On 23/10/2012 23:25, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
snip
Contradicted by the RDA examples that are compared side-by-side with MARC:
http://www.rdatoolkit.org/examples/MARC
For display and for data input, assuming these RDA examples will be
comparable to actual display and input mechanisms, the
Well, there does seem to be a large amount of discontent, if not widespread
rejection of the 330s replacing the GMD. And I see a few others were using
similarly user friendly (DVD, book on CD) terms to us, perhaps similarly hoping
as we were that this would be the direction things would go in.
Martin
There is a revision process for RDA:
http://www.rda-jsc.org/revision.html
If you wanted to submit a proposal yourself, you would need to discuss
doing it through CILIP, as the relevant member body of JSC.
That's the way RDA gets revised.
Regards
Richard
Hi Richard
Well, can’t help but think that this looks like the Cataloguing worlds
equivalent of burying under bureaucracy. I was hoping for a populist
revolution via the RDA list! Ah, well, I guess I’ll go for it.
And maybe if a few others do the same, who knows? Maybe things can change at
I don't think AACR2 used to be revised through populist revolutions
either ...
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin
Sent: 24 October 2012 10:37
To:
Well no – AACR2 has spent about 10 years being revised, ending up with
something I know I’m not especially happy with, and I’m under the general
impression has a lukewarm reception at the best of times... so maybe that’s
part of the problem!
Martin
From: Resource Description and Access /
Hello,
I would like to quickly say that I think that the abandonment of the GMD and
the adoption of a more logically designed system is one of the better bits of
RDA (I am not an unalloyed fan of RDA, but I do think it is moving in the right
direction, too slowly if anything). Briefly my
I've an expedite request for a local printout copy of what I think is OCLC#
811622782.
I don't understand this RDA record. I was hoping someone could direct me to RDA
documentation about cataloging reprints? We are not creating original RDA
records as yet. We are incorporating RDA (mainly
Panizzi's rules, then? ;-)
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin
Sent: 24 October 2012 11:48
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional
Hi Tom
Actually, I guess I’m not that bothered about whether it’s in the title field
or not and come to think of it, I’m not even that keen on keeping the old
terminologies, and I’ve mentioned a few times what I was hoping RDA might go
for –
audio CD
electronic book
electronic journal
DVD
The values presented here go beyond both what was in the GMD and what is in the
336-337-338 elements.
These fields contain general terms. For specificity, one has to use other
elements. MARC fixed fields mirrors these other format elements and organize
them, and this is how we generate the
So, the library in question has already decided that 1) the GMD does not work
for them -- they had to replace standard GMD terms for specific terms of their
own construction, and 2) that they are willing to invest in the effort to
modify their records from the standard in order to meet their
This is one of the more troubling by-products of the incomplete conversion of
the rules from AACR2's exclusively textual foundation to RDA's vision of a
computer facilitated environment of embedded links. There are many instances
where RDA says RECORD, when it would have been preferable for it
I am just wondering if anyone else is putting both relator text, subfield e,
and subfield 4, relator codes, in their OCLC originals? In the absence of any
information about use one or the other, I have been inputting both in my
original contributions to OCLC. In most cases, using the MARC21
So, the library in question has already decided that 1) the GMD does not work
for them -- they had to replace standard GMD terms for specific terms of their
own construction, and 2) that they are willing to invest in the effort to
modify their records from the standard in order to meet their
Martin Kelleher wrote:
Well no - AACR2 has spent about 10 years being revised, ending up with
something I know I'm not especially happy with, and I'm under the
general impression has a lukewarm reception at the best of times... so
maybe that's part of the problem!
After its original
On 24/10/2012 16:33, Kelleher, Martin wrote:
snip
Try buying a television set on Best Buy's website to see this in action
I Put in Dracula DVD on Best buy (54 entries) then I tried Dracula
video!
1 entry:
$14.99 Special Offers:
•Free Shipping
Castlevania: The Dracula X
Kevin tried to be sarcastic in my opinion. However, he forgot that RDA is
basically AACR2 in a new uniform with sophisticated jargon that even LC
instructors have problem with (just came back from the RDA training module
1 part 2). Let's not kid ourselves. RDA people just took AACR2 apart added
Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz wrote:
Kevin tried to be sarcastic in my opinion. However, he forgot that RDA is
basically AACR2 in a new uniform with sophisticated jargon that even
LC instructors have problem with (just came back from the RDA training
module 1 part 2). Let's not kid ourselves. RDA
The record doesn't appear to be following the current LC PCC Policy Statements.
