Re: [RDA-L] Question about examples in 2.5.6.3
Yup! It's all there! My problem is that, where I work, when working with AACR2 records, I'm expected to spend on average, 8 minutes upgrading an existing record; and, 14 minutes to create a new original record. It has been determined (though I don't know how) that this want take very much longer under RDA! While I want to learn this stuff; I don't have the time! I have to this with pretty much every part of the record. You do need to know where to look in the first place! On top of RDA, there is working out how we've interpreted the rules, how other people have interpreted the rules etc. -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: 25 May 2013 18:31 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about examples in 2.5.6.3 Ford, RDA is quite clear on this matter. Look at how chapter 2.5 Edition Statement is organized: In 2.5.1 we find the general rules about edition statements. Here, we are told (2.5.1.4): Transcribe an edition statement as it appears on the source of information (see 1.7.). The following rules in 2.5.2-2.5.9 refer to the various elements which can be part of an edition statement. Among them we find 2.5.2 Designation of Edition and 2.5.6 Designation of a Named Revision of an Edition. In these chapters, the scope information (2.5.2.1 and 2.5.6.1, respectively) explains which information is covered under the element in question. This is how I arrived at the conclusion that in my example, Fourth edition is to be recorded as the 2.5.2 element (designation of edition), and reprinted with corrections as the 2.5.6 element (designation of a named revision etc.). If you also want to know about the ISBD punctuation between 2.5.2 and 2.5.6, look at appendix D. There you'll find that a comma is used between the two elements. By the way: Appendix D also makes it clear that the RDA element 2.5.6 (designation of a named revision etc.) corresponds to the additional edition statement in ISBD. As the examples in ISBD 2.4.1 show, an additional edition statement is not capitalized. And guess what: Under the examples in ISBD, we find our World classics edition example again. This is what it looks like here: . World's classics ed., new ed. revised, reset and illustrated Heidrun Ford Davey wrote: Where and how does it tell us what to do? -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: 25 May 2013 10:44 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about examples in 2.5.6.3 Gene, You know, can we just record what is actually in the item, instead of inventing things (note phrase cited above. Who writes like that?) Inventions of what things should be go back to pre-AACR2 rules. Do we want to go there? I'm not sure I get your meaning. I believe RDA _does_ indeed tell us to record what is actually in the item, so it's not about inventing things. But RDA also tells us to think of the information we record as two different elements in some cases. Let's take an example. The source of information reads: Fourth edition Reprinted with corrections In this case, RDA says that we should record Fourth edition as a designation of edition, and reprinted with corrections as quite another element, namely the one with the awkward name (designation of a named revision of an edition). I assume that the idea behind this is that you could then cluster all manifestations which belong to the fourth edition in a first step and then give users a choice between the different versions (e.g. the original one and the corrected reprint). Of course this would only work if the two different elements were somehow marked in the data, e.g. if we had separate subfields in MARC. Personally, I'm not convinced that it's really necessary to split these things up. It feels rather artificial to me. I also find it a bit weird that the same information will sometimes be treated as designation of a named revision of an edition and sometimes as a straightforward designation of edition. Consider another resource, where the source of information only reads: Reprinted with corrections Then this would be recorded as the designation of edition, and not as the designation of a named revision of an edition (simply because there is no named edition to which the statement could refer). I remember that there was a discussion in 2011 between the JSC and members of the ISBD Review Group: http://www.rda-jsc.org/2011jscisbdissnoutcomes.html which also included this topic. In the outcomes paper http://www.rda-jsc.org/JSCISBDISSNOutcomesfinal.pdf it says under 22.: Designation of edition / Designation of a named revision of an edition: BL rep will prepare a proposal on behalf of JSC
Re: [RDA-L] Question about examples in 2.5.6.3
Davey, I see what you mean now. Quite true, not everybody has the time to immerse themselves in RDA (as a lecturer in cataloging and a member of the German Working Group for the Implementation of RDA, I certainly have to). I wonder, have you tried the public workflows (e.g. by LC) - are they any help? Perhaps things will also get easier once the textbooks (like Maxwell's handbook for RDA) have been published. They should take a more didactic approach and, hopefully, will manage to convey the essential points in a concise and easily understandable way. Heidrun Ford Davey wrote: Yup! It's all there! My problem is that, where I work, when working with AACR2 records, I'm expected to spend on average, 8 minutes upgrading an existing record; and, 14 minutes to create a new original record. It has been determined (though I don't know how) that this want take very much longer under RDA! While I want to learn this stuff; I don't