Re: [RDA-L] 2 manifestations on one bibliographic record
Thanks for your take on this question, Mac!
Rick
-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, January 30, 2013 8:46 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 2 manifestations on one bibliographic record
Rich McRae asked:
When there is a digitized copy made of a hard-copy item- both separate
mani= festations according to FRBR, is it mandated by RDA rules that
two bibliogr= aphic records should be created? ...
That is my understanding, just as it was mandated by AACR2. So far, so far as
I know, there has been no LCPS subverting that as the LCRI subverted AACR2.
If/when Bibframe has expression records, an expression record might contain
both. But we are still doing manifestation records.
You can refer to the alternate form in 530 (which has $u), in 776, and/or 856 1
(version of resource) $u. but in my view that does not replace the need for two
records due to AACR2's GMD or RDA's media terms, not to mention fixed fields.
Most of our clients prefer 530, although the PN e-book standard calls for 776.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] 2 manifestations on one bibliographic record
Rick McRae wrote: When there is a digitized copy made of a hard-copy item- both separate manifestations according to FRBR, is it mandated by RDA rules that two bibliographic records should be created? Or is this an option, and that, with the proper coding (00x, 33x, etc.) and description, hybrid records are still acceptable? RDA doesn't really deal with records per se. It deals with data intended to describe resources and provide access to those resources. This is probably a difficult thing for people to get used to. It's a different way of thinking. So it would seem that it should be possible to create a MARC record with elements describing all of the various formats that a particular expression was manifested in, and be fully following the spirit and intent of RDA in doing so. HOWEVER, one of the objectives of RDA is Continuity: The data should be amenable to integration into existing databases (particularly those developed using AACR and related standards). (RDA 0.4.2.4) Our tradition has been, generally, to create separate records (initially they were cards, then they were MARC records), each containing the description for only one manifestation of an expression. Therefore I think it's advisable to follow the same practice and create a separate record for each manifestation. That being said, if you put the URL for a digitized version into field 856 of the record for the hardcopy version, and give it 2nd indicator 1 (Version of resource), you would not at all be out of line, in my opinion. This field both describes the relationship between manifestations, and allows the user to obtain the online manifestation. This is considered to be a valid (if not the most desirable) approach for serials, per 31.2.3A in the CONSER Cataloging Manual. In the future, I think (hope) we'll likely only be creating *data*, not records. The data will be associated with the appropriate FRBR Group 1 entities based on the element labels assigned to the data and the identifiers of the specific instances of those Group 1 entities. The data will be able to be collected into records if that's how a system needs it to operate. Hope this helps. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
Re: [RDA-L] 2 manifestations on one bibliographic record
Thank you, Kevin-- your response is most informative. I'll bring up the advisability of separate records at a future in-house meeting, but for the time being, seeing that we're wouldn't be out of line by what we're doing presently, we'll stay the course until a future decision reverses our current practice. Rick -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:43 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 2 manifestations on one bibliographic record Rick McRae wrote: When there is a digitized copy made of a hard-copy item- both separate manifestations according to FRBR, is it mandated by RDA rules that two bibliographic records should be created? Or is this an option, and that, with the proper coding (00x, 33x, etc.) and description, hybrid records are still acceptable? RDA doesn't really deal with records per se. It deals with data intended to describe resources and provide access to those resources. This is probably a difficult thing for people to get used to. It's a different way of thinking. So it would seem that it should be possible to create a MARC record with elements describing all of the various formats that a particular expression was manifested in, and be fully following the spirit and intent of RDA in doing so. HOWEVER, one of the objectives of RDA is Continuity: The data should be amenable to integration into existing databases (particularly those developed using AACR and related standards). (RDA 0.4.2.4) Our tradition has been, generally, to create separate records (initially they were cards, then they were MARC records), each containing the description for only one manifestation of an expression. Therefore I think it's advisable to follow the same practice and create a separate record for each manifestation. That being said, if you put the URL for a digitized version into field 856 of the record for the hardcopy version, and give it 2nd indicator 1 (Version of resource), you would not at all be out of line, in my opinion. This field both describes the relationship between manifestations, and allows the user to obtain the online manifestation. This is considered to be a valid (if not the most desirable) approach for serials, per 31.2.3A in the CONSER Cataloging Manual. In the future, I think (hope) we'll likely only be creating *data*, not records. The data will be associated with the appropriate FRBR Group 1 entities based on the element labels assigned to the data and the identifiers of the specific instances of those Group 1 entities. The data will be able to be collected into records if that's how a system needs it to operate. Hope this helps. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
Re: [RDA-L] 2 manifestations on one bibliographic record
Rich McRae asked:
When there is a digitized copy made of a hard-copy item- both separate mani=
festations according to FRBR, is it mandated by RDA rules that two bibliogr=
aphic records should be created? ...
That is my understanding, just as it was mandated by AACR2. So far,
so far as I know, there has been no LCPS subverting that as the LCRI
subverted AACR2.
If/when Bibframe has expression records, an expression record might
contain both. But we are still doing manifestation records.
You can refer to the alternate form in 530 (which has $u), in 776,
and/or 856 1 (version of resource) $u. but in my view that does not
replace the need for two records due to AACR2's GMD or RDA's media
terms, not to mention fixed fields. Most of our clients prefer 530,
although the PN e-book standard calls for 776.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