The 347 field I believe applies to the online resource, not the printed
version. Since RDA emphasizes showing relationships to the extent possible, you
might find a useful model in the LCPS 27.1.1.3 Referencing
John Myers said:
So, the library in question has already decided that 1) the GMD does
not work for them -- they had to replace standard GMD terms for
specific terms of their own construction, and 2) that they are
willing to invest in the effort to modify their records from the
standard in order
Richard Moore said:
I don't think AACR2 used to be revised through populist revolutions
either ...
AACR2 was departed from by LCRIs, rule interpretations of other
cataloguing agencies, and what I call cataloguer nullifiction.
I hope cataloguer nullification will hold to a minimum those long
Patricia Fogler said:
We catalog a LOT of printouts so this is an important concept for me.
I need to understand so as to be able to explain to my section.
I suspect the confusion arises from the LCRI on reproductions, which
was counter to AACR2, and some seem to be carrying over to RDA.
In
Carolyn Kadri asked:
I am just wondering if anyone else is putting both relator text,
subfield e, and subfield 4, relator codes, in their OCLC originals?
Unless the local ILS supresses one or the other, you would have
redundant display. The code is meaningless unless translated by the
ILS; how
I did look at this record this morning. It is a record for online PDF file
instead of a print-out. It does include 856 field.
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Arakawa, Steven
steven.arak...@yale.eduwrote:
The record doesn't appear to be following
Well, currently, our ExLibris Voyager system is not set up to display subfield
4; that is, our OPAC does not show it. This sounds like the cataloger needs to
know what happens in his/her local display system. It might be redundant in
some systems that have not been configured to exclude the
Many thanks for the responses on my reproduction question. The record in
question has been edited makes much more sense.
I realize that LC is now cataloging the work in hand, rather than the
original when cataloging reproductions in their RDA records.
My understanding had been (taken
I just learned it from OLAC conference last week in Albuquerque, New
Mexico. For reproductions, we use the three 33x fields to describe the
reproductions (manifestations) in hands and use 77x fields to connect it
with other manifestations. We do not use 533/4 field any more. But I have
not gone
Very cool! Thanks for letting us know.
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.eduwrote:
Another aspect I have not seen mentioned, is that AACR2 style GMDs
only had to be assigned to nonbook materials. RDA 33X must be
I always liked the French way of doing this |h texte imprime.
Beautiful.
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Adam L. Schiff
asch...@u.washington.eduwrote:
Another aspect I have not seen mentioned, is that AACR2 style GMDs
only had to be assigned to nonbook materials. RDA 33X must be
assigned
Joan Wang said:
I just learned it from OLAC conference last week in Albuquerque, New
Mexico. For reproductions, we use the three 33x fields to describe the
reproductions (manifestations) in hands and use 77x fields to connect it
with other manifestations.
Many of our clients prefer 530 to 77X,
John, vendors can't use OCLC, because OCLC will not allow us to keep
records. SLC must keep records in order to resupply in case of system
crash, or migration from a system which can't do MARC out.
We used to have to keep records for cumulating print products, still
true when we originally
Not sure who to address this to, but I've tried my best on the archives to
resolve this with no applicable results.
I'm trying to subscribe to AUTOCAT and RDA-L via the RSS tool in Microsoft
Outlook, but every time I try, I get the following message:
Outlook cannot process the RSS content from
Aloha RDA-ers,
A question arose here about providing an access point for the series in
which an original manifestation was published when we are cataloging
photocopies of some of the series titles. RDA 27.1 instructs us to
record the series statement for the original manifestation in the 775
Nancy Sack said:
Are we justified in making an accesspoint for the series (of the
original) in an 830 field (of the record for thereproduction)?
Make the 830. supported by a 500 note Originally issued ..., as
opposed to a 490 (assuming the series does not appear on the
reproduction). I do miss
35 matches
Mail list logo
