. Once again, cataloging must change--only a blind person couldn't see it--but RDA does not represent any of changes that are needed. The irrelevant RDA changes to the headings are a case in point: those changes are already too expensive for many libraries to undertake, and the changes are just silly. They don't deal with any of the real problems people have with the catalog. (This was discussed on Autocat) At the same time, libraries are closing. What will happen in Detroit and Chicago? We just saw about Miami-Dade county. People are *losing their jobs*. And yet, catalogers are supposed to spend their time typing out abbreviations and inputting relator codes that won't be able to be implemented for years and years and only after enormous cost. We can no longer accept the tired, old mantra of user needs. Unfortunately, RDA is just one more set of cataloging rules that people will not follow. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *First Thus Facebook Page* https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
Thomas said:
There will always be those say it's gone too far and those that say
.it's not gone far enough.
It seems to me both are true. It was gone too far in abandoning
accepted standards (e.g., sentence capitalization, justification of
entries), but has not gone far enough in correcting some AACR2 and
MARC practices (e.g. alternate titles as part of title proper).
That RDA *allows* one to continue standard practice is no defence. We
are suffering the loss of consistency in decrypting the same type of
resource by different agencies.
.. many of the wording difficulties that you cited as problems in RDA
actually had their roots in AACR2 and were often lifted straight out
of the old context into the new.
Since RDA is supposed to be an improvement over AACR2, that hardly
seems a defense to me.
Both RDA and Bibframe follow modern data modeling techniques, such as
the entity-relationship analysis.
The phrase entity-relationship analysis is opaque to many, with no
relationship to their daily work. The same applies to much of the new
terminology being tossed about.
It seems to me that rules should be arranged in the order in which
they are needed. The general description rules are now needed in ISBD
order. Unless/until we have an interface with WEMI order, the present
RDA arrangement is a major handicap to our daily work.
RDA implementation should have waited for a WEMI coding system and
interface, and still might not have been a good idea. When libraries
are closing due to economic hardship, this does not seem the best time
to add this burden to them.
-- one shouldn't mix it in with the content standard, which would
have (and has had) the effect of precluding better displays and
fouling up opportunities for better systems.
The purpose of content is to allow indexing and display to provide
access to resources. Content without reference to utilization is
pointless. Systems developers need guidance.
Except it's still there, and there is recognition that for local
practices ...
Which will result in great variety. IFLA's ideal of UBC, universal
bibliographic control, with the description prepared in the country of
publications used internationally, is severely damaged.
Registered elements and vocabulary is a better basis for
internationalization than overreliance on free text. There is little
.logic in selective Latin when the rest of the description is in the
.language of the agency ...
In the absence of ISBD inclusions, what language should we use for a
Spanish record going to an English/French bilingual catalogue? Most
of the data in the descriptive portion of the record was transcribed.
Additions in the language of the agency were mainly limited to notes.
Inserting the language of the agency into the description (2XX) is
new, apart from GMDs, and those were single words, often cognants, not
long phrases.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
-Original Message- From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca] Sent: July-29-13 2:31 PM To: Brenndorfer, Thomas Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA Both RDA and Bibframe follow modern data modeling techniques, such as the entity-relationship analysis. The phrase entity-relationship analysis is opaque to many, with no relationship to their daily work. The same applies to much of the new terminology being tossed about. No, that's simply wrong. My daily work is based on an ILS that utilizes data models such as entity-relationships for a vast array of functions. I've seen the rapid improvements made to Circulation and Acquisition and other modules in part because of underlying entity-relationship structures. Such improvements are slow in coming to traditional catalog records, in part because they are not amenable to the kind of improvements found elsewhere. Years ago I sat in a class with students learning database design. It was painfully obvious that the rest of the world was using things like entity-relationship models and creating applications loaded with functionality. It seems to me that rules should be arranged in the order in which they are needed. The general description rules are now needed in ISBD order. Unless/until we have an interface with WEMI order, the present RDA arrangement is a major handicap to our daily work. No, most systems work better with an entity-relationship model. I first noticed the discrepancies in the late 1990s when I started to customize web-based OPACs. It was far easier to translate to the lingua franca of entity-relationships than to use worn-out catalog terms for building card catalogs. It was easier to see the possible functionality that could accrue with a content standard redesign than it was to spend time with the kludges and workarounds that were increasingly obvious with AACR2-MARC systems. Catalogers today already have to invest a vast amount of time to master the intricacies of MARC and AACR2. When I look at the sample RDA records, and the likely workforms associated with them, I see a return to basics and a much easier time for catalogers. Once you learn the entity-relationship model you can't shake it. The reason is obvious. You can take that knowledge and instantly translate it into how systems today maximize use of the catalog data. It's much harder to do that when stuck with a card catalog paradigm, and the language rooted in that era. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
Even after a few years of hearing this, I'm still trying to figure out what are these other types of tasks users have that do not fit into the FRBR user tasks. Would it be possible to list just a few of them? And not dissertations about them, but just some succinct examples. I have a feeling (a very strong one) that if we're able to come to agreement about the meaning of the FRBR tasks there would be much less disagreement about what users are actually doing. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edumailto:k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! James Weinheimer wrote: I think that very few catalogers today would maintain that the FRBR user tasks are what people really and truly want more than other types of tasks.
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
My response of You would be wrong was to Jack Wu's suggestion of what to tell patrons. Not sure why you would be discussing cataloging codes with patrons in the first place. Many thanks for the clarity from Thomas Brenndorfer (thank you, Thomas) - Barbara On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Jack Wu j...@franciscan.edu wrote: I've not seen James' word before either. Even with everyone's help here, I cannot decided for myself, whether A in RDA stands for Ambiguous, Alternative, or Aught. If I tell our patrons RDA is a Combobulation of content, media, and carrier, would I be wrong, or just unintelligible? Jack Jack Wu Franciscan University of Steubenville j...@franciscan.edu Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz wojciechsiemaszkiew...@bookops.org 7/29/2013 10:00 AM James has introduced a new word that I have not seen before discombobulated from combobulated also recombobulated. I looked up its definition and would recommend its meaning from the Urban Dictionary at http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=combobulation Meaning # 2 seems to fit RDA well, in my opinion or not?. Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 9:58 AM, James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com wrote: On 26/07/2013 22:10, JSC Chair wrote: snip Taking the bigger view is precisely what RDA will help us do - stop focusing on creating records and see how the resources we are describing fit into the bibliographic universe. We are living with lots of MARC limitations for now, but the data built using RDA will be especially useful when we can move beyond MARC. It is still usable in MARC just as records created with AAACR2 were useful in MARC, and RDA can even be used to create catalog card records, if that is your limited environment for now, but we want to look beyond the current limitations of just building a catalog to re-use of bibliographic data in the broader information community - to enable libraries to interact better in that larger realm where our users are - to connect users to the rich resources and related resources we have to offer and beyond. - Barbara Tillett JSC Chair /snip The idea that the problem is with records and that things will get better once they are discombobulated into various bits of data is a theory that has never been demonstrated. It also goes against reason: why should a separate bit of information such as Paging300/Paging or TitlePoems/Title make such a big difference? On their own, these little bits and pieces of information are completely meaningless and they must be brought together again--or recombobulated--if anything is to make sense. ( http://s3-media2.ak.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/Ao1Tpjx5r0ZFwHDZHb49Pg/l.jpg. This area apparently really exists at the airport in Milwaukee. I love it!) The fact is: catalogs currently do not have records as such, because in any catalog based on an RDBMS, everything is already discombobulated into separate tables for headings, language codes, perhaps dates and all sorts of things. Internally, each catalog may separate the information in different ways. Anyway, there is *nothing at all new* about getting rid of the record--it's been the case for decades. When a searcher of the catalog sees a record, these bits and pieces are brought together, and the human experiences the same thing as a record, although it can be displayed completely, partially, or it could be in many, many unique and novel ways. I think the argument has confused database structure with data transfer. For instance, I can't imagine anybody wanting just the Paging information or the SubjectChronologicalSubdivision without a lot of the rest of the record so that the final product will be coherent and useful. And internal database structure will continue to vary as tremendously as it does now no matter what library formats become. In my opinion, these are side issues and the fundamental question is: *if* there arrives the FRBR universe that is fragmented into little bits of atoms based on works/expressions/manifestations/items, I wonder who will own what? We have already had serious issues of who owns which records, so if there are work instances, or as BIBFRAME seems to be leaning toward work-expression instances, I wonder who will own those work-expression instances? Without that information (in essence the headings but other info as well, such as language and maybe dates, etc.) the manifestation records lose the majority of their value. Will those work-expression instances be placed into the public domain? If not, it would be like within the internal structures of your own library's catalog, you suddenly didn't own the information in your subject tables or the personal names in your names tables. Or will work-expression instances be owned by some agency? And if they are owned, who will they be and how much will they charge? I think that's a pretty important issue to settle. -- *James Weinheimer*
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
Elaine Svenonius suggests that a fifth objective of navigate should be added to the existing four (FISO), where navigate is about moving through the bibliographic universe, as expressed in a database, to find works related to a given work. She bases this on what research into information seeking behaviour tells us users want to do, and on the fact that 'the bibliographic codes of rules used to organise documents assume its existence' (p. 18-20) Svenonius, E. (2000). The intellectual foundation of information organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press I continue to be concerned that the extensive published research into information behaviour (including information seeking) is ignored, or at least frequently overlooked, by the cataloguing community in these discussions. To take one prominent, Fisher, K. E., Erdelez, S., McKechnie, L. E. F. (Eds.). (2005). Theories of information behavior. Medford, NJ: Published for the American Society for Information Science and Technology by Information Today. Or consider much of what Tom (TD) Wilson has written (among many dozens of others). And there is a lot written in languages other than English which does not get noticed (thanks to David Bade for making this point on other occasions). In the light of information behaviour research, I think we could unpack the ideas behind 'find' considerably more than we have. Identify and select are not necessarily separate processes either. Amanda Amanda Cossham Principal Lecturer, Programme Leader (ILS Majors) School of Information Science and Technology [cid:image001.gif@01CE8D06.C6295200] Phone +64 4 9135518 or 0508 650200 ext:5518 | Fax +64 4 9135948 3 Cleary Street, Waterloo | Private Bag 31914, Lower Hutt 5040 http://www.openpolytechnic.ac.nz Please consider the environment before printing this email. Kevin M Randall wrote: Even after a few years of hearing this, I'm still trying to figure out what are these other types of tasks users have that do not fit into the FRBR user tasks. Would it be possible to list just a few of them? And not dissertations about them, but just some succinct examples. I have a feeling (a very strong one) that if we're able to come to agreement about the meaning of the FRBR tasks there would be much less disagreement about what users are actually doing. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edumailto:k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! James Weinheimer wrote: I think that very few catalogers today would maintain that the FRBR user tasks are what people really and truly want more than other types of tasks. inline: image001.gif
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