have the time! I have to this with pretty much every part of the record. You do need to know where to look in the first place! On top of RDA, there is working out how we've interpreted the rules, how other people have interpreted the rules etc. -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: 25 May 2013 18:31 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about examples in 2.5.6.3 Ford, RDA is quite clear on this matter. Look at how chapter 2.5 Edition Statement is organized: In 2.5.1 we find the general rules about edition statements. Here, we are told (2.5.1.4): Transcribe an edition statement as it appears on the source of information (see 1.7.). The following rules in 2.5.2-2.5.9 refer to the various elements which can be part of an edition statement. Among them we find 2.5.2 Designation of Edition and 2.5.6 Designation of a Named Revision of an Edition. In these chapters, the scope information (2.5.2.1 and 2.5.6.1, respectively) explains which information is covered under the element in question. This is how I arrived at the conclusion that in my example, Fourth edition is to be recorded as the 2.5.2 element (designation of edition), and reprinted with corrections as the 2.5.6 element (designation of a named revision etc.). If you also want to know about the ISBD punctuation between 2.5.2 and 2.5.6, look at appendix D. There you'll find that a comma is used between the two elements. By the way: Appendix D also makes it clear that the RDA element 2.5.6 (designation of a named revision etc.) corresponds to the additional edition statement in ISBD. As the examples in ISBD 2.4.1 show, an additional edition statement is not capitalized. And guess what: Under the examples in ISBD, we find our World classics edition example again. This is what it looks like here: . — World's classics ed., new ed. revised, reset and illustrated Heidrun Ford Davey wrote: Where and how does it tell us what to do? -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: 25 May 2013 10:44 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about examples in 2.5.6.3 Gene, You know, can we just record what is actually in the item, instead of inventing things (note phrase cited above. Who writes like that?) Inventions of what things should be go back to pre-AACR2 rules. Do we want to go there? I'm not sure I get your meaning. I believe RDA _does_ indeed tell us to record what is actually in the item, so it's not about inventing things. But RDA also tells us to think of the information we record as two different elements in some cases. Let's take an example. The source of information reads: Fourth edition Reprinted with corrections In this case, RDA says that we should record Fourth edition as a designation of edition, and reprinted with corrections as quite another element, namely the one with the awkward name (designation of a named revision of an edition). I assume that the idea behind this is that you could then cluster all manifestations which belong to the fourth edition in a first step and then give users a choice between the different versions (e.g. the original one and the corrected reprint). Of course this would only work if the two different elements were somehow marked in the data, e.g. if we had separate subfields in MARC. Personally, I'm not convinced that it's really necessary to split these things up. It feels rather artificial to me. I also find it a bit weird that the same information will sometimes be treated as designation of a named revision of an edition and sometimes as a straightforward designation of edition. Consider another resource, where the source of information only reads: Reprinted with corrections Then this would be recorded as the designation of edition
Re: [RDA-L] Question about examples in 2.5.6.3
Gene, You know, can we just record what is actually in the item, instead of inventing things (note phrase cited above. Who writes like that?) Inventions of what things should be go back to pre-AACR2 rules. Do we want to go there? I'm not sure I get your meaning. I believe RDA _does_ indeed tell us to record what is actually in the item, so it's not about inventing things. But RDA also tells us to think of the information we record as two different elements in some cases. Let's take an example. The source of information reads: Fourth edition Reprinted with corrections In this case, RDA says that we should record Fourth edition as a designation of edition, and reprinted with corrections as quite another element, namely the one with the awkward name (designation of a named revision of an edition). I assume that the idea behind this is that you could then cluster all manifestations which belong to the fourth edition in a first step and then give users a choice between the different versions (e.g. the original one and the corrected reprint). Of course this would only work if the two different elements were somehow marked in the data, e.g. if we had separate subfields in MARC. Personally, I'm not convinced that it's really necessary to split these things up. It feels rather artificial to me. I also find it a bit weird that the same information will sometimes be treated as designation of a named revision of an edition and sometimes as a straightforward designation of edition. Consider another resource, where the source of information only reads: Reprinted with corrections Then this would be recorded as the designation of edition, and not as the designation of a named revision of an edition (simply because there is no named edition to which the statement could refer). I remember that there was a discussion in 2011 between the JSC and members of the ISBD Review Group: http://www.rda-jsc.org/2011jscisbdissnoutcomes.html which also included this topic. In the outcomes paper http://www.rda-jsc.org/JSCISBDISSNOutcomesfinal.pdf it says under 22.: Designation of edition / Designation of a named revision of an edition: BL rep will prepare a proposal on behalf of JSC for merging these elements with a view to simplification of recording edition. JSC will then share this with ISBD RG. Does anybody now whether such a proposal has been put forward? I can't remember having come across it. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Question about examples in 2.5.6.3
