Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA
I think CE is more usually taken as Common Era, rather than Christian Era. Christian Era would, I agree, defeat the object. The Wikipedia article on the abbreviations has the following links to published usage: http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=BC,BCEyear_start=1800year_e nd=2008corpus=0smoothing=3 http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=century+AD,century+CEyear_st art=1800year_end=2008corpus=0smoothing=3 Which indicate that BC and AD still predominate. However, quite why RDA allows AD to persist as a Latin abbreviation when it's been so retentive about elminating fl. and ca. is beyond me. They are all abbreviations in contemporary international use, but as has been said, this can in theory all be dealt with by altering displays. _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of David Giglio Sent: 22 July 2012 03:49 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA Wouldn't the RDA version of the non-Christian-centric terminology have to be spelled out as Christian Era or Before the Christian Era ? I fail to see how these are any less Christian-centric, since they explicitly mention it. Dave Giglio Head of Technical Services Dover Public Library Dover, Delaware 302-736-7031 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Buzz Haughton [bongob...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 2:17 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA All: I catalog as a volunteer at the Sosnick Library, Temple B'nai Israel in Sacramento, CA. I confess to some puzzlement as to why RDA has not apparently chosen to update dates to non-Christian-centric terminology, e.g. BC/AD -- BCE/CE. These terms have been in common usage now for many years (at least thirty, judging by what I have been able to find). Shouldn't RDA be moving into the twenty-first century when it comes to all aspects of cataloging? Buzz Haughton 1861 Pebblewood Dr Sacramento CA 95833 USA (916) 468-9027 bongob...@gmail.commailto:bongob...@gmail.com ** Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library’s new interactive Annual Report and Accounts 2010/11 : http://www.bl.uk/annualreport2010-11http://www.bl.uk/knowledge Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled * The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the mailto:postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. * Think before you print
Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA
Yes, fl. was allowed in AACR2. You'll find it in the examples in AACR2 22.17A, and in many headings across the LC/NAF. Although the examples in RDA 9.19.1.5 spell it out as Flourished, NACO practice follows the LCPS for 9.19.1.1, and prefers Active. I suppose one can be active, without necessarily flourishing. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 23 July 2012 10:07 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA I have never heard (or at least registered) the term common era before, and if I ever saw the term CE, I'd probably think it was something to do with either EU product standards or perhaps the Church of England. mind you, I still expect RDA to regulate what I eat, rather than how I catalogue. Anyway, as a replacement term I'm sure it's Doubleplusgood! Oh hang on is that what I meant? What's that other opinion. can't quite think of the term. express.. ;-) Anyway, Fl. wasn't allowed under AARC2 was it? I thought that was one of the more reasonable (re)introductions of RDA, albeit characteristically spelled out in the closest English term, in case it doesn't clutter the record enough as an abbreviation? ;-) Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool ** Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library’s new interactive Annual Report and Accounts 2010/11 : http://www.bl.uk/annualreport2010-11http://www.bl.uk/knowledge Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled * The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the mailto:postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. * Think before you print
Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA
Odd we didn't get many fl.s, then - so did NACO used to have neither 'active' or 'fl.'? Seems to be on the MARC21 pagesI'm pretty sure they used to be filtered out according to 1 protocol or another, or perhaps it was just an unpopular practice.. I'm not sure whether 'active' is a better term or not - assuming you continue to limit to a single date, it'll look like whoever is being 'dated' was only active for a year (perhaps in torpor the rest of the time?), whereas flourished has more of a meaning of initialising. Activated? I suppose at least 'active' is a relatively short, uncluttering word! Martin -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: 23 July 2012 11:53 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA Yes, fl. was allowed in AACR2. You'll find it in the examples in AACR2 22.17A, and in many headings across the LC/NAF. Although the examples in RDA 9.19.1.5 spell it out as Flourished, NACO practice follows the LCPS for 9.19.1.1, and prefers Active. I suppose one can be active, without necessarily flourishing. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 23 July 2012 10:07 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA I have never heard (or at least registered) the term common era before, and if I ever saw the term CE, I'd probably think it was something to do with either EU product standards or perhaps the Church of England. mind you, I still expect RDA to regulate what I eat, rather than how I catalogue. Anyway, as a replacement term I'm sure it's Doubleplusgood! Oh hang on is that what I meant? What's that other opinion. can't quite think of the term. express.. ;-) Anyway, Fl. wasn't allowed under AARC2 was it? I thought that was one of the more reasonable (re)introductions of RDA, albeit characteristically spelled out in the closest English term, in case it doesn't clutter the record enough as an abbreviation? ;-) Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool ** Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library’s new interactive Annual Report and Accounts 2010/11 : http://www.bl.uk/annualreport2010-11http://www.bl.uk/knowledge Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled * The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the mailto:postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. * Think before you print
Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA
A quick search on our local copy of the LC/NAF reveals 28332 personal name headings containing the characters fl. That will include some name-titles. The LCRI limited its use, except exceptionally, to spans of dates and to pre-20th century persons. Neither RDA nor the LCPS has either of those limitations. So in theory you could break a conflict with active 1989 when a sole publication was known, though a qualifier for the person's occupation would almost always be more helpful. Which is why the LCPS for 9.19.1.1 advises the use of judgement in selecting the best qualifier, rather than rigidly following the RDA order of precedence in 9.19.14-9.19.1.6. Regards Richard -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 23 July 2012 12:43 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA Odd we didn't get many fl.s, then - so did NACO used to have neither 'active' or 'fl.'? Seems to be on the MARC21 pagesI'm pretty sure they used to be filtered out according to 1 protocol or another, or perhaps it was just an unpopular practice.. I'm not sure whether 'active' is a better term or not - assuming you continue to limit to a single date, it'll look like whoever is being 'dated' was only active for a year (perhaps in torpor the rest of the time?), whereas flourished has more of a meaning of initialising. Activated? I suppose at least 'active' is a relatively short, uncluttering word! Martin -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: 23 July 2012 11:53 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA Yes, fl. was allowed in AACR2. You'll find it in the examples in AACR2 22.17A, and in many headings across the LC/NAF. Although the examples in RDA 9.19.1.5 spell it out as Flourished, NACO practice follows the LCPS for 9.19.1.1, and prefers Active. I suppose one can be active, without necessarily flourishing. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 23 July 2012 10:07 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA I have never heard (or at least registered) the term common era before, and if I ever saw the term CE, I'd probably think it was something to do with either EU product standards or perhaps the Church of England. mind you, I still expect RDA to regulate what I eat, rather than how I catalogue. Anyway, as a replacement term I'm sure it's Doubleplusgood! Oh hang on is that what I meant? What's that other opinion. can't quite think of the term. express.. ;-) Anyway, Fl. wasn't allowed under AARC2 was it? I thought that was one of the more reasonable (re)introductions of RDA, albeit characteristically spelled out in the closest English term, in case it doesn't clutter the record enough as an abbreviation? ;-) Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool ** Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library's new interactive Annual Report and Accounts 2010/11 : http://www.bl.uk/annualreport2010-11http://www.bl.uk/knowledge Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled * The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the mailto:postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. * Think before you print ** Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library’s new interactive Annual Report and Accounts 2010/11 : http://www.bl.uk
Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA
Strange, then... I've been labouring under the illusion we were dissenters all this time, whereas actually we were entirely conformist! Well, I'm not sure what we'll go for in the end - although I think locally we'll probably prefer fl./flourished/active over adding occupations, not least because of the issue of polymathy, but these things are yet to be deterimined Cheers! Martin -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: 23 July 2012 13:42 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA A quick search on our local copy of the LC/NAF reveals 28332 personal name headings containing the characters fl. That will include some name-titles. The LCRI limited its use, except exceptionally, to spans of dates and to pre-20th century persons. Neither RDA nor the LCPS has either of those limitations. So in theory you could break a conflict with active 1989 when a sole publication was known, though a qualifier for the person's occupation would almost always be more helpful. Which is why the LCPS for 9.19.1.1 advises the use of judgement in selecting the best qualifier, rather than rigidly following the RDA order of precedence in 9.19.14-9.19.1.6. Regards Richard -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 23 July 2012 12:43 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA Odd we didn't get many fl.s, then - so did NACO used to have neither 'active' or 'fl.'? Seems to be on the MARC21 pagesI'm pretty sure they used to be filtered out according to 1 protocol or another, or perhaps it was just an unpopular practice.. I'm not sure whether 'active' is a better term or not - assuming you continue to limit to a single date, it'll look like whoever is being 'dated' was only active for a year (perhaps in torpor the rest of the time?), whereas flourished has more of a meaning of initialising. Activated? I suppose at least 'active' is a relatively short, uncluttering word! Martin -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: 23 July 2012 11:53 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA Yes, fl. was allowed in AACR2. You'll find it in the examples in AACR2 22.17A, and in many headings across the LC/NAF. Although the examples in RDA 9.19.1.5 spell it out as Flourished, NACO practice follows the LCPS for 9.19.1.1, and prefers Active. I suppose one can be active, without necessarily flourishing. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 23 July 2012 10:07 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA I have never heard (or at least registered) the term common era before, and if I ever saw the term CE, I'd probably think it was something to do with either EU product standards or perhaps the Church of England. mind you, I still expect RDA to regulate what I eat, rather than how I catalogue. Anyway, as a replacement term I'm sure it's Doubleplusgood! Oh hang on is that what I meant? What's that other opinion. can't quite think of the term. express.. ;-) Anyway, Fl. wasn't allowed under AARC2 was it? I thought that was one of the more reasonable (re)introductions of RDA, albeit characteristically spelled out in the closest English term, in case it doesn't clutter the record enough as an abbreviation? ;-) Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool ** Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library's new interactive Annual Report and Accounts 2010/11 : http://www.bl.uk/annualreport2010-11http://www.bl.uk/knowledge Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled * The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient
Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA
The actual rules in the LCRIs are at https://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/22-17-22-20-additions-to-distinguish-identical-names 22.17-22.20. Additions to Distinguish Identical Names. Although flourished dates are allowed, they are sixth of seven in order of preference. Therefore, they were trying to reduce the use of flourished dates. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html On 23/07/2012 16:14, Kelleher, Martin wrote: Strange, then... I've been labouring under the illusion we were dissenters all this time, whereas actually we were entirely conformist! Well, I'm not sure what we'll go for in the end - although I think locally we'll probably prefer fl./flourished/active over adding occupations, not least because of the issue of polymathy, but these things are yet to be deterimined Cheers! Martin -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: 23 July 2012 13:42 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA A quick search on our local copy of the LC/NAF reveals 28332 personal name headings containing the characters fl. That will include some name-titles. The LCRI limited its use, except exceptionally, to spans of dates and to pre-20th century persons. Neither RDA nor the LCPS has either of those limitations. So in theory you could break a conflict with active 1989 when a sole publication was known, though a qualifier for the person's occupation would almost always be more helpful. Which is why the LCPS for 9.19.1.1 advises the use of judgement in selecting the best qualifier, rather than rigidly following the RDA order of precedence in 9.19.14-9.19.1.6. Regards Richard -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 23 July 2012 12:43 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA Odd we didn't get many fl.s, then - so did NACO used to have neither 'active' or 'fl.'