I don't mean to be offensive; not to demean the hard work that has gone into (and the ongoing work) making RDA .. But, RDA is a nonsense! It's about cataloguing the sake of cataloguing! I has nothing to do with access, or the user! Looking at this forum, and a couple of others; the discussion by cataloguers - and I recognize names who I would consider have experience of, and know their cataloguing seems to me to suggest that nobody really seems to know what they're on about! That disturbs me, a lot! I would like to know how those of you who can explain to the rest of what the 33x fields are all about (and to be honest those explanations are far too wordy for me to follow!) .. How do you explain them to your users, you know the folks who actually want to find stuff! Who don't want, or have the time to read through the equivalent of a 1,000 page manual (that at times looks as if t was put together by Lewis Carroll and a bunch of lawyer!); just in case there has been any changes since they last looked at it?? It'll be OK when at some undetermined point in time (how long did RDA take?), some undetermined solution is put in place? Sorry to rant. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer Sent: 27 July 2013 14:59 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA On 26/07/2013 22:10, JSC Chair wrote: snip Taking the bigger view is precisely what RDA will help us do - stop focusing on creating records and see how the resources we are describing fit into the bibliographic universe. We are living with lots of MARC limitations for now, but the data built using RDA will be especially useful when we can move beyond MARC. It is still usable in MARC just as records created with AAACR2 were useful in MARC, and RDA can even be used to create catalog card records, if that is your limited environment for now, but we want to look beyond the current limitations of just building a catalog to re-use of bibliographic data in the broader information community - to enable libraries to interact better in that larger realm where our users are - to connect users to the rich resources and related resources we have to offer and beyond. - Barbara Tillett JSC Chair /snip The idea that the problem is with records and that things will get better once they are discombobulated into various bits of data is a theory that has never been demonstrated. It also goes against reason: why should a separate bit of information such as Paging300/Paging or TitlePoems/Title make such a big difference? On their own, these little bits and pieces of information are completely meaningless and they must be brought together again--or recombobulated--if anything is to make sense. (http://s3-media2.ak.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/Ao1Tpjx5r0ZFwHDZHb49Pg/l.jpg. This area apparently really exists at the airport in Milwaukee. I love it!) The fact is: catalogs currently do not have records as such, because in any catalog based on an RDBMS, everything is already discombobulated into separate tables for headings, language codes, perhaps dates and all sorts of things. Internally, each catalog may separate the information in different ways. Anyway, there is *nothing at all new* about getting rid of the record--it's been the case for decades. When a searcher of the catalog sees a record, these bits and pieces are brought together, and the human experiences the same thing as a record, although it can be displayed completely, partially, or it could be in many, many unique and novel ways. I think the argument has confused database structure with data transfer. For instance, I can't imagine anybody wanting just the Paging information or the SubjectChronologicalSubdivision without a lot of the rest of the record so that the final product will be coherent and useful. And internal database structure will continue to vary as tremendously as it does now no matter what library formats become. In my opinion, these are side issues and the fundamental question is: *if* there arrives the FRBR universe that is fragmented into little bits of atoms based on works/expressions/manifestations/items, I wonder who will own what? We have already had serious issues of who owns which records, so if there are work instances, or as BIBFRAME seems to be leaning toward work-expression instances, I wonder who will own those work-expression instances? Without that information (in essence the headings but other info as well, such as language and maybe dates, etc.) the manifestation records lose the majority of their value. Will those work-expression instances be placed into the public domain? If not, it would be like within the internal structures of your own library's catalog, you suddenly didn't own the information in your subject tables or the personal names in your names tables. Or will work-expression instances be owned by some agency? And if they are owned, who
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
On 26/07/2013 22:10, JSC Chair wrote: snip Taking the bigger view is precisely what RDA will help us do - stop focusing on creating records and see how the resources we are describing fit into the bibliographic universe. We are living with lots of MARC limitations for now, but the data built using RDA will be especially useful when we can move beyond MARC. It is still usable in MARC just as records created with AAACR2 were useful in MARC, and RDA can even be used to create catalog card records, if that is your limited environment for now, but we want to look beyond the current limitations of just building a catalog to re-use of bibliographic data in the broader information community - to enable libraries to interact better in that larger realm where our users are - to connect users to the rich resources and related resources we have to offer and beyond. - Barbara Tillett JSC Chair /snip The idea that the problem is with records and that things will get better once they are discombobulated into various bits of data is a theory that has never been demonstrated. It also goes against reason: why should a separate bit of information such as Paging300/Paging or TitlePoems/Title make such a big difference? On their own, these little bits and pieces of information are completely meaningless and they must be brought together again--or recombobulated--if anything is to make sense. (http://s3-media2.ak.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/Ao1Tpjx5r0ZFwHDZHb49Pg/l.jpg. This area apparently really exists at the airport in Milwaukee. I love it!) The fact is: catalogs currently do not have records as such, because in any catalog based on an RDBMS, everything is already discombobulated into separate tables for headings, language codes, perhaps dates and all sorts of things. Internally, each catalog may separate the information in different ways. Anyway, there is *nothing at all new* about getting rid of the record--it's been the case for decades. When a searcher of the catalog sees a record, these bits and pieces are brought together, and the human experiences the same thing as a record, although it can be displayed completely, partially, or it could be in many, many unique and novel ways. I think the argument has confused database structure with data transfer. For instance, I can't imagine anybody wanting just the Paging information or the SubjectChronologicalSubdivision without a lot of the rest of the record so that the final product will be coherent and useful. And internal database structure will continue to vary as tremendously as it does now no matter what library formats become. In my opinion, these are side issues and the fundamental question is: *if* there arrives the FRBR universe that is fragmented into little bits of atoms based on works/expressions/manifestations/items, I wonder who will own what? We have already had serious issues of who owns which records, so if there are work instances, or as BIBFRAME seems to be leaning toward work-expression instances, I wonder who will own those work-expression instances? Without that information (in essence the headings but other info as well, such as language and maybe dates, etc.) the manifestation records lose the majority of their value. Will those work-expression instances be placed into the public domain? If not, it would be like within the internal structures of your own library's catalog, you suddenly didn't own the information in your subject tables or the personal names in your names tables. Or will work-expression instances be owned by some agency? And if they are owned, who will they be and how much will they charge? I think that's a pretty important issue to settle. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *First Thus Facebook Page* https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
James said:
... we have seen lots and lots of discussion among catalogers about
the D (Description) but relatively little about A (Access).
Perhaps because RDA says nothing about indexing and display, both
vital for access?
... what about new methods of access *using the data we already
have*?
Yes, what we most need is development of ILS/OPACs, as opposed to new
rules or a new coding scheme.
I seem to recall a story of two medieval stone masons being asked what
they were doing. One replied that he was chipping at a stone. The
other replied that he was building a cathedral. As cataloguers, we
need to stop just chippping stones, and return to cathedral building,
a task we abandoned to the automation folk when we moved from card
catalogues. Our task should be to build catalogues, not just create
bibliographic records.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
Yay, team!
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 8:58 AM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
James said:
... we have seen lots and lots of discussion among catalogers about
the D (Description) but relatively little about A (Access).
Perhaps because RDA says nothing about indexing and display, both
vital for access?
... what about new methods of access *using the data we already
have*?
Yes, what we most need is development of ILS/OPACs, as opposed to new
rules or a new coding scheme.
I seem to recall a story of two medieval stone masons being asked what
they were doing. One replied that he was chipping at a stone. The
other replied that he was building a cathedral. As cataloguers, we
need to stop just chippping stones, and return to cathedral building,
a task we abandoned to the automation folk when we moved from card
catalogues. Our task should be to build catalogues, not just create
bibliographic records.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
Taking the bigger view is precisely what RDA will help us do - stop
focusing on creating records and see how the resources we are describing
fit into the bibliographic universe. We are living with lots of MARC
limitations for now, but the data built using RDA will be especially useful
when we can move beyond MARC. It is still usable in MARC just as records
created with AAACR2 were useful in MARC, and RDA can even be used to create
catalog card records, if that is your limited environment for now, but we
want to look beyond the current limitations of just building a catalog to
re-use of bibliographic data in the broader information community - to
enable libraries to interact better in that larger realm where our users
are - to connect users to the rich resources and related resources we have
to offer and beyond. - Barbara Tillett
JSC Chair
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:58 AM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
James said:
... we have seen lots and lots of discussion among catalogers about
the D (Description) but relatively little about A (Access).
Perhaps because RDA says nothing about indexing and display, both
vital for access?
... what about new methods of access *using the data we already
have*?
Yes, what we most need is development of ILS/OPACs, as opposed to new
rules or a new coding scheme.
I seem to recall a story of two medieval stone masons being asked what
they were doing. One replied that he was chipping at a stone. The
other replied that he was building a cathedral. As cataloguers, we
need to stop just chippping stones, and return to cathedral building,
a task we abandoned to the automation folk when we moved from card
catalogues. Our task should be to build catalogues, not just create
bibliographic records.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Dr. Barbara B. Tillett, Ph.D.
Chair, Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA
Re: [RDA-L] BL Guide to RDA Name Authority Records - July 2013 changes
What is the *BL *in the guide? And will this be in the toolkit On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Moore, Richard richard.mo...@bl.uk wrote: Dear colleagues ** ** ** ** Changes to RDA were published this week, to implement the decisions of JSC last November. The* BL Guide to RDA Name Authority Records* has been updated to reflect these changes. It can be found here: ** ** RDA Toolkit -Tools --Workflows ---Global workflows BL Guide to RDA Name Authority Records ** ** The updated Guide has been reviewed by colleagues at LC/PCC, who were kind enough to take the time to plough through it and suggest additions and amendments, which have all been incorporated. The Guide is consistent with the LC-PCC-PS, DCM:Z1 and the Post-RDA Test Guidelines. ** ** Sections of the Guide are not numbered (to avoid confusion with RDA instruction numbers), but navigation is by hyperlinks starting at the Contents page. Links are provided throughout the Guide to the relevant RDA instructions, to the LC-PCC-PS, and to MARC 21. ** ** At the end of the Contents page is a section called *2013 Changes to RDA*, that summarises the changes affecting name authority records, with links to the more detailed information within the Guide. ** ** From our perspective I would like to draw attention to some of the changes that we first proposed (6JSC/BL/3 and 6JSC/BL/4): ** ** Title of the Person has a new sub-element “Other Term of Rank, Honour or Office” (9.4.1.9, 9.19.1.6), which includes terms indicating academic office, terms of respect for clergy, military ranks, and other terms of honour. It can be used to distinguish an authorised access point if dates of birth/death, periods of activity and occupations are not available. * *** ** ** Other Designation Associated with the Person (9.6, 9.19.1.2) now includes terms for Persons Named in Sacred Scriptures or Apocryphal Books (9.6.1.6), the terms Fictitious character, Legendary character, etc. (9.6.1.7), and terms for the type, species or breed of Real Non-human Entities (9.6.1.8). ** ** Other Designation Associated with the Person also has a new sub-element “Other Designation” (9.6.1.9, 9.19.1.7). This element is intentionally broad, and is designed to help remove the few remaining cases where an authorised access point can not be made unique. It therefore encompasses almost any sensible designation, that does not fall within the scope of another element that can be used in an access point. It can be used to distinguish an authorised access point if dates of birth/death, periods of activity, occupations and other terms of rank, honour or office are not available. ** ** Other significant changes are covered in the Guide, notably the combination of the two lists of corporate and government bodies entered subordinately, which have been combined into a single set of instructions at 11.2.2.13-11.2.2.28 (6JSC/ALA/18). ** ** This revision of the Guide also contains a section on our practice for relationship designators in name authority records, which follows the “FAQ – LC/PCC RDA and AACR2 practice for creating NARs for persons who use pseudonyms” [1], and recommendations by the Task Group to Formulate or Recommend PCC/NACO RDA Policy on Authority Issues [2]. ** ** I hope this is useful. ** ** Regards Richard ** ** ** ** _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk ** ** [1] http:// http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/pseud.pdf www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/pseud.pdf [2] http://rwww.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/RDA%20Task%20groups%20and%20charges/TG%20to%20Formulate%20PCC%20NACO%20Policy_Medium%20Priority%20Issues.docx ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] fictitious characters in RDA