Where and how does it tell us what to do? -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: 25 May 2013 10:44 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about examples in 2.5.6.3 Gene, You know, can we just record what is actually in the item, instead of inventing things (note phrase cited above. Who writes like that?) Inventions of what things should be go back to pre-AACR2 rules. Do we want to go there? I'm not sure I get your meaning. I believe RDA _does_ indeed tell us to record what is actually in the item, so it's not about inventing things. But RDA also tells us to think of the information we record as two different elements in some cases. Let's take an example. The source of information reads: Fourth edition Reprinted with corrections In this case, RDA says that we should record Fourth edition as a designation of edition, and reprinted with corrections as quite another element, namely the one with the awkward name (designation of a named revision of an edition). I assume that the idea behind this is that you could then cluster all manifestations which belong to the fourth edition in a first step and then give users a choice between the different versions (e.g. the original one and the corrected reprint). Of course this would only work if the two different elements were somehow marked in the data, e.g. if we had separate subfields in MARC. Personally, I'm not convinced that it's really necessary to split these things up. It feels rather artificial to me. I also find it a bit weird that the same information will sometimes be treated as designation of a named revision of an edition and sometimes as a straightforward designation of edition. Consider another resource, where the source of information only reads: Reprinted with corrections Then this would be recorded as the designation of edition, and not as the designation of a named revision of an edition (simply because there is no named edition to which the statement could refer). I remember that there was a discussion in 2011 between the JSC and members of the ISBD Review Group: http://www.rda-jsc.org/2011jscisbdissnoutcomes.html which also included this topic. In the outcomes paper http://www.rda-jsc.org/JSCISBDISSNOutcomesfinal.pdf it says under 22.: Designation of edition / Designation of a named revision of an edition: BL rep will prepare a proposal on behalf of JSC for merging these elements with a view to simplification of recording edition. JSC will then share this with ISBD RG. Does anybody now whether such a proposal has been put forward? I can't remember having come across it. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Question about examples in 2.5.6.3
Ford, RDA is quite clear on this matter. Look at how chapter 2.5 Edition Statement is organized: In 2.5.1 we find the general rules about edition statements. Here, we are told (2.5.1.4): Transcribe an edition statement as it appears on the source of information (see 1.7.). The following rules in 2.5.2-2.5.9 refer to the various elements which can be part of an edition statement. Among them we find 2.5.2 Designation of Edition and 2.5.6 Designation of a Named Revision of an Edition. In these chapters, the scope information (2.5.2.1 and 2.5.6.1, respectively) explains which information is covered under the element in question. This is how I arrived at the conclusion that in my example, Fourth edition is to be recorded as the 2.5.2 element (designation of edition), and reprinted with corrections as the 2.5.6 element (designation of a named revision etc.). If you also want to know about the ISBD punctuation between 2.5.2 and 2.5.6, look at appendix D. There you'll find that a comma is used between the two elements. By the way: Appendix D also makes it clear that the RDA element 2.5.6 (designation of a named revision etc.) corresponds to the additional edition statement in ISBD. As the examples in ISBD 2.4.1 show, an additional edition statement is not capitalized. And guess what: Under the examples in ISBD, we find our World classics edition example again. This is what it looks like here: . — World's classics ed., new ed. revised, reset and illustrated Heidrun Ford Davey wrote: Where and how does it tell us what to do? -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: 25 May 2013 10:44 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about examples in 2.5.6.3 Gene, You know, can we just record what is actually in the item, instead of inventing things (note phrase cited above. Who writes like that?) Inventions of what things should be go back to pre-AACR2 rules. Do we want to go there? I'm not sure I get your meaning. I believe RDA _does_ indeed tell us to record what is actually in the item, so it's not about inventing things. But RDA also tells us to think of the information we record as two different elements in some cases. Let's take an example. The source of information reads: Fourth edition Reprinted with corrections In this case, RDA says that we should record Fourth edition as a designation