Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging playaways

Julie, If you insist on a straight answer... If my library promoted them as Playaways and users knew them as Playaways, I would probably argue for calling them Playaways in the physical description. (As they say, What you do in the local catalog stays in the local catalog.) In an ideal world,

Re: [RDA-L] Linked files

Quoting J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca: So these identifiers link to *inhouse* files? Shakespeare once rather than repeated as author, added entry, and subject, in multiple bibliographic records? Again, separate linking from identification. Identifiers identify. That's what they do. There

Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging playaways

Dear Ed, Thank you for your straight answer ... (which I think is really 3 if-then answers.) I am aware of the 2008 OLAC Playaway Cataloging Joint Task Force recommendations, but I take that with a grain of salt since RDA was not actually published yet. It was the best that they could come up

Re: [RDA-L] Linked files

On 22/04/2011 18:33, Karen Coyle wrote: snip Quoting J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca: So these identifiers link to *inhouse* files? Shakespeare once rather than repeated as author, added entry, and subject, in multiple bibliographic records? Again, separate linking from identification.

Re: [RDA-L] Linked files

I think Karen captures this very well below, and will add that the linked data ecosystem should allow the local systems she describes to be based on the very technologies that enable the web as a whole. In 2009, when the original lchs.info went offline to be replaced by id.loc.gov, Dan

Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging playaways

But what you do in the local catalog, does not actually stay in the local catalog, because records get batchloaded to WorldCat and other union catalogs (or catalogues) and, when that happens, what then will happen with the matching algorythms for deduping records if each record has a different

Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging playaways

I thought that RDA as a code used neither GMD _nor_ SMD, replacing those with the data elements that end up in the new mac 3xx fields? Can anyone confirm that, that there is no notion of 'smd' in RDA? If so, there would be no answer to having every SMD registered in the RDA registry, nor to

Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging playaways

Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote: I thought that RDA as a code used neither GMD _nor_ SMD, replacing those with the data elements that end up in the new mac 3xx fields? Can anyone confirm that, that there is no notion of 'smd' in RDA? The 300 $a includes what could be called an SMD,

Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging playaways

OK, you caught me on that one. You are correct-the term 'SMD' is not used in RDA-the term used at 3.4.1.3 (Recording Extent) is an appropriate term for the type of carrier as listed under 3.3.1.3 (Recording Carrier Type). That instruction then says to use one or more of the terms listed below,

Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging playaways

And herein lies my point ... I am seeking consistency! Julie On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Deborah Fritz debo...@marcofquality.comwrote: But what you do in the local catalog, does *not* actually stay in the local catalog, because records get batchloaded to WorldCat and other union

Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging playaways

Amanda Is the source of acquisition field really where you want to put this? Your attachment puts it both in 037 $f and in 300 $a. I like the use of other audio carrier faute de mieux, but ideally one would want something that captured the idea of an integrated intermediation tool. I think

Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging playaways

Ed: Thank you so much for your quick response. 037$f and 300$a are used for different purpose. One is to record the term used by source of acquisition, and the other is to record the term used by cataloger. Without revealing the format of the audio files (at least MIME Type ready), it's hard