Richard Moore wrote: When time permits, it would be useful if LCSH authorities for fictitious characters could be cancelled, and re-established as RDA authorities in the name authority file. This would avoid having two separate authority records for the same entity, each using a different form as an access point. Same for real non-human entities (cat, dogs, horses). This is an important enough issue that time should be made early on to do as Richard suggests. Names may be / and often are coded as valid for subject use so there is no need to have two authority records for the same entity and having two is only asking for trouble. Mary L. Mastraccio ALA-ALCTS-CaMMS Past-Chair Cataloging Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78265 1-800-531-7678
Re: [RDA-L] Request to check RDA record for provider-neutral e-book
Hi Jay, I’m not sure if this is really what you’re looking for, but I’ll share my checklist for deriving an RDA record from AACR2 copy. It’s *not* intended to be exhaustive, just some things that I tend to forget when deriving from AACR2 copy. The checklist lives on our internal wiki, which is restricted to GSU library staff, but I’m pasting the current version below my signature. I don’t know if the links will work from this email, so if you would like a Word version just let me know. If anyone has improvements or corrections to my checklist, I’d appreciate them. Best, Susan Susan C. Wynne Cataloging Metadata Librarian Georgia State University 100 Decatur Street SE Atlanta, GA 30303 404-413-2729 Checklist For Deriving RDA Records From AACR2 This is not an exhaustive list of changes that may be required when deriving an RDA record from AACR2 copy. * Change Desc to i * Add 040 ‡e rda * Add 040 ‡b eng if not present * Add relationship designators to 1XX and/or 7XX, if you can readily locate an appropriate term in RDA Appendix I or J. * Replace Latin abbreviations if present * Edition statement should be transcribed as it appears on the source of information * Change 260 to 264 add correct 2nd indicator * MARC documentation for 264http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd264.html * Adjust date(s) as needed in 264 and/or fixed field * Add 264 2nd indicator 4 for copyright date if needed * Spell out the following words in 300: pages, color, illustrations, portraits... * Add 33X fields * Numbering of series or serials should be recorded in the form in which it appears on the source of information * In some cases, square brackets that were needed under AACR2 may need to be removed in an RDA record. Generally speaking, most core, manifestation-level elements only need to be bracketed if the information is taken from a source outside the resource itself. See RDA 2.2.4. Non-print formats It is recommended to repeat sound, projection, video or digital file characteristics from 300 ‡b/ 538/500 in the appropriate 34X field(s). See the MARC documentation for guidance: * 344 Sound Characteristicshttp://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd344.html * 345 Projection Characteristics of Moving Imagehttp://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd345.html * 346 Video Characteristicshttp://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd346.html * 347 Digital File Characteristicshttp://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd347.html From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Shorten, Jay Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 5:59 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Request to check RDA record for provider-neutral e-book I have created a record for the provider-neutral e-book OCLC #842051596. Would someone be so kind as to look it over just to make sure I haven’t forgotten something? Also, does anyone have a handy list of traps to avoid when creating an RDA record, something like, “Be sure you don’t forget to do this RDA practice because we didn’t do it in AACR2” “Be sure you don’t do this AACR2 practice because we don’t do it in AACR2”? Jay Shorten Cataloger, Monographs and Electronic Resources Associate Professor of Bibliography Catalog Department University Libraries University of Oklahoma jshor...@ou.edumailto:jshor...@ou.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Request to check RDA record for provider-neutral e-book
I'm sure you already know about this, but in case you don't: www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/scs/documents/PN-RDA-Combined.docxhttp://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/scs/documents/PN-RDA-Combined.docx Chris Fox Catalog Librarian McKay Library Brigham Young Univ.-Idaho c...@byui.edumailto:c...@byui.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Shorten, Jay Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 3:59 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Request to check RDA record for provider-neutral e-book I have created a record for the provider-neutral e-book OCLC #842051596. Would someone be so kind as to look it over just to make sure I haven't forgotten something? Also, does anyone have a handy list of traps to avoid when creating an RDA record, something like, Be sure you don't forget to do this RDA practice because we didn't do it in AACR2 Be sure you don't do this AACR2 practice because we don't do it in AACR2? Jay Shorten Cataloger, Monographs and Electronic Resources Associate Professor of Bibliography Catalog Department University Libraries University of Oklahoma jshor...@ou.edumailto:jshor...@ou.edu
Re: [RDA-L] fictitious characters in RDA
If a fictitious character were established as a 100 in a Name Authority Record
and you wished to use it as a subject, you would have to establish a 650
Subject Authority Record for the fictitious person. This is explicitly stated
in the LC-PCC-PS, including an example for Jessica Fletcher as a 100 and a 650.
Steve McDonald
steve.mcdon...@tufts.edu
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 12:06 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] fictitious characters in RDA
Judy said:
The 4th paragraph of RDA 9.0 indicates that the scope of *person* in
RDA includes fictitious entities, such as literary figures, legendary
figures, ... if the fictitious entity's role is only as subject of the
resource, the RDA instructions do not apply.
I find this exception impossible t apply. If the fictitious character is
establihed
as an RDA/MARC authority 100, how could you code the character as 650 in a
particular bibliographic record? For one thing, would it verify?
The factitious character's relation to one work might differ from that to
another. Is the person to be coded differently in different records? Or is
coding in all records controlled by the authority
coding? What if a character's relationship is different for a
publication after the authority is established
Seems to me if persons are to be treated as persons, it should be all the
time, and all persons. I include Geronimo Chilton.
Am I correct to assume God should now be 100/600 as opposed to 150/650?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__
\__
Re: [RDA-L] fictitious characters in RDA
Richard Moore said I'd also like to see the same treatment for family names. RDA NARs are supposed to be for more specific family entities, and LCSH for more general, but works often have very specific family groupings as their subject, and there is no reason why general and specific authorities for families could not be established to RDA principles, and co-exist in LC/NAF. I would also very much like to see this adopted. Wayne Richter Asian Materials Specialist The Libraries Western Washington University Bellingham, WA 98225-9103 ALCTS CC:AAM
Re: [RDA-L] fictitious characters in RDA
Stephen McDonald said:
If a fictitious character were established as a 100 in a Name
Authority Record and you wished to use it as a subject, you would
have to establish a 650 Subject Authority Record for the fictitious
person.
I assume you mean a 150 subject authority.
I think this is ridiculous. An entity shouldn't be person Monday,
Wednesday, Friday, and a nonperson Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. If
judged to be a person, always a person I think. a
A single 100 authority should be coded whether the name could be a 600
and 100/700, or only a 600.
SLC will follow the basic RDA instruction to treat fictitious persons as
persons, and will make mo exceptions. We see no great advantage in
this change, and refuse to spend time debating whether a person is a
person.
My old litmus of whether the person breathed or not no longer works.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] fictitious characters in RDA
If we're voting, I've been lobbying for this since RDA was published, both for families and fictitious characters. It is against basic authority principles to have two different access points for the same entity. And I agree with Richard, the broader LCSH family name terms could certainly coexist with the more specific RDA family name authorized access points. Bob Robert L. Maxwell Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept. 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Wayne Richter Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 8:58 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] fictitious characters in RDA Richard Moore said I'd also like to see the same treatment for family names. RDA NARs are supposed to be for more specific family entities, and LCSH for more general, but works often have very specific family groupings as their subject, and there is no reason why general and specific authorities for families could not be established to RDA principles, and co-exist in LC/NAF. I would also very much like to see this adopted. Wayne Richter Asian Materials Specialist The Libraries Western Washington University Bellingham, WA 98225-9103 ALCTS CC:AAM
Re: [RDA-L] fictitious characters in RDA
Thank you! So, since this character is the illustrator then the 600 and 700 are correct. Sarah JSC Secretary jscsecret...@rdatoolkit.org 4/30/2013 1:41 PM Sarah, The 4th paragraph of RDA 9.0 indicates that the scope of person in RDA includes fictitious entities, such as literary figures, legendary figures, etc. So, you follow the same instructions for the name of a fictitious entity as you would for the name of any other person. The context, however, must be that the fictitious entity is functioning in a role as creator (ch. 19), contributor (ch. 20), etc.; if the fictitious entity's role is only as subject of the resource, the RDA instructions do not apply. Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Sarah Stein sst...@denverlibrary.org wrote: Can anyone tell me where in the RDA Toolkit I can find instructions for fictitious character? oclc#730414273 Professor Jonathan T. Buck's mysterious airship notebook :‡bthe lost step-by-step dirigible drawings from the pioneer of steampunk design /‡cby Keith Riegert Samuel Kaplan ; illustrated by Jonathan Buck. Jonathan Buck is not a real person which is clearly stated in this authority file: ARN9385436 010 no2013005992 ǂz no2013005083 040 ICrlF ǂb eng ǂe rda ǂc ICrlF ǂd DLC 046 ǂf 18500917 1001 Buck, Jonathan T., ǂd 1850- 370 Baton Rouge, La. ǂe South America 372 Engineering 374 Engineer ǂa Illustrator 375 male 377 eng 670 Riegert, Keith. Professor Jonathan T. Buck's mysterious airship notebook, c2013: ǂb t.p. (illustrated by Jonathan Buck) p. 3 (born Sept. 17, 1850 in Baton Rouge, La.; death date unknown; American engineer, riverboat captain, flight pioneer, and adventurer who invented the Air Paddle Steamer steam-powered riverboat dirigible and disappeared while on an expedition in South America) 678 Professor Jonathan T. Buck is the fictitious American engineer and adventurer who invented the steam-powered riverboat dirigible. This AF does not have the statement that is found in some other fictitious charactor as creator AFs e.g. ARN9436377 Richard Castle-- 667 SUBJECT USAGE: This heading is not valid for use as a subject; use a fictitious character heading from LCSH. Does that mean that under RDA this is changed? The OCLC record has both a 700 and 600 for Jonathan T. Buck. I have not been able to find anything in the RDA Toolkit but perhaps I am not searching effectively, I have just started using it. Thanks for any help, Sarah Stein Sr. Special Collections Librarian Technical Services - Cataloging Denver Public Library 10 W. 14th Avenue Parkway Denver, Colorado, 80204-2731 USA 720-865-1123 ( tel:720-865-1123 ) sst...@denverlibrary.org http://denverlibrary.org ( http://denverlibrary.org/ )
Re: [RDA-L] fictitious characters in RDA
As I understand LC policy, the 600 would not be correct and a fictitious character heading in LCSH would need to be used (or proposed through SACO). ^^ 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 Tue, 30 Apr 2013, Sarah Stein wrote: Thank you! So, since this character is the illustrator then the 600 and 700 are correct. Sarah JSC Secretary jscsecret...@rdatoolkit.org 4/30/2013 1:41 PM Sarah, The 4th paragraph of RDA 9.0 indicates that the scope of person in RDA includes fictitious entities, such as literary figures, legendary figures, etc. So, you follow the same instructions for the name of a fictitious entity as you would for the name of any other person. The context, however, must be that the fictitious entity is functioning in a role as creator (ch. 19), contributor (ch. 20), etc.; if the fictitious entity's role is only as subject of the resource, the RDA instructions do not apply. Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Sarah Stein sst...@denverlibrary.org wrote: Can anyone tell me where in the RDA Toolkit I can find instructions for fictitious character? oclc#730414273 Professor Jonathan T. Buck's mysterious airship notebook :?bthe lost step-by-step dirigible drawings from the pioneer of steampunk design /?cby Keith Riegert Samuel Kaplan ; illustrated by Jonathan Buck. Jonathan Buck is not a real person which is clearly stated in this authority file: ARN9385436 010 no2013005992 ?z no2013005083 040 ICrlF ?b eng ?e rda ?c ICrlF ?d DLC 046 ?f 18500917 1001 Buck, Jonathan T., ?d 1850- 370 Baton Rouge, La. ?e South America 372 Engineering 374 Engineer ?a Illustrator 375 male 377 eng 670 Riegert, Keith. Professor Jonathan T. Buck's mysterious airship notebook, c2013: ?b t.p. (illustrated by Jonathan Buck) p. 3 (born Sept. 17, 1850 in Baton Rouge, La.; death date unknown; American engineer, riverboat captain, flight pioneer, and adventurer who invented the Air Paddle Steamer steam-powered riverboat dirigible and disappeared while on an expedition in South America) 678 Professor Jonathan T. Buck is the fictitious American engineer and adventurer who invented the steam-powered riverboat dirigible. This AF does not have the statement that is found in some other fictitious charactor as creator AFs e.g. ARN9436377 Richard Castle-- 667 SUBJECT USAGE: This heading is not valid for use as a subject; use a fictitious character heading from LCSH. Does that mean that under RDA this is changed? The OCLC record has both a 700 and 600 for Jonathan T. Buck. I have not been able to find anything in the RDA Toolkit but perhaps I am not searching effectively, I have just started using it. Thanks for any help, Sarah Stein Sr. Special Collections Librarian Technical Services - Cataloging Denver Public Library 10 W. 14th Avenue Parkway Denver, Colorado, 80204-2731 USA 720-865-1123 ( tel:720-865-1123 ) sst...@denverlibrary.org http://denverlibrary.org ( http://denverlibrary.org/ )
Re: [RDA-L] fictitious characters in RDA
Judy said:
The 4th paragraph of RDA 9.0 indicates that the scope of *person* in RDA
includes fictitious entities, such as literary figures, legendary figures,
... if the fictitious entity's role is only as subject of the resource,
the RDA instructions do not apply.