of edition, and reprinted with corrections as quite another element, namely the one with the awkward name (designation of a named revision of an edition). I assume that the idea behind this is that you could then cluster all manifestations which belong to the fourth edition in a first step and then give users a choice between the different versions (e.g. the original one and the corrected reprint). Of course this would only work if the two different elements were somehow marked in the data, e.g. if we had separate subfields in MARC. Personally, I'm not convinced that it's really necessary to split these things up. It feels rather artificial to me. I also find it a bit weird that the same information will sometimes be treated as designation of a named revision of an edition and sometimes as a straightforward designation of edition. Consider another resource, where the source of information only reads: Reprinted with corrections Then this would be recorded as the designation of edition, and not as the designation of a named revision of an edition (simply because there is no named edition to which the statement could refer). I remember that there was a discussion in 2011 between the JSC and members of the ISBD Review Group: http://www.rda-jsc.org/2011jscisbdissnoutcomes.html which also included this topic. In the outcomes paper http://www.rda-jsc.org/JSCISBDISSNOutcomesfinal.pdf it says under 22.: Designation of edition / Designation of a named revision of an edition: BL rep will prepare a proposal on behalf of JSC for merging these elements with a view to simplification of recording edition. JSC will then share this with ISBD RG. Does anybody now whether such a proposal has been put forward? I can't remember having come across it. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Question about examples in 2.5.6.3
I look at A.5 about the capitalization of edition statement. It says to capitalize the first word or abbreviation of the first word in a designation edition. It also refers to 2.5.2. It does not indicate 2.5.6 Designation of a Named Revision of an Edition. So I assume that we do not have to capitalize the first word of a designation of a named revision. *Capitalize the first word or abbreviation of the first word in a designation of edition (see 2.5.2http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp2target=rda2-5017#rda2-5017). Capitalize other words in an edition statement by applying the guidelines at A.10http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdaappatarget=rdaa-369#rdaa-369 –A.55http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdaappatarget=rdaa-2383#rdaa-2383, as applicable to the language involved.* I am not sue if Roads in the example is (implicitly) a special word. If it is, the example may need more explanation. Any more clarification would be appreciated. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:47 AM, Michael Chopey cho...@hawaii.edu wrote: I'm confused about the capitalization of the examples in 2.5.6.3 (Recording Designations of a Named Revision of an Edition). This rule and its examples came over from AACR2 mostly untouched (the phrase designation of replaces AACR2's statement relating to ... and that's about it), except that in AACR2, the first word of the statement relating to ... was capitalized, whereas in RDA it is not capitalized in two of the four examples (in another of the four, the first word *is* capitalized; in the other, there's no way to tell because because the designation of edition and the designation of a named revision to it are both ALL-CAPS). To the extent that examples are prescriptive for capitalization, here's what AACR2 prescribed compared to what RDA seems to be prescribing: AACR2 (1.2D1): World's classics ed., New ed., rev., reset, and illustrated. RDA (2.5.6.3): World's classics edition, new edition, revised, reset, and illustrated. AACR2 (1.2D1): 4th ed. ..., Reprinted with corrections. RDA (2.5.6.3): 4th ed., reprinted with corrections. In the one example that is new to RDA and that's not in ALL CAPS, the designation *is* capitalized: RDA (2.5.6.3): 4th ed., Roads revised. Does anyone know whether it's the case, as the first two examples imply, that we no longer capitalize the first word of a designation of a named revision, or is it the case, as the third example implies, that we continue to capitalize the first word? If there were no examples at all in 2.5.6.3, I would capitalize the first word based on the instruction in the rule to Apply the instructions on recording designations of edition (see 2.5.2.3), but the examples are making me wonder now. Any help would be much appreciated. Aloha, Mike Chopey -- Michael A. Chopey Head, Cataloging Dept. Hamilton 008 University of Hawaii at Manoa Libraries Honolulu, HI 96822 phone (808) 956-2753 fax (808) 956-5968 -- 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] Question about examples in 2.5.6.3