? Seems to be on the MARC21 pagesI'm pretty sure they used to be filtered out according to 1 protocol or another, or perhaps it was just an unpopular practice.. I'm not sure whether 'active' is a better term or not - assuming you continue to limit to a single date, it'll look like whoever is being 'dated' was only active for a year (perhaps in torpor the rest of the time?), whereas flourished has more of a meaning of initialising. Activated? I suppose at least 'active' is a relatively short, uncluttering word! Martin -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: 23 July 2012 11:53 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA Yes, fl. was allowed in AACR2. You'll find it in the examples in AACR2 22.17A, and in many headings across the LC/NAF. Although the examples in RDA 9.19.1.5 spell it out as Flourished, NACO practice follows the LCPS for 9.19.1.1, and prefers Active. I suppose one can be active, without necessarily flourishing. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 23 July 2012 10:07 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA I have never heard (or at least registered) the term common era before, and if I ever saw the term CE, I'd probably think it was something to do with either EU product standards or perhaps the Church of England. mind you, I still expect RDA to regulate what I eat, rather than how I catalogue. Anyway, as a replacement term I'm sure it's Doubleplusgood! Oh hang on is that what I meant? What's that other opinion. can't quite think of the term. express.. ;-) Anyway, Fl. wasn't allowed under AARC2 was it? I thought that was one of the more reasonable (re)introductions of RDA, albeit characteristically spelled out in the closest English term, in case it doesn't clutter the record enough as an abbreviation? ;-) Martin Kelleher
Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA
The thing with occupations, is that while you can only add one to an access point to make it unique (and the far-sighted among us regard access points as ephemeral, apparently), you can record as many as you like as discrete data elements in the 374 MARC field. So RDA authority records become much more useful as devices for machines to identify and match authors across different databases, even if you are blessed with a discovery layer that renders them invisible to users. Does the University of Liverpool not use the LC/NAF? Regards Richard -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 23 July 2012 15:14 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA Strange, then... I've been labouring under the illusion we were dissenters all this time, whereas actually we were entirely conformist! Well, I'm not sure what we'll go for in the end - although I think locally we'll probably prefer fl./flourished/active over adding occupations, not least because of the issue of polymathy, but these things are yet to be deterimined Cheers! Martin -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: 23 July 2012 13:42 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA A quick search on our local copy of the LC/NAF reveals 28332 personal name headings containing the characters fl. That will include some name-titles. The LCRI limited its use, except exceptionally, to spans of dates and to pre-20th century persons. Neither RDA nor the LCPS has either of those limitations. So in theory you could break a conflict with active 1989 when a sole publication was known, though a qualifier for the person's occupation would almost always be more helpful. Which is why the LCPS for 9.19.1.1 advises the use of judgement in selecting the best qualifier, rather than rigidly following the RDA order of precedence in 9.19.14-9.19.1.6. Regards Richard -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 23 July 2012 12:43 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA Odd we didn't get many fl.s, then - so did NACO used to have neither 'active' or 'fl.'? Seems to be on the MARC21 pagesI'm pretty sure they used to be filtered out according to 1 protocol or another, or perhaps it was just an unpopular practice.. I'm not sure whether 'active' is a better term or not - assuming you continue to limit to a single date, it'll look like whoever is being 'dated' was only active for a year (perhaps in torpor the rest of the time?), whereas flourished has more of a meaning of initialising. Activated? I suppose at least 'active' is a relatively short, uncluttering word! Martin -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: 23 July 2012 11:53 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA Yes, fl. was allowed in AACR2. You'll find it in the examples in AACR2 22.17A, and in many headings across the LC/NAF. Although the examples in RDA 9.19.1.5 spell it out as Flourished, NACO practice follows the LCPS for 9.19.1.1, and prefers Active. I suppose one can be active, without necessarily flourishing. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 23 July 2012 10:07 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA I have never heard (or at least registered) the term common era before, and if I ever saw the term CE, I'd probably think it was something to do with either EU product standards or perhaps the Church of England. mind you, I still expect RDA to regulate what I eat, rather than how I catalogue. Anyway, as a replacement term I'm sure it's Doubleplusgood! Oh hang on is that what I meant? What's that other opinion. can't quite think of the term. express.. ;-) Anyway, Fl. wasn't allowed under AARC2 was it? I thought that was one of the more reasonable (re)introductions of RDA, albeit characteristically spelled out in the closest English term, in case it doesn't clutter the record
Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA
Hi Richard Nope! Well not uniformly, not by a long chalk. We use fairly nonstandard headings (although not as nonstandard as I thought, apparently), and internally maintained authorities, although bulk loads of ebooks mean we go for NAF headings where consistency can be maintained with our own standards where possible. I guess we may go more or less standard according to how fully we apply RDA The BL isn't entirely NACO though, is it? There always seem to be inconsistencies between the BL, LoC and OCLC anyway, as far as I can tell, but maybe I've not checked up on it so much recently. Cheers! Martin -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: 23 July 2012 15:31 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA The thing with occupations, is that while you ACO, can only add one to an access point to make it unique (and the far-sighted among us regard access points as ephemeral, apparently), you can record as many as you like as discrete data elements in the 374 MARC field. So RDA authority records become much more useful as devices for machines to identify and match authors across different databases, even if you are blessed with a discovery layer that renders them invisible to users. Does the University of Liverpool not use the LC/NAF? Regards Richard -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 23 July 2012 15:14 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA Strange, then... I've been labouring under the illusion we were dissenters all this time, whereas actually we were entirely conformist! Well, I'm not sure what we'll go for in the end - although I think locally we'll probably prefer fl./flourished/active over adding occupations, not least because of the issue of polymathy, but these things are yet to be deterimined Cheers! Martin -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: 23 July 2012 13:42 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA A quick search on our local copy of the LC/NAF reveals 28332 personal name headings containing the characters fl. That will include some name-titles. The LCRI limited its use, except exceptionally, to spans of dates and to pre-20th century persons. Neither RDA nor the LCPS has either of those limitations. So in theory you could break a conflict with active 1989 when a sole publication was known, though a qualifier for the person's occupation would almost always be more helpful. Which is why the LCPS for 9.19.1.1 advises the use of judgement in selecting the best qualifier, rather than rigidly following the RDA order of precedence in 9.19.14-9.19.1.6. Regards Richard -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 23 July 2012 12:43 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA Odd we didn't get many fl.s, then - so did NACO used to have neither 'active' or 'fl.'? Seems to be on the MARC21 pagesI'm pretty sure they used to be filtered out according to 1 protocol or another, or perhaps it was just an unpopular practice.. I'm not sure whether 'active' is a better term or not - assuming you continue to limit to a single date, it'll look like whoever is being 'dated' was only active for a year (perhaps in torpor the rest of the time?), whereas flourished has more of a meaning of initialising. Activated? I suppose at least 'active' is a relatively short, uncluttering word! Martin -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: 23 July 2012 11:53 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA Yes, fl. was allowed in AACR2. You'll find it in the examples in AACR2 22.17A, and in many headings across the LC/NAF. Although the examples in RDA 9.19.1.5 spell it out as Flourished, NACO practice follows the LCPS for 9.19.1.1, and prefers Active. I suppose one can be active, without necessarily flourishing. Regards Richard _ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk -Original Message- From: Resource
Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA
Martin The BL has used LC/NAF in current cataloguing for a number of years, but we have large numbers of legacy bibliographic records containing headings from our own former national authority file, and others created to standards that preceded that (for example, successive iterations of Panizzi's rules). Very many of these headings have been aligned to NACO, but a large number have not. Yet. We are doing an increasing amount of name authority record creation in RDA, for NACO, and should be doing all of it in RDA by the end of this year. Regards Richard -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 23 July 2012 15:56 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA Hi Richard Nope! Well not uniformly, not by a long chalk. We use fairly nonstandard headings (although not as nonstandard as I thought, apparently), and internally maintained authorities, although bulk loads of ebooks mean we go for NAF headings where consistency can be maintained with our own standards where possible. I guess we may go more or less standard according to how fully we apply RDA The BL isn't entirely NACO though, is it? There always seem to be inconsistencies between the BL, LoC and OCLC anyway, as far as I can tell, but maybe I've not checked up on it so much recently. Cheers! Martin ** Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library’s new interactive Annual Report and Accounts 2010/11 : http://www.bl.uk/annualreport2010-11http://www.bl.uk/knowledge Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled * The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the mailto:postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. * Think before you print
Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA
I wish to avoid dipping into the specifics of this question, but: In the gleaming future in which we no longer rely on pre-constructed heading strings, one will be able to display the information in the 046 field (or its equivalent) as seems best. Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc. Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300 e-mail: mrsm...@northwestern.edu voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306 Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. BatchCat version: 2007.22.416 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Buzz Haughton Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 1:18 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA All: I catalog as a volunteer at the Sosnick Library, Temple B'nai Israel in Sacramento, CA. I confess to some puzzlement as to why RDA has not apparently chosen to update dates to non-Christian-centric terminology, e.g. BC/AD -- BCE/CE. These terms have been in common usage now for many years (at least thirty, judging by what I have been able to find). Shouldn't RDA be moving into the twenty-first century when it comes to all aspects of cataloging? Buzz Haughton 1861 Pebblewood Dr Sacramento CA 95833 USA (916) 468-9027 bongob...@gmail.commailto:bongob...@gmail.com
Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA
Buzz Haughton said:
I confess to some puzzlement as to why RDA has not apparently chosen
to update dates to non-Christian-centric terminology, e.g. BC/AD --
BCE/CE ...
This was one of several good ideas in early RDA drafts which got lost.
Another was removing alternate title from title proper.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA
Wouldn't the RDA version of the non-Christian-centric terminology have to be spelled out as Christian Era or Before the Christian Era ?I fail to see how these are any less Christian-centric, since they explicitly mention it. Dave Giglio Head of Technical Services Dover Public Library Dover, Delaware 302-736-7031 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Buzz Haughton [bongob...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 2:17 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA All: I catalog as a volunteer at the Sosnick Library, Temple B'nai Israel in Sacramento, CA. I confess to some puzzlement as to why RDA has not apparently chosen to update dates to non-Christian-centric terminology, e.g. BC/AD -- BCE/CE. These terms have been in common usage now for many years (at least thirty, judging by what I have been able to find). Shouldn't RDA be moving into the twenty-first century when it comes to all aspects of cataloging? Buzz Haughton 1861 Pebblewood Dr Sacramento CA 95833 USA (916) 468-9027 bongob...@gmail.commailto:bongob...@gmail.com
Re: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA
The JSC decided to defer this issue at its April 2008 meeting. (http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/5m216-265.pdf p. 52) I believe they felt that CE/BCE were not in widespread-enough use to justify a change. -- John Hostage Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian Langdell Hall Harvard Law School Library Cambridge, MA 02138 host...@law.harvard.edumailto:host...@law.harvard.edu +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax) http://www.law.harvard.edu/library/ From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Buzz Haughton [bongob...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 14:17 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Christianity-centric terminology in RDA All: I catalog as a volunteer at the Sosnick Library, Temple B'nai Israel in Sacramento, CA. I confess to some puzzlement as to why RDA has not apparently chosen to update dates to non-Christian-centric terminology, e.g. BC/AD -- BCE/CE. These terms have been in common usage now for many years (at least thirty, judging by what I have been able to find). Shouldn't RDA be moving into the twenty-first century when it comes to all aspects of cataloging? Buzz Haughton 1861 Pebblewood Dr Sacramento CA 95833 USA (916) 468-9027 bongob...@gmail.commailto:bongob...@gmail.com