I find this exception impossible t apply. If the fictitious character
is establihed as an RDA/MARC authority 100, how could you code the
character as 650 in a particular bibliographic record? For one thing,
would it verify?
The factitious character's relation to one work might differ from that
to another. Is the person to be coded differently in different
records? Or is coding in all records controlled by the authority
coding? What if a character's relationship is different for a
publication after the authority is established
Seems to me if persons are to be treated as persons, it should be all
the time, and all persons. I include Geronimo Chilton.
Am I correct to assume God should now be 100/600 as opposed to 150/650?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Most appropriate language (RDA 1.4)
I'm not quite sure if I'm talking about exactly the same issue, but this is something that is worrying me: (Also, I do apologise to be mentioning a MARC subfield, which I don't think purists like, but it's useful shorthand; also not to give the RDA rule number, but I don't have access to the Toolkit, but I'm sure readers will know what I mean) Assume I am cataloguing a record for a non-English language resource (in this case Finnish, but assume any language) but I am working for a library that wants records with English as language of cataloguing, ie value 040$b eng If I am creating a 245$c and I want to make use of the option that allows abbreviation to and twelve others what is the appropriate way of expressing that? [and twelve others] ? [ja kaksitoista muuta] ? The first must stick out like a sore thumb, and I wouldn't countenance it in the case of value 040$b fin, but I just don't know how to reconcile it with RDA 1.4. Paul Davey daveyp...@tiscali.co.uk In RDA 1.4, we read: When recording an element listed above as a supplied element, record the supplied element in the most appropriate language and script. (The elements listed are those that are normally transcribed more or less exactly in the bibliographic description.) Now I was wondering what might be a good policy for the most appropriate language. The LC-PCC PS for 1.4 doesn't comment on this point, although I think there can easily be different opinions as to what is most appropriate. For instance, according to AACR2 (1.4C6.), the probable place of publication, distribution etc. is to be given in the English form of name if there is one, whereas the German RAK rules (§ 144,3) call for giving such a place if possible, in its original language form. So, you'd have to use Florence according to AACR2, but Firenze according to RAK. The example given in AACR2 1.4C6. is [Munich?], and this example is still there in RDA 2.8.2.6.2. But taking into account that RDA examples are not prescriptive, but illustrative only, I think that RDA 1.4 would also make it possible to write [München?], if one believes the original language form to be the most appropriate. Heidrun
Re: [RDA-L] Most appropriate language (RDA 1.4)
Am 25.03.2013 13:30, schrieb Paul Davey: ... I do apologise to be mentioning a MARC subfield, which I don't think purists like, but it's useful shorthand; also not to give the RDA rule number, but I don't have access to the Toolkit, but I'm sure readers will know what I mean) ... no access to the toolkit? One cannot help but deplore the fact that we encounter this far too often. Esp. in the present situation of much-needed discussion, it is conterproductive, and a woeful disgrace for us as a profession, that not everyone with an interest in the matter and an understanding of the issues can make informed contributions because of a lack of access. Libraries are there to make recorded knowledge universally accessible and useful. If the new rules are to unfold their usefulness to support this mission, the rule text ought to be universally accessible. How credible is that mission if not even this can be achieved? And under such constraints, how realistic is it to get other communities interested? It is a weak excuse to say that out of economic concerns there is no alternative to a global monopoly on all versions and translations of the text. This would hold for MARC as well and also for BibFrame, which no one ever questioned for being open standards in the sense of freely available text, despite high costs of development and maintenance. Anyone should be welcome to provide added value by constructing all sorts of tools to make the text useful in other ways than other tools do, and they might well be allowed to derive a profit from such activities. But the text as such has to be open, and in this day and age, not just as plain text but open in a structured format that lends itself to formatted arrangements and exploitation by software to enhance its potential usefulness. For instance, out of any editing system for bibliographic data, conext-sensitive links should be enactable to display pertinent rules, free of charge. I confess to have no access to the Toolkit either. But out of principle, not lack of resources. B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] Most appropriate language (RDA 1.4)
Paul, RDA is actually quite clear on this matter. In this case (unlike the one I was talking about), it's not a complete element which is supplied, but only a part of it. The basic rule for this can also be found in 1.4 (Language and script): When adding data within an element listed above, record the added data in the language and script of the other data in the element unless the instructions for a specific element indicate otherwise. So, ordinarily it should be the same language as the rest of the element, but note the exception in the last part of the sentence. There is indeed a specific instruction for your case in 2.4.1.5 (Statement naming more than one person, etc.): Optional Omission: If a single statement of responsibility names more than three persons, families, or corporate bodies performing the same function, or with the same degree of responsibility, omit all but the first of each group of such persons, families, or bodies. Indicate the omission by summarizing what has been omitted in the language and script preferred by the agency preparing the description. Indicate that the summary was taken from a source outside the resource itself as instructed under 2.2.4. So, if the library in question has decided to use English as its preferred language, than the [and twelve others] or such also has to be in English. My personal explanation for this is that the [and twelve others] is seen rather as something like a note (which traditionally is recorded in the language of the agency), and not as a different way of transcribing the statement of responsibility. I'm not really happy with this language mixture myself. And it doesn't really fit in with a rule like 1.7.5 (Symbols): Replace symbols and other characters, etc., that cannot be reproduced by the facilities available with a description of the symbol enclosed in square brackets. Here, there is no specific instruction, so according to the rules you must describe the symbol in the language of the resource, although this will certainly often be difficult for catalogers. Maybe there should at least be an option in 2.4.1.5 to use the language of the resource instead of the language of the agency. Heidrun On 25.03.2013 13:30, Paul Davey wrote: I'm not quite sure if I'm talking about exactly the same issue, but this is something that is worrying me: (Also, I do apologise to be mentioning a MARC subfield, which I don't think purists like, but it's useful shorthand; also not to give the RDA rule number, but I don't have access to the Toolkit, but I'm sure readers will know what I mean) Assume I am cataloguing a record for a non-English language resource (in this case Finnish, but assume any language) but I am working for a library that wants records with English as language of cataloguing, ie value 040$b eng If I am creating a 245$c and I want to make use of the option that allows abbreviation to and twelve others what is the appropriate way of expressing that? [and twelve others] ? [ja kaksitoista muuta] ? The first must stick out like a sore thumb, and I wouldn't countenance it in the case of value 040$b fin, but I just don't know how to reconcile it with RDA 1.4. Paul Davey daveyp...@tiscali.co.uk mailto:daveyp...@tiscali.co.uk In RDA 1.4, we read: When recording an element listed above as a supplied element, record the supplied element in the most appropriate language and script. (The elements listed are those that are normally transcribed more or less exactly in the bibliographic description.) Now I was wondering what might be a good policy for the most appropriate language. The LC-PCC PS for 1.4 doesn't comment on this point, although I think there can easily be different opinions as to what is most appropriate. For instance, according to AACR2 (1.4C6.), the probable place of publication, distribution etc. is to be given in the English form of name if there is one, whereas the German RAK rules (§ 144,3) call for giving such a place if possible, in its original language form. So, you'd have to use Florence according to AACR2, but Firenze according to RAK. The example given in AACR2 1.4C6. is [Munich?], and this example is still there in RDA 2.8.2.6.2. But taking into account that RDA examples are not prescriptive, but illustrative only, I think that RDA 1.4 would also make it possible to write [München?], if one believes the original language form to be the most appropriate. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Most appropriate language (RDA 1.4)
Note that RDA 0.11.2 has general information about language and script. Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote: Paul, RDA is actually quite clear on this matter. In this case (unlike the one I was talking about), it's not a complete element which is supplied, but only a part of it. The basic rule for this can also be found in 1.4 (Language and script): When adding data within an element listed above, record the added data in the language and script of the other data in the element unless the instructions for a specific element indicate otherwise. So, ordinarily it should be the same language as the rest of the element, but note the exception in the last part of the sentence. There is indeed a specific instruction for your case in 2.4.1.5 (Statement naming more than one person, etc.): Optional Omission: If a single statement of responsibility names more than three persons, families, or corporate bodies performing the same function, or with the same degree of responsibility, omit all but the first of each group of such persons, families, or bodies. Indicate the omission by summarizing what has been omitted in the language and script preferred by the agency preparing the description. Indicate that the summary was taken from a source outside the resource itself as instructed under 2.2.4. So, if the library in question has decided to use English as its preferred language, than the [and twelve others] or such also has to be in English. My personal explanation for this is that the [and twelve others] is seen rather as something like a note (which traditionally is recorded in the language of the agency), and not as a different way of transcribing the statement of responsibility. I'm not really happy with this language mixture myself. And it doesn't really fit in with a rule like 1.7.5 (Symbols): Replace symbols and other characters, etc., that cannot be reproduced by the facilities available with a description of the symbol enclosed in square brackets. Here, there is no specific instruction, so according to the rules you must describe the symbol in the language of the resource, although this will certainly often be difficult for catalogers. Maybe there should at least be an option in 2.4.1.5 to use the language of the resource instead of the language of the agency. Heidrun On 25.03.2013 13:30, Paul Davey wrote: I'm not quite sure if I'm talking about exactly the same issue, but this is something that is worrying me: (Also, I do apologise to be mentioning a MARC subfield, which I don't think purists like, but it's useful shorthand; also not to give the RDA rule number, but I don't have access to the Toolkit, but I'm sure readers will know what I mean) Assume I am cataloguing a record for a non-English language resource (in this case Finnish, but assume any language) but I am working for a library that wants records with English as language of cataloguing, ie value 040$b eng If I am creating a 245$c and I want to make use of the option that allows abbreviation to and twelve others what is the appropriate way of expressing that? [and twelve others] ? [ja kaksitoista muuta] ? The first must stick out like a sore thumb, and I wouldn't countenance it in the case of value 040$b fin, but I just don't know how to reconcile it with RDA 1.4. Paul Davey daveyp...@tiscali.co.uk In RDA 1.4, we read: When recording an element listed above as a supplied element, record the supplied element in the most appropriate language and script. (The elements listed are those that are normally transcribed more or less exactly in the bibliographic description.) Now I was wondering what might be a good policy for the most appropriate language. The LC-PCC PS for 1.4 doesn't comment on this point, although I think there can easily be different opinions as to what is most appropriate. For instance, according to AACR2 (1.4C6.), the probable place of publication, distribution etc. is to be given in the English form of name if there is one, whereas the German RAK rules (§ 144,3) call for giving such a place if possible, in its original language form. So, you'd have to use Florence according to AACR2, but Firenze according to RAK. The example given in AACR2 1.4C6. is [Munich?], and this example is still there in RDA 2.8.2.6.2. But taking into account that RDA examples are not prescriptive, but illustrative only, I think that RDA 1.4 would also make it possible to write [München?], if one believes the original language form to be the most appropriate. 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] Most appropriate language (RDA 1.4)
Paul Davey asked:
If I am creating a 245$c and I want to make use of the option that =
allows abbreviation to and twelve others what is the appropriate way
of expressing that?
[and 12 others], i.e., the language of the catalogue, in contrast
to the [by], [par] etc. we used to supply prior to ISBD's /.
SLC can't do this because of the differing language of the catalogue
among our clients. We will stick with the ISBD Latin abbreviations.
We considered Heidrun's idea of the language of the text, but coming
up with the various texts is time consuming, particularly if there are
diacritics as in French. We also like the continuity with legacy
records.