I agree with Joan. The rules about capitalization are in appendix A, and A.5 only tells us to capitalize the element designation of edition, but not the element designation of a named revision of an edition (which, personally, I find a rather odd element, by the way). I think there is simply a mistake in the Roads revised example. Actually, I already reported the Roads example to the Toolkit people in late April (thinking it was a mere typo), and was told that the matter would be forwarded to the JSC for further review. So I assume that the Examples Group of the JSC either has already had a look at it or will do so soon. By the way, I've learned since that if you come across a possible mistake or something which is misleading in an example, what you should do is contact your JSC representative who can then forward the matter to the Examples Group. I just did that with an odd example in 19.2.1.3 (the Furniture from British India and Ceylon which we discussed in the thread Creators of museum catalogs), and found them to be extremely helpful and very quick to reply. If there is reason to change the example, they can do a fast track proposal. Heidrun On 24.05.2013 15:18, Joan Wang wrote: I look at A.5 about the capitalization of edition statement. It says to capitalize the first word or abbreviation of the first word in a designation edition. It also refers to 2.5.2. It does not indicate 2.5.6 Designationof a Named Revision of an Edition. So I assume that we do not have to capitalize the first word of a designation of a named revision. /Capitalize the first word or abbreviation of the first word in a designation of edition (see 2.5.2 http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp2target=rda2-5017#rda2-5017). Capitalize other words in an edition statement by applying the guidelines at A.10 http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdaappatarget=rdaa-369#rdaa-369–A.55 http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdaappatarget=rdaa-2383#rdaa-2383, as applicable to the language involved./ I am not sue if Roads in the example is (implicitly) a special word. If it is, the example may need more explanation. Any more clarification would be appreciated. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:47 AM, Michael Chopey cho...@hawaii.edu mailto:cho...@hawaii.edu wrote: I'm confused about the capitalization of the examples in 2.5.6.3 (Recording Designations of a Named Revision of an Edition). This rule and its examples came over from AACR2 mostly untouched (the phrase designation of replaces AACR2's statement relating to ... and that's about it), except that in AACR2, the first word of the statement relating to ... was capitalized, whereas in RDA it is not capitalized in two of the four examples (in another of the four, the first word *is* capitalized; in the other, there's no way to tell because because the designation of edition and the designation of a named revision to it are both ALL-CAPS). To the extent that examples are prescriptive for capitalization, here's what AACR2 prescribed compared to what RDA seems to be prescribing: AACR2 (1.2D1): World's classics ed., New ed., rev., reset, and illustrated. RDA (2.5.6.3): World's classics edition, new edition, revised, reset, and illustrated. AACR2 (1.2D1): 4th ed. ..., Reprinted with corrections. RDA (2.5.6.3): 4th ed., reprinted with corrections. In the one example that is new to RDA and that's not in ALL CAPS, the designation *is* capitalized: RDA (2.5.6.3): 4th ed., Roads revised. Does anyone know whether it's the case, as the first two examples imply, that we no longer capitalize the first word of a designation of a named revision, or is it the case, as the third example implies, that we continue to capitalize the first word? If there were no examples at all in 2.5.6.3, I would capitalize the first word based on the instruction in the rule to Apply the instructions on recording designations of edition (see 2.5.2.3), but the examples are making me wonder now. Any help would be much appreciated. Aloha, Mike Chopey -- Michael A. Chopey Head, Cataloging Dept. Hamilton 008 University of Hawaii at Manoa Libraries Honolulu, HI 96822 phone (808) 956-2753 tel:%28808%29%20956-2753 fax (808) 956-5968 tel:%28808%29%20956-5968 -- 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 -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Question about examples in 2.5.6.3
If the example *World's classics ed., New ed. rev*. appears under 2.5.1.4 Recording Edition Statement. It really should not include the designations of a named revision. Go too far! Thanks, Joan Wang On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 10:08 AM, John Hostage host...@law.harvard.eduwrote: There is also this example in 2.5.1.4: World's classics ed., New ed. rev. I think the idea is that the Designation of a named revision is a separate element, so from that point of view it should be capitalized like the Edition statement is (A.5). -- John Hostage Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian // Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services // Langdell Hall 194 // Cambridge, MA 02138 host...@law.harvard.edu +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax) -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Michael Chopey Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 01:48 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Question about examples in 2.5.6.3 I'm confused about the capitalization of the examples in 2.5.6.3 (Recording Designations of a Named Revision of an Edition). This rule and its examples came over from AACR2 mostly untouched (the phrase designation of replaces AACR2's statement relating to ... and that's about it), except that in AACR2, the first word of the statement relating to ... was capitalized, whereas in RDA it is not capitalized in two of the four examples (in another of the four, the first word *is* capitalized; in the other, there's no way to tell because because the designation of edition and the designation of a named revision to it are both ALL-CAPS). To the extent that examples are prescriptive for capitalization, here's what AACR2 prescribed compared to what RDA seems to be prescribing: AACR2 (1.2D1): World's classics ed., New ed., rev., reset, and illustrated. RDA (2.5.6.3): World's classics edition, new edition, revised, reset, and