I suspect this originates in the German cataloging code, which distinguishes
between the "Angabe des Berufs" (indication of profession) and "Angabe des
Tätigkeitsbereiches" (field of activity). Having said that, the German exchange
format does not treat this difference as requiring separate fiel
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> BTW, if you read one of these languages, FRAD is available for free online.
> An English online version is not available.
>
> * ca ? Català ? Catalan
> * es ? Español ? Spanish
> * fr ? Français ? French
> * it ? Italiano ? Italian (
Quoting "Myers, John F." :
It was reported that these two elements emerged from FRAD.
Unfortunately, I don't have a paper copy and, unlike FRBR, there does
not appear to be a digital manifestation, so I'm not in a position to
confirm the genesis. Perhaps those with access can draw on its guidan
On 12/6/2010 2:07 PM, Wagstaff, D John wrote:
Just a thought, but why is it necessary to make this distinction at all? Isn't
it just the sort of thing that can get cataloguers a bad name?
In our comments on the full draft of RDA, ALA commented that we felt the
distinction was difficult to m
On 12/6/2010 2:01 PM, Robert Maxwell wrote:
We are not a definitive source, but we have come up with a rule of thumb for the BYU test records: field of activity is more of an abstract
notion, such as "music" or "classical studies" or "philately"; profession or occupation is the actual thing
the
Susan Kane
Alvernia University Franco Library | Technical Services, Library Assistant
susan.k...@alvernia.edu
610-796-8439
On 12/6/2010 1:33 PM, MCCUTCHEON, SEVIM wrote:
Can someone point me to a timeline or history of RDA development?
Perhaps an article or a website that states what year what development
occurred.
There is a brief history in the "Background" section of the RDA webpage at:
http://www.rda-jsc.
Yes, so right Bob. I of course am aware that we can record elements that
don't need to go into access points (which is why I included examples in
RDA of multiple terms being recorded for these elements), but when a field
of activity must be used in an access point to differentiate the person
f
These values aren't necessarily for qualifiers in access points. They are the
contents of element (or attribute) fields, i.e., description of the person. In
our test records, for example, we routinely put in several different fields of
activity and/or professions if appropriate. Presumably a per
Sorry, I didn't intend for this to be distriuted to the list.
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Alberts, James
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 2:37 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.
Just to confirm, these did indeed come from the FRAD report. There's no online
access because it appears that the second draft was taken down (it was
available this summer), presumably so people will buy the book from Sauer. As I
recall, the definitions in the draft report were so general that i
Unless anyone knows why these are two seperate elements in FRAD... it
would seem that nobody knows why the distinction matters, and it
probably isn't justified to spend too much cataloger time deciding
whether something should go in one or the other. Principles based, right?
On 12/6/2010 2:36
There is no "year" for RDA development.
The best information is perhaps found on the JSC website under its
"Historic Documents" section:
http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs.html for efforts leading up to the review of
RDA drafts, and the "Working Documents" section:
http://www.rda-jsc.org/working1.htm
In RDA, this distinction is currently being made because these are two
separate attributes in FRAD. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to
collapsing them into a single attribute, and then the confusion would be
moot. But as RDA is based on the FRBR and FRAD models, with some
variation, that is
I agree and disagree with Bob, but overall I like the distinction that he
makes, but I would find a qualifier that doesn't express the concept of a
class of persons to be quite strange:
Smith, Bob (Philately)
Smith, Bob (Music)
Adam
^^
Adam L. Schiff
Princi
Does anyone know why this distinction is supposed to matter, whether
they got paid for it or not? RDA is "principles based", right, what's
the principle here exactly? That might help in understanding when to
use one and one to use another; hard to decide if you don't know why
it's supposed to
It was reported that these two elements emerged from FRAD.
Unfortunately, I don't have a paper copy and, unlike FRBR, there does
not appear to be a digital manifestation, so I'm not in a position to
confirm the genesis. Perhaps those with access can draw on its guidance
for clarification in this m
Peter,
I would agree with you about how you made this distinction. In my mind,
if the person doesn't make their living by the activity, then that to me
is a field of activity versus their profession or occupation. Hobbies are
certainly activities that I would say fit into "field of activity"
Just a thought, but why is it necessary to make this distinction at all? Isn't
it just the sort of thing that can get cataloguers a bad name?
I really don't mean this cynically, I promise: I'm seriously interested. The
implication behind the development of RDA was that it was going to be simpler
We are not a definitive source, but we have come up with a rule of thumb for
the BYU test records: field of activity is more of an abstract notion, such as
"music" or "classical studies" or "philately"; profession or occupation is the
actual thing the person does or is, such as "clarinet player"
Can someone point me to a timeline or history of RDA development? Perhaps an
article or a website that states what year what development occurred.
Thank you,
Sevim McCutcheon
Catalog Librarian; Asst. Prof.