RDA if very unilingual and Anglophone centric.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Most appropriate language (RDA 1.4)
I'm aware of 0.11.2, but I'm not sure how it relates to the [and twelve others] question. True, under RDA an agency can choose its preferred language, and this doesn't have to be English. So, Paul's library could choose e.g. Finnish as the language of the catalog. But if I read RDA correctly, the library then wouldn't have a choice anymore as to the language of the [and twelve others] - it would have to be in Finnish according to 2.4.1.5. I suppose every solution which is based on recording a text string will prove somewhat unsatisfactory. A truly modern way of recording this information would probably look quite different. What about an additional element (or subelement, or whatever) called Number of additional persons, etc., in a statement of responsibility? In this element, we would only record the number, e.g. 12. The rest would be a matter of display, i.e. the catalog would show some explanatory phrase before or after the number. A Finnish catalog would give this phrase in Finnish as default, and perhaps allow switching to English or French. Storing the information in a language neutral way like this would make it mich easier to exchange data between different language communities: You wouldn't have to change the data to your preferred language, but only make a setting in your catalog as to how the element is to be displayed in your preferred language. Heidrun On 25.03.2013 17:12, JSC Secretary wrote: Note that RDA 0.11.2 has general information about language and script. Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de mailto:wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote: Paul, RDA is actually quite clear on this matter. In this case (unlike the one I was talking about), it's not a complete element which is supplied, but only a part of it. The basic rule for this can also be found in 1.4 (Language and script): When adding data within an element listed above, record the added data in the language and script of the other data in the element unless the instructions for a specific element indicate otherwise. So, ordinarily it should be the same language as the rest of the element, but note the exception in the last part of the sentence. There is indeed a specific instruction for your case in 2.4.1.5 (Statement naming more than one person, etc.): Optional Omission: If a single statement of responsibility names more than three persons, families, or corporate bodies performing the same function, or with the same degree of responsibility, omit all but the first of each group of such persons, families, or bodies. Indicate the omission by summarizing what has been omitted in the language and script preferred by the agency preparing the description. Indicate that the summary was taken from a source outside the resource itself as instructed under 2.2.4. So, if the library in question has decided to use English as its preferred language, than the [and twelve others] or such also has to be in English. My personal explanation for this is that the [and twelve others] is seen rather as something like a note (which traditionally is recorded in the language of the agency), and not as a different way of transcribing the statement of responsibility. I'm not really happy with this language mixture myself. And it doesn't really fit in with a rule like 1.7.5 (Symbols): Replace symbols and other characters, etc., that cannot be reproduced by the facilities available with a description of the symbol enclosed in square brackets. Here, there is no specific instruction, so according to the rules you must describe the symbol in the language of the resource, although this will certainly often be difficult for catalogers. Maybe there should at least be an option in 2.4.1.5 to use the language of the resource instead of the language of the agency. Heidrun On 25.03.2013 13 tel:25.03.2013%2013:30, Paul Davey wrote: I'm not quite sure if I'm talking about exactly the same issue, but this is something that is worrying me: (Also, I do apologise to be mentioning a MARC subfield, which I don't think purists like, but it's useful shorthand; also not to give the RDA rule number, but I don't have access to the Toolkit, but I'm sure readers will know what I mean) Assume I am cataloguing a record for a non-English language resource (in this case Finnish, but assume any language) but I am working for a library that wants records with English as language of cataloguing, ie value 040$b eng If I am creating a 245$c and I want to make use of the option that allows abbreviation to and twelve others what is the appropriate way of expressing that? [and twelve others] ? [ja kaksitoista muuta] ? The first must stick out like a
Re: [RDA-L] Most appropriate language (RDA 1.4)
On 2013-03-23 05:50, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: In RDA 1.4, we read: When recording an element listed above as a supplied element, record the supplied element in the most appropriate language and script. We interpret that to mean the language of the text, unless romanaization is required because the system can not handle the script. J. McRee (Mac) Elrod Special Libraries Cataloguing
Re: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4
Joan, I think you're assuming that an authority record will be created for every new name cataloged under RDA. In practice, I doubt this will happen.. Yes. You are right. The assumption seems to hardly happen :) If data can be transcribed as elements in categories, such as Author, Name: Date: Affiliation: , and then authority records could be automatically created. Is that right? Just my imagination :) Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote: Joan, I think you're assuming that an authority record will be created for every new name cataloged under RDA. In practice, I doubt this will happen.. Yes. You are right. The assumption seems to hardly happen :) Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Arakawa, Steven steven.arak...@yale.eduwrote: Joan, I think you're assuming that an authority record will be created for every new name cataloged under RDA. In practice, I doubt this will happen.. Does AACR2 state explicitly that affiliations are to be left out of the statement of responsibility? I don't see anything in 1.1F7 that seems to apply. We are told to omit, except under certain circumstances: titles and abbreviations of titles of nobility, address, honour, and distinction, initials of societies, qualifications, date(s) of founding, mottoes, etc. [followed by the exceptions]. The only term I could pick out was qualifications, but it seems a stretch to include affiliations under that category. None of the examples address affiliations so one could infer that the rule does not apply to such cases. In the actual examples of omissions, leaving out Dr. in Dr. Harry Smith detracts from identification (ex. 1), the Library Association (ex. 2) seems like a pretty generic name so including the date of founding can't hurt, and the late from by the late T.A. Rennard (ex. 3) tells us that the manifestation was published posthumously. I think leaving in the extras enhances identification. It is not clear to me whether the list of omissions is to include religious titles, although this seems to be a common practice. The advantage of the representation principle for the statement of responsibility is simplicity. If you follow the AACR2 path it results in a whole mess of complicated decisions on what to leave in and what to leave out. I also think the RDA principle supports identification of the persons listed in the statement of responsibility, and, in some cases, suggests the author's point of view. It would help in making an authority record created retroactively (remembering the pre AACR2 practice of leaving out the statement of responsibility which was much deplored). The best practice for punctuation in order to demarcate person from affiliation has been a problem for me so very much like Kevin Randall's suggestion. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metada Services Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joan Wang Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 1:27 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4 All of this information on persons' affiliations could be recorded in our authority records -- is it really necessary to repeat it all in our bibliographic records as well? I got an impression that one day data represented in authority records could be viewed or searched in end-users' clients. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Charles Croissant crois...@slu.edu wrote: I too would like to add my voice in support of Ben's position. Applying 2.4.1.4 as it stands, without applying the optional admission, is bound to lead in some cases to extremely lengthy and hard-to-read statements of responsibility, especially when four or more authors and/or editors are named on the title page, with each name followed by an affiliation. Is this truly what the JSC and LC/PCC intended with this wording and this policy statement? I understand the value of RDA's principle of representation, but, like Ben, I see a need for balance as well. All of this information on persons' affiliations could be recorded in our authority records -- is it really necessary to repeat it all in our bibliographic records as well? Charles Croissant Senior Catalog Librarian Pius XII Memorial Library Saint Louis University St. Louis, MO 63108 On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.edu wrote: Gene, I wish it were so. But 2.4.1.4 states, Transcribe a statement of responsibility in the form in which it appears on the source of information. Immediately followed by the optional omission, Abridge
Re: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4
Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.org wrote: If data can be transcribed as elements in categories, such as Author, Name: Date: Affiliation: , and then authority records could be automatically created. Is that right? Just my imagination :) Could be. So far in MARC, the 38x fields populate both bib and authority records; the 37x's only the authority. There's the issue too with how the authority's 6xx's map over to the bib side. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
Re: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4
Joan, I think you're assuming that an authority record will be created for every new name cataloged under RDA. In practice, I doubt this will happen.. Does AACR2 state explicitly that affiliations are to be left out of the statement of responsibility? I don't see anything in 1.1F7 that seems to apply. We are told to omit, except under certain circumstances: titles and abbreviations of titles of nobility, address, honour, and distinction, initials of societies, qualifications, date(s) of founding, mottoes, etc. [followed by the exceptions]. The only term I could pick out was qualifications, but it seems a stretch to include affiliations under that category. None of the examples address affiliations so one could infer that the rule does not apply to such cases. In the actual examples of omissions, leaving out Dr. in Dr. Harry Smith detracts from identification (ex. 1), the Library Association (ex. 2) seems like a pretty generic name so including the date of founding can't hurt, and the late from by the late T.A. Rennard (ex. 3) tells us that the manifestation was published posthumously. I think leaving in the extras enhances identification. It is not clear to me whether the list of omissions is to include religious titles, although this seems to be a common practice. The advantage of the representation principle for the statement of responsibility is simplicity. If you follow the AACR2 path it results in a whole mess of complicated decisions on what to leave in and what to leave out. I also think the RDA principle supports identification of the persons listed in the statement of responsibility, and, in some cases, suggests the author's point of view. It would help in making an authority record created retroactively (remembering the pre AACR2 practice of leaving out the statement of responsibility which was much deplored). The best practice for punctuation in order to demarcate person from affiliation has been a problem for me so very much like Kevin Randall's suggestion. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metada Services Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joan Wang Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 1:27 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4 All of this information on persons' affiliations could be recorded in our authority records -- is it really necessary to repeat it all in our bibliographic records as well? I got an impression that one day data represented in authority records could be viewed or searched in end-users' clients. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Charles Croissant crois...@slu.edu wrote: I too would like to add my voice in support of Ben's position. Applying 2.4.1.4 as it stands, without applying the optional admission, is bound to lead in some cases to extremely lengthy and hard-to-read statements of responsibility, especially when four or more authors and/or editors are named on the title page, with each name followed by an affiliation. Is this truly what the JSC and LC/PCC intended with this wording and this policy statement? I understand the value of RDA's principle of representation, but, like Ben, I see a need for balance as well. All of this information on persons' affiliations could be recorded in our authority records -- is it really necessary to repeat it all in our bibliographic records as well? Charles Croissant Senior Catalog Librarian Pius XII Memorial Library Saint Louis University St. Louis, MO 63108 On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.edu wrote: Gene, I wish it were so. But 2.4.1.4 states, Transcribe a statement of responsibility in the form in which it appears on the source of information. Immediately followed by the optional omission, Abridge a statement of responsibility only if it can be abridged without loss of essential information. I have looked in vain for something similar to AACR2 1.1F7., Include titles and abbreviations of titles of nobility, address, honour, and distinction ... Otherwise, omit all such data from statements of responsibility, and not found it. I have also queried the RDA luminaries on this list and been told that including affiliations if they appear on the t.p. is part of RDA's adherence to principle of representation. The fact that there are no examples of this in RDA just means JSC either didn't think of it or didn't want to get into it. Moreover the example I copied to the list was one I found in OCLC (there are plenty more of them, if you start looking). So, if this is not what RDA intends, the rules need to be made clearer, as it's how catalogers are interpreting it. Personally I
Re: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4
Well, I thought I would go back to 2.4.1.4 and see what it says.
It appears to be very much in line with AACR2. I did not see anything like
the examples given in previous e-mails. Titles are omitted. They don't
really add anything to the area of responsibility. I did see Professors
used once, and that may be due the use of the last name.
Anyway, I see no justification in RDA to include all of that other stuff
mentioned in other e-mails. I looked at the LC guidlines (LCPPCs?) and
they don't seem to include all that stuff either.
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 6:30 PM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
Daniel posted:
edited by J. Garland, [of] Cambridge Carbonates UK; J.E. Neilson,
.[of] University of Aberdeen, UK; S.E. Laubach, [of] University of
.Texas at Austin, USA and K.J. Whidden, [of] USGS, USA
This has the same difficulty presented by by, par, etc. introduced
into statements of responsibility before ISBD's / replaced them, and
by RDA's language of the catalogue inclusions. Such inclusions
create difficulties in multilingual situations.
With the exception of the loss of [sic], RDA's tendency to have data
transcribed as found (with the exceptions of punctuation and
capitalization) might be good.
