On 04/27/2011 10:40 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
snip
This is one change I would like to see, but as an AACR2 revision
rather than requiring a new set of rules.
It would be advantageous to have a single main entry for Geronimo
Stilton works, and have works produced under that pseudonym brought
Stephen wrote
snip
And let's not forget spirits, who can also be authors
under AACR2 (e.g., Seth (Spirit)).
snip
While we're thinking about oddities. What do we want to do with Kilgore
Trout?
Kilgore Trout is a fictitious author in a number of Kurt Vonnegut's works.
In 1975, a book appeared
James Weinheimer said:
My own opinion of Geronimo Stilton, which is not a spirit or pseudonym
but everybody can agree is a fictitious character, is that today, people
will search using keyword ...
This seems to be adequate access.
But so long as we insist on Cuttering by main entry, the
To save cataloger's time for researching the actual name of the larger
jurisdiction ...
The cataloguer must establish the larger jurisdiction to code
008/25-17, which is rarely if ever used to create OPAC display. By
not including that known information in 260$a, the cataloguer is
depriving the
Judith Kuhagen said:
As Kathy noted, there will be a MARBI proposal about copyright date
for the June 2011 ALA Annual Conference.
But that proposed new subfield for copyright year is included in a
*very* complex coding scheme proposed for 260. Couldn't we just add
one new subfield for
I recommend waiting to see the new MARBI Proposal on encoding copyright date
before critiquing the possible content. MARBI Discussion Paper 2011-DP01
explored several options for encoding this information; the final Proposal will
take into account the various e-mail and in-person discussions of
I think this is covered by LCRI 22.2B, Multiple
Headings--Contemporaries, point 5:
If different names appear in different editions of the same work,
choose for all editions of the same work the name that predominates in
the editions of the same work. If, however, a change in the person's
Just a question here. What is the rationale in RDA for including both dates
if they are the same?
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Kuhagen, Judith j...@loc.gov wrote:
As Kathy noted, there will be a MARBI proposal about copyright date for the
June 2011 ALA Annual Conference. That topic and
The proposal that I just submitted will not only serve the purpose for data
input suggestion at the time of record creation, but it can also be used for
content validation and database cleanup during the record submission at
client level and database update at server level. Thanks!
Amanda Xu
Gene,
As stated several times on various lists, the two dates are different RDA
elements. In your library if you have a Date of publication or in its absence
a Date of distribution, you can ignore the Copyright date.
Judy
From: Resource Description
Keith,
I don't think that all of the real-life dog and cat subjects in LCSH were
established for them as creators/contributors to works. I suspect that
most of them were established for works about them rather than by them.
Adam
^^
Adam L. Schiff
My library (in its current frenzy of needing to cut resources) is looking
for titles to cut, and they are asking me about both Cataloger's Desktop and
RDA Toolkit. They are especially wondering why we are buying RDA Toolkit
when it has not even been implemented yet. I said that I use it to
And to further reiterate, they are different RDA elements because they are
in fact different things. Copyright date is a legal date that reflects
the year in which an issue is registered for copyright protection. It is
not the same thing as a publication date.
In AACR2 we were conveniently
On 04/28/2011 05:10 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
snip
But so long as we insist on Cuttering by main entry, the Chilton works
will be scattered on the shelf. Finding the bibliographic records is
not enough. We need to facilitate *physical* discovery. Many patrons
bypass the catalogue and just
I think I understand the reason why people want this in a 2XX (human
habit and systems habits), but we added the 542 for copyright
information in 2008, and it has a subfield for copyright date, as well
as renewal date (for the cases in which one has that info), and other
information
Maybe I have misunderstood AACR2 all this time, but I was under the
impression that if you had a publication date and it was the same as the
copyright date, you did not need to use the copyright date. Is/Was that the
case? And if so, if I am reading the comments about RDA correctly, it still
is
On 04/28/2011 09:50 PM, Gene Fieg wrote:
snip
Maybe I have misunderstood AACR2 all this time, but I was under the
impression that if you had a publication date and it was the same as
the copyright date, you did not need to use the copyright date.
Is/Was that the case? And if so, if I am
Kathy Glennan said:
I recommend waiting to see the new MARBI Proposal on encoding
copyright date before critiquing the possible content. MARBI
Discussion Paper 2011-DP01 explored several options ...
All options are needlessly complex.
And no, we cannot reuse 260 $d for copyright date; reusing
Julie Moore said:
My library (in its current frenzy of needing to slash resources) is looking
for titles to cut, and they are asking me about both Cataloger's Desktop and
RDA Toolkit.
With the amount of free Web resources (including MARC, which I assume
will have RDA examples if/when RDA is
Do you mean the real copyright sign glyph, or do you mean a c in
parens? Or can people use whatever they want?
It's not that this individual thing is THAT hard for software to pull
out; it's that the piling on of all these individual not that hard
things results in a much more expensive and
Anyone have an answer to why RDA requires you to enter [date of
publication not identified] instead of just leaving the data element blank?
Just leaving it blank seems more efficient for the cataloger AND easier
for software to deal with (not having to know that the magic string
[date of
At an Authority Control Interest Group meeting some ALA's back, LC's
Lynn El-Hoshy noted that subject authorities for animals are actually
undifferentiated. For example, there's only one subject authority for
Lassie (Dog) which covers all individual dogs named Lassie.
There's also a separate
Karen, I think there's a difference in recording this data that may make the
2XX proposal make more sense than using 542 $g.
In a record creation context, the cataloger is simply recording a copyright
date that appears on a resource, without trying to supply the rest of the
elements required
Johathan asked:
Do you mean the real copyright sign glyph, or do you mean a c in
parens? Or can people use whatever they want?
According to RDA, it should be the glyph or copyright spelled out.
The glyph is preferable, but it seems to me (c) is a fair
approximation when the keyboard does not
Field 542 seems to have been designed to hold official data relating to
copyright registration (e.g., from the Catalog of the United States Copyright
Office). If so, I would hesitate to use subfield $f for anything other than an
exact transcription of the entire copyright statement as it is
Is it Friday yet? I meant to say 542 was designed to hold a record of a search
for authoritative data.
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Ed Jones
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011
In reading RDA's section on Date of Publication and Copyright Date, I'm seeing
a somewhat different pattern than what has been discussed.
There are numerous relationships between the different elements that affect
how we think about the elements, and ultimately how we should encode them and
ISBD describes a display standard. It doesn't matter WHERE the data is
in the underlying machine-readable record, it could display in its
proper location to satisfy ISBD. The idea that the display has to be
in MARC tag and subfield order is not only not sensible, it's not what
we do today.
Quoting Ed Jones ejo...@nu.edu:
Field 542 seems to have been designed to hold official data relating
to copyright registration (e.g., from the Catalog of the United
States Copyright Office). If so, I would hesitate to use subfield $f
for anything other than an exact transcription of the
After this one, I won't say any more on the topic, especially since I
think it probably belongs on another list.
I'm aware that topical headings established for individual animals' names
in LCSH are undifferentiated; I'm also aware that existing headings were
established for works about them.
30 matches
Mail list logo