University Libraries
Kent State University
tel: 330-672-1703
lmccu...@kent.edu
Hello -
We are a PCC library that has decided to take part in the informal RDA test,
and for the past few weeks have been doing much of our original cataloging work
using RDA. We're also a NACO library and have consequently been creating or
updating name authority records as part of this work.
It is an ongoing debate on whether the fact that an http identifier is
'resolvable' or not is: important; useful; or actually detrimentally
confusing.
I am more or less agnostic. But the general consensus on the web seems
to be moving towards either "important", or "usefully convenient".
Bu
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> On 12/6/2010 2:27 AM, Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
>>
>> So, why the trouble to store the entire URI with every record
>> affected, when the number is all that is actually needed, and
>> a changed URI most often differs not in the number but
On 12/6/2010 2:27 AM, Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
So, why the trouble to store the entire URI with every record
affected, when the number is all that is actually needed, and
a changed URI most often differs not in the number but in some
other part. For example:
We might have
650 $u http://id.l
On 12/5/2010 11:49 PM, Akerman, Laura wrote:
With the end of the "rule of 3", bibliographic records could get longer - many more name
entries - and this may push some OPAC displays out of shape. Do we leave out the access points
because they don't "fit" the little box allocated for them?
Ple
I said:
>In brief display
>
>338 : 336 IF 337 is not unmediated
>050 or 082 or other call number field
>2XX
>3XX
>
>Add for full display
>
>4XX
>5XX
>6XX
>7XX
Oooops. Forgot 1XX.
By "other call number field" I of course meant to include 090/092/099
We find 050/055/060/-92 browse *very* useful
Guy Vernon said on Autocat:
>My Systems Librarian has pointed out he need to have shorten data when
>possible because of searching/displaying on mobile phone.
People speak of AACR2 as being out of date. RDA is already more out
of date than AACR2 before adoption, in part because of its ignoring
Thank you, Mr. Brenndorfer, for explaining why RDA has chosen to change the
name authority descriptors from titles of position etc. to free-text
descriptions, as shown in Mr. Schiff's document
http://faculty.washington.edu/aschiff/BCLAPresentationWithNotes-RevAug2010.pdf
. He wrote: "Many of the ne
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
Compromise: Let machines do the work, ok, but think hard where and
in what way to involve them. What I was suggesting is not really
a different approach: Don't store http://www.something.xyz/abc/IdNumber
but just IdNumber and have presentation/service software add
the r
-- Forwarded message --
From: Amanda Xu
Date: Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:27 PM
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Web catalog
To: kco...@kcoyle.net
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> Quoting Weinheimer Jim :
>
>
>
>> Additionally, we look at the
-- Forwarded message --
From: Amanda Xu
Date: Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:27 PM
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Web catalog
To: kco...@kcoyle.net
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> Quoting Weinheimer Jim :
>
>
>
>> Additionally, we look at the
-- Forwarded message --
From: Amanda Xu
Date: Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 8:40 AM
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Web catalog
To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access <
RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca>
The real danger of not understanding how data elements we created is go
06.12.2010 14:30, Karen Coyle wrote
And the reason for using http://-based URIs is that if they change you
do not need to change the data -- you can implement a redirect, just as
we do today with URLs. It is a fairly simple machine action that takes
place gazillions of times a day on the web, a
Quoting Bernhard Eversberg :
URIs, just like textual strings, are subject to change although not
meant to be. Bare IdNumbers are a little better (and much shorter).
In most cases, URIs are all alike, and the only difference is an
IdNumber contained in them.
And the reason for using http://-b
Am 06.12.2010 11:35, schrieb Weinheimer Jim:
A URI does not have to be a number--it is *any character string* that
identifies a resource uniquely,
Yes. My emphasis was not supposed to be on "number" but on the
neutrality of the character string! Apart from the term itself,
something like http
Karen Coyle wrote:
Actually, I don't think that the cataloger has to think about the
resulting page, especially because the resulting page could differ
greatly using the same catalog data. That's the big change that I see:
that the catalog record is no longer the display form of the data, bu
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
URIs, just like textual strings, are subject to change although not
meant to be. Bare IdNumbers are a little better (and much shorter).
In most cases, URIs are all alike, and the only difference is an
IdNumber contained in them.
So, why the trouble to store the entire URI
On Sun, 5 Dec 2010, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
That "above the fold" screen real estate is precious; what's most
important to put up top?
One way of saving real estage is to not use it for labels.
My order of display of data from an RDA record would be:
In brief display
338 : 336 IF 337 is not u
Deborah Tomaras wrote:
... I will say, by way of explanation (not excuse) that I am frustrated
> by the lack of response of the powers that be to comments and criticism.
> I and others have answered surveys, posted to comment email addresses,
> even politely emailed the Coordinating Committee a
40 matches
Mail list logo