The goal of IFLA's Universal Bibliographic Control (UBC) was that
descriptions created anywhere in the world (preferably in the country
of publication) could be used anywhere. RDA's inclusions represent a
giant step backward from that ideal.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing
HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/http://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4
The examples under Optional Omission are:
by Harry Smith
Source of information reads: by Dr. Harry Smith
Charles F. Hoban, Jr.
Source of information reads: Charles F. Hoban, Jr., Special Assistant, Division
of Visual Education, Philadelphia Public Schools
sponsored by the Library Association
Source of information reads: sponsored by the Library Association (founded 1877)
The implication here is that the entire statement as found after Source of
information reads: would be included in the statement of responsibility
element, unless it is abridged per the Optional Omission.
Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
k...@northwestern.edumailto:k...@northwestern.edu
(847) 491-2939
Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 10:52 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4
Well, I thought I would go back to 2.4.1.4 and see what it says.
It appears to be very much in line with AACR2. I did not see anything like the
examples given in previous e-mails. Titles are omitted. They don't really add
anything to the area of responsibility. I did see Professors used once, and
that may be due the use of the last name.
Anyway, I see no justification in RDA to include all of that other stuff
mentioned in other e-mails. I looked at the LC guidlines (LCPPCs?) and they
don't seem to include all that stuff either.
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 6:30 PM, J. McRee Elrod
m...@slc.bc.camailto:m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
Daniel posted:
edited by J. Garland, [of] Cambridge Carbonates UK; J.E. Neilson,
.[of] University of Aberdeen, UK; S.E. Laubach, [of] University of
.Texas at Austin, USA and K.J. Whidden, [of] USGS, USA
This has the same difficulty presented by by, par, etc. introduced
into statements of responsibility before ISBD's / replaced them, and
by RDA's language of the catalogue inclusions. Such inclusions
create difficulties in multilingual situations.
With the exception of the loss of [sic], RDA's tendency to have data
transcribed as found (with the exceptions of punctuation and
capitalization) might be good.
The goal of IFLA's Universal Bibliographic Control (UBC) was that
descriptions created anywhere in the world (preferably in the country
of publication) could be used anywhere. RDA's inclusions represent a
giant step backward from that ideal.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.camailto:m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing
HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/http://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edumailto:gf...@cst.edu
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent
or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content
contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original
sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or
Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for
information only.
Re: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4
Gene,
I wish it were so.
But 2.4.1.4 states, Transcribe a statement of responsibility in the form in
which it appears on the source of information. Immediately followed by the
optional omission, Abridge a statement of responsibility only if it can be
abridged without loss of essential information. I have looked in vain for
something similar to AACR2 1.1F7., Include titles and abbreviations of titles
of nobility, address, honour, and distinction ... Otherwise, omit all such data
from statements of responsibility, and not found it. I have also queried the
RDA luminaries on this list and been told that including affiliations if they
appear on the t.p. is part of RDA's adherence to principle of representation.
The fact that there are no examples of this in RDA just means JSC either didn't
think of it or didn't want to get into it. Moreover the example I copied to
the list was one I found in OCLC (there are plenty more of them, if you start
looking). So, if this is not what RDA intends, the rules need to be made
clearer, as it's how catalogers are interpreting it.
Personally I would prefer that the optional omission be applied in these cases.
There is value to the principle of representation of course, but I believe
that value needs to be balanced against the fact that title pages have many
more visual devices available to them (use of white space, font and font size,
italic vs. roman, etc.) to communicate to users what information is essential
and what is not. Since these cues are not available in a surrogate, the
cataloger should be able (and encouraged) to use his or her editorial judgment.
--Ben
Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:52 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4
Well, I thought I would go back to 2.4.1.4 and see what it says.
It appears to be very much in line with AACR2. I did not see anything like the
examples given in previous e-mails. Titles are omitted. They don't really add
anything to the area of responsibility. I did see Professors used once, and
that may be due the use of the last name.
Anyway, I see no justification in RDA to include all of that other stuff
mentioned in other e-mails. I looked at the LC guidlines (LCPPCs?) and they
don't seem to include all that stuff either.
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 6:30 PM, J. McRee Elrod
m...@slc.bc.camailto:m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
Daniel posted:
edited by J. Garland, [of] Cambridge Carbonates UK; J.E. Neilson,
.[of] University of Aberdeen, UK; S.E. Laubach, [of] University of
.Texas at Austin, USA and K.J. Whidden, [of] USGS, USA
This has the same difficulty presented by by, par, etc. introduced
into statements of responsibility before ISBD's / replaced them, and
by RDA's language of the catalogue inclusions. Such inclusions
create difficulties in multilingual situations.
With the exception of the loss of [sic], RDA's tendency to have data
transcribed as found (with the exceptions of punctuation and
capitalization) might be good.
The goal of IFLA's Universal Bibliographic Control (UBC) was that
descriptions created anywhere in the world (preferably in the country
of publication) could be used anywhere. RDA's inclusions represent a
giant step backward from that ideal.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.camailto:m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing
HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/http://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edumailto:gf...@cst.edu
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent
or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content
contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original
sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or
Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for
information only.
Re: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4
All of this information on persons' affiliations could be recorded in our authority records -- is it really necessary to repeat it all in our bibliographic records as well? I got an impression that one day data represented in authority records could be viewed or searched in end-users' clients. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Charles Croissant crois...@slu.eduwrote: I too would like to add my voice in support of Ben's position. Applying 2.4.1.4 as it stands, without applying the optional admission, is bound to lead in some cases to extremely lengthy and hard-to-read statements of responsibility, especially when four or more authors and/or editors are named on the title page, with each name followed by an affiliation. Is this truly what the JSC and LC/PCC intended with this wording and this policy statement? I understand the value of RDA's principle of representation, but, like Ben, I see a need for balance as well. All of this information on persons' affiliations could be recorded in our authority records -- is it really necessary to repeat it all in our bibliographic records as well? Charles Croissant Senior Catalog Librarian Pius XII Memorial Library Saint Louis University St. Louis, MO 63108 On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.eduwrote: Gene, ** ** I wish it were so. ** ** But 2.4.1.4 states, Transcribe a statement of responsibility in the form in which it appears on the source of information. Immediately followed by the optional omission, Abridge a statement of responsibility only if it can be abridged without loss of essential information. I have looked in vain for something similar to AACR2 1.1F7., Include titles and abbreviations of titles of nobility, address, honour, and distinction ... Otherwise, omit all such data from statements of responsibility, and not found it. I have also queried the RDA luminaries on this list and been told that including affiliations if they appear on the t.p. is part of RDA's adherence to principle of representation.** ** ** The fact that there are no examples of this in RDA just means JSC either didn't think of it or didn't want to get into it. Moreover the example I copied to the list was one I found in OCLC (there are plenty more of them, if you start looking). So, if this is not what RDA intends, the rules need to be made clearer, as it's how catalogers are interpreting it. ** ** Personally I would prefer that the optional omission be applied in these cases. There is value to the principle of representation of course, but I believe that value needs to be balanced against the fact that title pages have many more visual devices available to them (use of white space, font and font size, italic vs. roman, etc.) to communicate to users what information is essential and what is not. Since these cues are not available in a surrogate, the cataloger should be able (and encouraged) to use his or her editorial judgment. ** ** --Ben ** ** Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 ** ** -- -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4
On 3/12/2013 9:07 AM, Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.edu wrote: But 2.4.1.4 states, Transcribe a statement of responsibility in the form in which it appears on the source of information. Immediately followed by the optional omission, Abridge a statement of responsibility only if it can be abridged without loss of essential information. I have looked in vain for something similar to AACR2 1.1F7., Include titles and abbreviations of titles of nobility, address, honour, and distinction ... Otherwise, omit all such data from statements of responsibility, and not found it. I suppose the question is, then, is such information as affiliations and and titles considered essential and thus required to be included? And what purpose should we have in mind when determining what information is essential - making a perfectly faithful reproduction of what's on the t.p.? or just identification of the resource in general? -- Lisa Hatt Cataloging De Anza College Library 408-864-8459
Re: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4
It may not be the same as AACR2 but it has the same gist (gyst?): don't include any unnecesary verbiage that does not add to the reponsible agent. This would include personal names that have forename and surname. When surname is only available and a title is present, use it. When corporate bodies are involved, unless there will be ambiguity, there is no need to add corporation language (Inc, Cie, Ltd., etc.) On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Lisa Hatt hattl...@fhda.edu wrote: On 3/12/2013 9:07 AM, Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.edu wrote: But 2.4.1.4 states, Transcribe a statement of responsibility in the form in which it appears on the source of information. Immediately followed by the optional omission, Abridge a statement of responsibility only if it can be abridged without loss of essential information. I have looked in vain for something similar to AACR2 1.1F7., Include titles and abbreviations of titles of nobility, address, honour, and distinction ... Otherwise, omit all such data from statements of responsibility, and not found it. I suppose the question is, then, is such information as affiliations and and titles considered essential and thus required to be included? And what purpose should we have in mind when determining what information is essential - making a perfectly faithful reproduction of what's on the t.p.? or just identification of the resource in general? -- Lisa Hatt Cataloging De Anza College Library 408-864-8459 -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4
I wonder if the statement would read better if we punctuated it differently, e.g.: edited by J. Garland (Cambridge Carbonates UK), J.E. Neilson (University of Aberdeen, UK), S.E. Laubach (University of Texas at Austin, USA) and K.J. Whidden (USGS, USA) This might actually do a much better job of conveying the essence of what's on the source of information, using punctuation marks to take over the function that typography and/or layout probably played. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edumailto:k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 1:13 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4 Do people really think edited by J. Garland, Cambridge Carbonates UK, J.E. Neilson, University of Aberdeen, UK, S.E. Laubach, University of Texas at Austin, USA and K.J. Whidden, USGS, USA is more helpful and unambiguous to users than, edited by J. Garland, J.E. Neilson, S.E. Laubach, and K.J. Whidden? To me at least the former looks like a mix of individuals and corporate bodies. And that is what 2.4.1.4 without the optional omission (which, unfortunately, LC and PCC don't seem to like) leads to. --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137
Re: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4