illustrated. AACR2 (1.2D1): 4th ed. ..., Reprinted with corrections. RDA (2.5.6.3): 4th ed., reprinted with corrections. In the one example that is new to RDA and that's not in ALL CAPS, the designation *is* capitalized: RDA (2.5.6.3): 4th ed., Roads revised. Does anyone know whether it's the case, as the first two examples imply, that we no longer capitalize the first word of a designation of a named revision, or is it the case, as the third example implies, that we continue to capitalize the first word? If there were no examples at all in 2.5.6.3, I would capitalize the first word based on the instruction in the rule to Apply the instructions on recording designations of edition (see 2.5.2.3), but the examples are making me wonder now. Any help would be much appreciated. Aloha, Mike Chopey -- Michael A. Chopey Head, Cataloging Dept. Hamilton 008 University of Hawaii at Manoa Libraries Honolulu, HI 96822 phone (808) 956-2753 fax (808) 956-5968 -- 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] Question about examples in 2.5.6.3
John Hostage wrote: There is also this example in 2.5.1.4: World's classics ed., New ed. rev. Oddly, this example is almost identical to one in 2.5.6.3 (Recordingdesignations of a named revision of an edition): new edition, revised, reset, and illustrated Designation of edition: World's classics edition Here, the new edition bit is an example for designation of a named revision of an edition (what a phrase!!) and is not capitalized. So I think that the example in 2.5.1.4 could well be another mistake. Perhaps, it was erroneously assumed that World's classics ed., New ed. rev. are two instances of the element designation of edition instead of designation of edition plus designation of a named revision of an edition. I think such a misunderstanding could easily happen, as according to 2.5.2.1 we should take a word such as edition, issue, release, level, state, or update as evidence that it is a designation of edition. Another thing that is odd about the example in 2.5.1.4 are the abbreviations. I very much doubt that it actually said World's classics ed. on the source of information - most probably it was World's classics edition. The corresponding example in 2.5.6.3 doesn't have the abbreviations. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Question about examples in 2.5.6.3
Great! Heidrun. These examples should be reexamined. Thanks, Joan Wang On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote: John Hostage wrote: There is also this example in 2.5.1.4: World's classics ed., New ed. rev. Oddly, this example is almost identical to one in 2.5.6.3 (Recordingdesignations of a named revision of an edition): new edition, revised, reset, and illustrated Designation of edition: World's classics edition Here, the new edition bit is an example for designation of a named revision of an edition (what a phrase!!) and is not capitalized. So I think that the example in 2.5.1.4 could well be another mistake. Perhaps, it was erroneously assumed that World's classics ed., New ed. rev. are two instances of the element designation of edition instead of designation of edition plus designation of a named revision of an edition. I think such a misunderstanding could easily happen, as according to 2.5.2.1 we should take a word such as edition, issue, release, level, state, or update as evidence that it is a designation of edition. Another thing that is odd about the example in 2.5.1.4 are the abbreviations. I very much doubt that it actually said World's classics ed. on the source of information - most probably it was World's classics edition. The corresponding example in 2.5.6.3 doesn't have the abbreviations. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi -- 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] Question about examples in 2.5.6.3
You know, can we just record what is actually in the item, instead of inventing things (note phrase cited above. Who writes like that?) Inventions of what things should be go back to pre-AACR2 rules. Do we want to go there? On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote: Great! Heidrun. These examples should be reexamined. Thanks, Joan Wang On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote: John Hostage wrote: There is also this example in 2.5.1.4: World's classics ed., New ed. rev. Oddly, this example is almost identical to one in 2.5.6.3 (Recordingdesignations of a named revision of an edition): new edition, revised, reset, and illustrated Designation of edition: World's classics edition Here, the new edition bit is an example for designation of a named revision of an edition (what a phrase!!) and is not capitalized. So I think that the example in 2.5.1.4 could well be another mistake. Perhaps, it was erroneously assumed that World's classics ed., New ed. rev. are two instances of the element designation of edition instead of designation of edition plus designation of a named revision of an edition. I think such a misunderstanding could easily happen, as according to 2.5.2.1 we should take a word such as edition, issue, release, level, state, or update as evidence that it is a designation of edition. Another thing that is odd about the example in 2.5.1.4 are the abbreviations. I very much doubt that it actually said World's classics ed. on the source of information - most probably it was World's classics edition. The corresponding example in 2.5.6.3 doesn't have the abbreviations. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi -- 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 -- 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.