I like Kevin's suggestion for punctuation. However, in my experience working with RDA records I have to say I have almost never seen records where the cataloger transcribed everything including qualifications, places, etc., in spite of the LC-PCC PS generally do not abridge a statement of responsibility. I have occasionally copied the statement out in full myself, but not usually. Now that I've seen Kevin's suggestion I might do it more often :-) Bob Robert L. Maxwell Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept. 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 12:26 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4 I wonder if the statement would read better if we punctuated it differently, e.g.: edited by J. Garland (Cambridge Carbonates UK), J.E. Neilson (University of Aberdeen, UK), S.E. Laubach (University of Texas at Austin, USA) and K.J. Whidden (USGS, USA) This might actually do a much better job of conveying the essence of what's on the source of information, using punctuation marks to take over the function that typography and/or layout probably played. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edumailto:k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA]mailto:[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 1:13 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4 Do people really think edited by J. Garland, Cambridge Carbonates UK, J.E. Neilson, University of Aberdeen, UK, S.E. Laubach, University of Texas at Austin, USA and K.J. Whidden, USGS, USA is more helpful and unambiguous to users than, edited by J. Garland, J.E. Neilson, S.E. Laubach, and K.J. Whidden? To me at least the former looks like a mix of individuals and corporate bodies. And that is what 2.4.1.4 without the optional omission (which, unfortunately, LC and PCC don't seem to like) leads to. --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137
Re: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4
Oh, boy! On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.eduwrote: Do people really think ** ** edited by J. Garland, Cambridge Carbonates UK, J.E. Neilson, University of Aberdeen, UK, S.E. Laubach, University of Texas at Austin, USA and K.J. Whidden, USGS, USA ** ** is more helpful and unambiguous to users than, ** ** edited by J. Garland, J.E. Neilson, S.E. Laubach, and K.J. Whidden? ** ** To me at least the former looks like a mix of individuals and corporate bodies. And that is what 2.4.1.4 without the optional omission (which, unfortunately, LC and PCC don't seem to like) leads to. ** ** --Ben** ** ** Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 ** ** -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4
Joan--there's no requirement to record affiliations, but there is a requirement (unless you choose the optional omission) to Transcribe a statement of responsibility in the form in which it appears on the source of information which, if there are affiliations on the t.p., would presumably include them. Kevin and Bob--thanks for the suggestions. It is always helpful to be reminded that transcription does not include slavishly copying punctuation (I really think that should warrant its own rule number, not just be an orphan last sentence to 1.7.3). I hope that in the future, RDA best practices include some discussion and examples of how to treat this. --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Joan Wang Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 2:43 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4 Does RDA require to transcribe affiliations of authors? The rule only mentions in the form. 2.4.1.4 Recording Statements of Responsibility Transcribe a statement of responsibility in the form in which it appears on the source of information. Here is the definition of statement of responsibility: A statement relating to the identification and/or function of any persons, families, or corporate bodies responsible for the creation of, or contributing to the realization of, the intellectual or artistic content of a resource. I am wondering why there is no such an example under 2.4.1.4. Authors' affiliations seem to be common. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Kevin M Randall k...@northwestern.edumailto:k...@northwestern.edu wrote: I wonder if the statement would read better if we punctuated it differently, e.g.: edited by J. Garland (Cambridge Carbonates UK), J.E. Neilson (University of Aberdeen, UK), S.E. Laubach (University of Texas at Austin, USA) and K.J. Whidden (USGS, USA) This might actually do a much better job of conveying the essence of what's on the source of information, using punctuation marks to take over the function that typography and/or layout probably played. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edumailto:k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939tel:%28847%29%20491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 1:13 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4 Do people really think edited by J. Garland, Cambridge Carbonates UK, J.E. Neilson, University of Aberdeen, UK, S.E. Laubach, University of Texas at Austin, USA and K.J. Whidden, USGS, USA is more helpful and unambiguous to users than, edited by J. Garland, J.E. Neilson, S.E. Laubach, and K.J. Whidden? To me at least the former looks like a mix of individuals and corporate bodies. And that is what 2.4.1.4 without the optional omission (which, unfortunately, LC and PCC don't seem to like) leads to. --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137tel:617-253-7137 -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4
Thanks. Benjamin. Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.eduwrote: Joan--there's no requirement to record affiliations, but there is a requirement (unless you choose the optional omission) to Transcribe a statement of responsibility in the form in which it appears on the source of information which, if there are affiliations on the t.p., would presumably include them. ** ** Kevin and Bob--thanks for the suggestions. It is always helpful to be reminded that transcription does not include slavishly copying punctuation (I really think that should warrant its own rule number, not just be an orphan last sentence to 1.7.3). ** ** I hope that in the future, RDA best practices include some discussion and examples of how to treat this. ** ** --Ben ** ** Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] *On Behalf Of *Joan Wang *Sent:* Monday, March 11, 2013 2:43 PM *To:* RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4 ** ** Does RDA require to transcribe affiliations of authors? The rule only mentions in the form. *2.4.1.4 Recording Statements of Responsibility Transcribe a statement of responsibility in the form in which it appears on the source of information. * Here is the definition of statement of responsibility: *A statement relating to the identification and/or function of any persons, families, or corporate bodies responsible for the creation of, or contributing to the realization of, the intellectual or artistic content of a resource.* I am wondering why there is no such an example under 2.4.1.4. Authors' affiliations seem to be common. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Kevin M Randall k...@northwestern.edu wrote: I wonder if the statement would read better if we punctuated it differently, e.g.: edited by J. Garland (Cambridge Carbonates UK), J.E. Neilson (University of Aberdeen, UK), S.E. Laubach (University of Texas at Austin, USA) and K.J. Whidden (USGS, USA) This might actually do a much better job of conveying the essence of what's on the source of information, using punctuation marks to take over the function that typography and/or layout probably played. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Benjamin A Abrahamse *Sent:* Monday, March 11, 2013 1:13 PM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4 Do people really think edited by J. Garland, Cambridge Carbonates UK, J.E. Neilson, University of Aberdeen, UK, S.E. Laubach, University of Texas at Austin, USA and K.J. Whidden, USGS, USA is more helpful and unambiguous to users than, edited by J. Garland, J.E. Neilson, S.E. Laubach, and K.J. Whidden? To me at least the former looks like a mix of individuals and corporate bodies. And that is what 2.4.1.4 without the optional omission (which, unfortunately, LC and PCC don't seem to like) leads to. --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4
This question was on my own list, so I am very pleased to see Kevin's suggested punctuation to enclose affiliations that are part of a statement of responsibility in parentheses. This seems to nicely clarify that a named affiliation does not have any actual responsibility, and is only named as a type of qualifier for the person. If this is an acceptable approach, then I think it would be very helpful if the JSC could add an example showing this, under 2.4.1.4. Deborah - - - - - - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. mailto:debo...@marcofquality.com debo...@marcofquality.com http://www.marcofquality.com www.marcofquality.com From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 2:50 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4 Joan--there's no requirement to record affiliations, but there is a requirement (unless you choose the optional omission) to Transcribe a statement of responsibility in the form in which it appears on the source of information which, if there are affiliations on the t.p., would presumably include them. Kevin and Bob--thanks for the suggestions. It is always helpful to be reminded that transcription does not include slavishly copying punctuation (I really think that should warrant its own rule number, not just be an orphan last sentence to 1.7.3). I hope that in the future, RDA best practices include some discussion and examples of how to treat this. --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Joan Wang Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 2:43 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4 Does RDA require to transcribe affiliations of authors? The rule only mentions in the form. 2.4.1.4 Recording Statements of Responsibility Transcribe a statement of responsibility in the form in which it appears on the source of information. Here is the definition of statement of responsibility: A statement relating to the identification and/or function of any persons, families, or corporate bodies responsible for the creation of, or contributing to the realization of, the intellectual or artistic content of a resource. I am wondering why there is no such an example under 2.4.1.4. Authors' affiliations seem to be common. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Kevin M Randall k...@northwestern.edu wrote: I wonder if the statement would read better if we punctuated it differently, e.g.: edited by J. Garland (Cambridge Carbonates UK), J.E. Neilson (University of Aberdeen, UK), S.E. Laubach (University of Texas at Austin, USA) and K.J. Whidden (USGS, USA) This might actually do a much better job of conveying the essence of what's on the source of information, using punctuation marks to take over the function that typography and/or layout probably played. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 tel:%28847%29%20491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 1:13 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4 Do people really think edited by J. Garland, Cambridge Carbonates UK, J.E. Neilson, University of Aberdeen, UK, S.E. Laubach, University of Texas at Austin, USA and K.J. Whidden, USGS, USA is more helpful and unambiguous to users than, edited by J. Garland, J.E. Neilson, S.E. Laubach, and K.J. Whidden? To me at least the former looks like a mix of individuals and corporate bodies. And that is what 2.4.1.4 without the optional omission (which, unfortunately, LC and PCC don't seem to like) leads to. --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4
Ben posted:
edited by J. Garland, Cambridge Carbonates UK, J.E. Neilson, University of=
Aberdeen, UK, S.E. Laubach, University of Texas at Austin, USA and K.J. Wh=
idden, USGS, USA
Ben, I agree that this is more complicated and harder to read the a
statement omitting the affiliations.
It might be easier to understand if properly punctuated. A semicolon
used without preceding space is not forbidden by ISBD punctuation
principles:
edited by J. Garland, Cambridge Carbonates UK; J.E. Neilson, University of=
Aberdeen, UK; S.E. Laubach, University of Texas at Austin, USA; and K.J. Wh=
idden, USGS, USA.
A semicolon is substituted for a comma when there are internal commas.
_Chicago Manual of Style_ 4th ed. 5.32 5.93 (for that semicolon
before and.
I would prefer following CMS as opposed to introducing parentheses,
although CMS 5.44 and 15.53 might suggest parentheses. Unless
parentheses are on the source, semicolons seem less alteration.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4
There is another way of looking at this concern. If this item was in the
Library of Congress Catalogue, and someone did a Title search for Cambridge
or Texas - they would retrieve it. I am not convinced they would find it
suitable for their purpose or the random selection of other material that had
author affiliations transcribed that included the terms.
Without adequate mark up the proliferation of content can lead to confusion
in retrieval. It is important to look at both ends of the process - data
generation and retrieval when making decisions on what is appropriate to
include.
Keith
Keith Trickey
Lead Trainer at Sherrington Sanders
Liverpool. UK
From: J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 20:34
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4
Ben posted:
edited by J. Garland, Cambridge Carbonates UK, J.E. Neilson, University of=
Aberdeen, UK, S.E. Laubach, University of Texas at Austin, USA and K.J. Wh=
idden, USGS, USA
Ben, I agree that this is more complicated and harder to read the a
statement omitting the affiliations.
It might be easier to understand if properly punctuated. A semicolon
used without preceding space is not forbidden by ISBD punctuation
principles:
edited by J. Garland, Cambridge Carbonates UK; J.E. Neilson, University of=
Aberdeen, UK; S.E. Laubach, University of Texas at Austin, USA; and K.J. Wh=
idden, USGS, USA.
A semicolon is substituted for a comma when there are internal commas.
_Chicago Manual of Style_ 4th ed. 5.32 5.93 (for that semicolon
before and.
I would prefer following CMS as opposed to introducing parentheses,
although CMS 5.44 and 15.53 might suggest parentheses. Unless
parentheses are on the source, semicolons seem less alteration.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4
Kevin suggested a helpful use of cataloger-introduced punctuation: edited by J. Garland (Cambridge Carbonates UK), J.E. Neilson (University of Aberdeen, UK), S.E. Laubach University of Texas at Austin, USA) and K.J. Whidden (USGS, USA) I could also see : edited by J. Garland, [of] Cambridge Carbonates UK; J.E. Neilson, [of] University of Aberdeen, UK; S.E. Laubach, [of] University of Texas at Austin, USA and K.J. Whidden, [of] USGS, USA For a cataloger examining bib records, *perhaps* it would be easier to recognize that the second one is clearly amended by the cataloger. I'm not so sure. I do like the addition of something, though. Daniel -- Daniel CannCasciato Head of Cataloging Central Washington University Brooks Library Ellensburg, WA 98926 Wearing the sensible shoes proudly since 1977!
Re: [RDA-L] note order in RDA
Wow! Mark, thank you so so much. Now I understand more. Have a great weekend! Joan Wang On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 8:26 PM, M. E. m.k.e.m...@gmail.com wrote: I don't see a reply to this post, so I'll give it a go. Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.org wrote: Is there a note order requirement in RDA? Nope. At least, not in the main body of RDA. I searched RDA Toolkit and found Order of Elements in Appendix D.1 ISBD Presentation (LC PCC PS). There is an element listing order in note area. Does it indicate a note order? No, not by my reading. Looks more like a random listing. And there's some repetition to boot; RDA 3.20 (Equipment or System Requirement) is given twice, for instance. I looked at JSC examples of RDA records. They seem to show an order of MARC fields like 50x, 51x, 52x, 53x, and so on, except the record for Book 2. It shows a note order as the following: 546 Language note ## $a In English. 500 General Note ## $a “Co-published simultaneously as Journal of archival organization, volume 3, numbers 2/3 2005.” 504 Bibliography, etc. note ## $a Includes bibliographical references and index. (By the way, If 546 note is necessary in this record even if the fixed field includes the language code eng. Why the record for Book 1 (in English) ignores a language note?) Probably showing off the application of different non-core elements in different records. Consider a library where a language notice is preferred for every record on the public side of the catalog and the only way to get it to show up in the OPAC display is to record a note manually since one can't be generated automatically from the 008 or 041 codes. If we focus on data element description, a note order really does not matter. But so far we are still working on a traditional work-form. Is there a general practice? Or I missed something? Not missing anything. There's no general practice currently accepted on note order. In the cataloging narrative, RDA's more concerned about fashioning plot points and describing the characters. It's the ISBD that spins one kind of story with these, but the current edition of that standard says that the order of presentation [of notes is] optional. Neither CONSER's nor the recent MLA draft best practices documents mention note order, to the best of my memory. (CONSER's pre-RDA practice is to use MARC tag order, leaving the Description based on and Last issue consulted notes at the end.) In my own cataloging, I stick with AACR2 (or near-AACR2) order because I'm an embittered sentimentalist. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex http://www.minitex.umn.edu/ -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] note order in RDA
I don't see a reply to this post, so I'll give it a go. Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.org wrote: Is there a note order requirement in RDA? Nope. At least, not in the main body of RDA. I searched RDA Toolkit and found Order of Elements in Appendix D.1 ISBD Presentation (LC PCC PS). There is an element listing order in note area. Does it indicate a note order? No, not by my reading. Looks more like a random listing. And there's some repetition to boot; RDA 3.20 (Equipment or System Requirement) is given twice, for instance. I looked at JSC examples of RDA records. They seem to show an order of MARC fields like 50x, 51x, 52x, 53x, and so on, except the record for Book 2. It shows a note order as the following: 546 Language note ## $a In English. 500 General Note ## $a “Co-published simultaneously as Journal of archival organization, volume 3, numbers 2/3 2005.” 504 Bibliography, etc. note ## $a Includes bibliographical references and index. (By the way, If 546 note is necessary in this record even if the fixed field includes the language code eng. Why the record for Book 1 (in English) ignores a language note?) Probably showing off the application of different non-core elements in different records. Consider a library where a language notice is preferred for every record on the public side of the catalog and the only way to get it to show up in the OPAC display is to record a note manually since one can't be generated automatically from the 008 or 041 codes. If we focus on data element description, a note order really does not matter. But so far we are still working on a traditional work-form. Is there a general practice? Or I missed something? Not missing anything. There's no general practice currently accepted on note order. In the cataloging narrative, RDA's more concerned about fashioning plot points and describing the characters. It's the ISBD that spins one kind of story with these, but the current edition of that standard says that the order of presentation [of notes is] optional. Neither CONSER's nor the recent MLA draft best practices documents mention note order, to the best of my memory. (CONSER's pre-RDA practice is to use MARC tag order, leaving the Description based on and Last issue consulted notes at the end.) In my own cataloging, I stick with AACR2 (or near-AACR2) order because I'm an embittered sentimentalist. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
[RDA-L] thanks RE: [RDA-L] 502 coding in RDA
Many thanks to Elizabeth O'Keefe of The Morgan Library Museum. She sent us the necessary coding that enabled my systems librarian to tweak our Ex Libris Voyager display created exactly what we want in terms of a display. This coding will surely come in handy as we continue to work with RDA elements. //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135 On Fri, 22 Feb 2013, FOGLER, PATRICIA A GS-11 USAF AETC AUL/LTSC wrote: I am trying to make a local decision on the 502 for our catalog in preparation for RDA training. I remember some discussions on this topic a month and 2 ago am hoping to hear that someone has come up with a good solution since. With a helpful system-generated label, we get: Dissertation Note: Master of Military Art and Science General Studies U.S. Army Command and General Staff College 2012. Are other libraries just accepting this? Continuing with the |a free text field full punctuation? Adding punctuation to the subfields? Is there some other option I've not though of? It seems a shame not to start coding this field for our local theses especially as we start working with RDA, but I'm not liking the options I feel I have here to bring to my colleagues. I'd be interested in what other libraries that catalog a lot of dissertations are doing with their 502s. Thanks. //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135
Re: [RDA-L] 502 coding in RDA
Patricia, Is your Ex-Libris catalog Voyager or Aleph? We have Voyager, which allows you to generate punctuation between subfields. If it is Voyager, I can point you to instructions on generating punctuation. If it is Aleph, I leave it to other Aleph users. Elizabeth O'Keefe Elizabeth O'Keefe Director of Collection Information Systems The Morgan Library Museum 225 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016-3405 TEL: 212 590-0380 FAX: 212-768-5680 NET: eoke...@themorgan.org Visit CORSAIR, the Library’s comprehensive collections catalog, now on the web at http://corsair.themorgan.org FOGLER, PATRICIA A GS-11 USAF AETC AUL/LTSC patricia.fog...@us.af.mil 2/22/2013 9:01 AM I am trying to make a local decision on the 502 for our catalog in preparation for RDA training. I remember some discussions on this topic a month and 2 ago am hoping to hear that someone has come up with a good solution since. We would like to start coding the 502 subfields, but as best we can tell, our catalog, Ex Libris, is not able to generate punctuation that is not in the catalog record. Our public services librarians would very much like to retain as close to our current standard thesis note as possible. I understand (or assume at least there is) the assumption that systems will eventually be able to add the desired punctuation to this note. But what I do not understand about the RDA admonition to remove punctuation from the 502 in particular, is how local systems are handling this currently. Under AACR2, a sample free text 502 reads: ‡a Thesis (M. of Military Art and Science (General Studies))--U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, 2012. Which of course generates this display: Thesis (M. of Military Art and Science (General Studies))--U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, 2012. The closest we can get to this, with RDA coding is: ‡b M. of Military Art and Science ‡g General Studies ‡c U.S. Army Command and General Staff College ‡d 2012. With a helpful system-generated label, we get: Dissertation Note: Master of Military Art and Science General Studies U.S. Army Command and General Staff College 2012. Are other libraries just accepting this? Continuing with the |a free text field full punctuation? Adding punctuation to the subfields? Is there some other option I've not though of? It seems a shame not to start coding this field for our local theses especially as we start working with RDA, but I'm not liking the options I feel I have here to bring to my colleagues. I'd be interested in what other libraries that catalog a lot of dissertations are doing with their 502s. Thanks. //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135
Re: [RDA-L] 502 coding in RDA
It is indeed Voyager! I am very interested, please advise. And thank you!! //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Elizabeth O'Keefe Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:22 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 502 coding in RDA Patricia, Is your Ex-Libris catalog Voyager or Aleph? We have Voyager, which allows you to generate punctuation between subfields. If it is Voyager, I can point you to instructions on generating punctuation. If it is Aleph, I leave it to other Aleph users. Elizabeth O'Keefe Elizabeth O'Keefe Director of Collection Information Systems The Morgan Library Museum 225 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016-3405 TEL: 212 590-0380 FAX: 212-768-5680 NET: eoke...@themorgan.org Visit CORSAIR, the Library’s comprehensive collections catalog, now on the web at http://corsair.themorgan.org FOGLER, PATRICIA A GS-11 USAF AETC AUL/LTSC patricia.fog...@us.af.mil 2/22/2013 9:01 AM I am trying to make a local decision on the 502 for our catalog in preparation for RDA training. I remember some discussions on this topic a month and 2 ago am hoping to hear that someone has come up with a good solution since. We would like to start coding the 502 subfields, but as best we can tell, our catalog, Ex Libris, is not able to generate punctuation that is not in the catalog record. Our public services librarians would very much like to retain as close to our current standard thesis note as possible. I understand (or assume at least there is) the assumption that systems will eventually be able to add the desired punctuation to this note. But what I do not understand about the RDA admonition to remove punctuation from the 502 in particular, is how local systems are handling this currently. Under AACR2, a sample free text 502 reads: ‡a Thesis (M. of Military Art and Science (General Studies))--U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, 2012. Which of course generates this display: Thesis (M. of Military Art and Science (General Studies))--U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, 2012. The closest we can get to this, with RDA coding is: ‡b M. of Military Art and Science ‡g General Studies ‡c U.S. Army Command and General Staff College ‡d 2012. With a helpful system-generated label, we get: Dissertation Note: Master of Military Art and Science General Studies U.S. Army Command and General Staff College 2012. Are other libraries just accepting this? Continuing with the |a free text field full punctuation? Adding punctuation to the subfields? Is there some other option I've not though of? It seems a shame not to start coding this field for our local theses especially as we start working with RDA, but I'm not liking the options I feel I have here to bring to my colleagues. I'd be interested in what other libraries that catalog a lot of dissertations are doing with their 502s. Thanks. //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [RDA-L] 502 coding in RDA
In RDA, each of the bits you described is actually a separate element, which is why the separate subfielding in MARC is needed, so that you can actually record the RDA elements called for. 7.9.2 Academic Degree 7.9.3 Granting Institution or Faculty 7.9.4 Year Granted That being said, the LC-PCC Policy Statement for 7.9.1.3 that says Record the sub-elements related to dissertation or thesis information as described in RDA in the appropriate subfield of MARC field 502, without AACR2-style punctuation between the sub-elements is going to be labeled as LC practice. The PCC policy will be to leave the method for recording this information to cataloger judgment. We haven't yet decided how we will record dissertation notes, but I suspect we will follow LC. Adam Schiff ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Fri, 22 Feb 2013, FOGLER, PATRICIA A GS-11 USAF AETC AUL/LTSC wrote: I am trying to make a local decision on the 502 for our catalog in preparation for RDA training. I remember some discussions on this topic a month and 2 ago am hoping to hear that someone has come up with a good solution since. We would like to start coding the 502 subfields, but as best we can tell, our catalog, Ex Libris, is not able to generate punctuation that is not in the catalog record. Our public services librarians would very much like to retain as close to our current standard thesis note as possible. I understand (or assume at least there is) the assumption that systems will eventually be able to add the desired punctuation to this note. But what I do not understand about the RDA admonition to remove punctuation from the 502 in particular, is how local systems are handling this currently. Under AACR2, a sample free text 502 reads: ?a Thesis (M. of Military Art and Science (General Studies))--U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, 2012. Which of course generates this display: Thesis (M. of Military Art and Science (General Studies))--U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, 2012. The closest we can get to this, with RDA coding is: ?b M. of Military Art and Science ?g General Studies ?c U.S. Army Command and General Staff College ?d 2012. With a helpful system-generated label, we get: Dissertation Note: Master of Military Art and Science General Studies U.S. Army Command and General Staff College 2012. Are other libraries just accepting this? Continuing with the |a free text field full punctuation? Adding punctuation to the subfields? Is there some other option I've not though of? It seems a shame not to start coding this field for our local theses especially as we start working with RDA, but I'm not liking the options I feel I have here to bring to my colleagues. I'd be interested in what other libraries that catalog a lot of dissertations are doing with their 502s. Thanks. //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135
Re: [RDA-L] anomaly in LC RDA training module?
My reading is that there is an option to use 500 and/or 775 instead of the using the preferred title in 240, and that the option was taken. - Original Message - From: McRae, Rick Date: Thursday, February 7, 2013 10:20 am Subject: [RDA-L] anomaly in LC RDA training module? To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Greetings- Either I have misunderstood a concept (not unlikely!) or there is an example for a rule in the LC Training Module which seems to contradict it. I direct you to: http://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/RDA%20training%20materials/LC%20RDA%20Training/LC%20RDA%20course%20table.html Under FRBR, RDA, and MARC Slides-Slide 22: [cid:image005.jpg@01CE051C.8EDD8B30] Then comes the example on the next slide (this is embedded under a search-results image with both titles mentioned in 245 and 500 fields in this record) : [cid:image006.jpg@01CE051C.8EDD8B30] This example, if I read it correctly, corresponds to New title, revised content = new expression plus 240 for the original work's preferred title, the 3rd of the maxims in Slide 22 above. So where's the preferred title in 240? Personally, I would catalog this item as in the above example. But isn't this the archaic AACR2 method, stipulated against in that former slide? Any insights welcome. Thanks! Rick McRae Catalog / Reference Librarian Sibley Music Library Eastman School of Music (585) 274-1370 David Moody Cataloging Librarian University of Detroit Mercy mood...@udmercy.edu (313) 578-0402 Visit the University's re:search portal: http://research.udmercy.edu A sheltered life can also be a daring one. For all serious daring begins from within. -- Eudora Welty, One writer's beginning
Re: [RDA-L] Clarification of LC's RDA implementation RE: [RDA-L] GMD revisited
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 a...@loc.gov 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 asch...@u.washington.edu 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 ** **
