Robert Maxwell posted:
The one core relationship in RDA is to record the relationship
between the resource being cataloged and the work manifested in it
(see RDA 17.3). There are several ways to do this. One of the ways to
do it is by using an authorized access point for the work ...
A poster
***Apologies for cross-posting***
Dear all,
Please find attached details about an RDA implementation workshop organised by
the ARLIS cataloguing and classification committee, which focuses on the
practicalities of RDA implementation. We hope this will be of interest not
just to art
Several months ago, there was a discussion on the PCCList about whether
it was appropriate to add an access point for:
[Artist]. Works. Selections
to a printed monograph that includes reproductions of the artist's
work. The use of conventional collective titles is well-established for
I understand that in RDA you do not bracket page numbers when listing
the bibliography in 504, even if the beginning or ending page number is
not printed on the page, but I'm having difficulty finding the exact RDA
or LC-PCC PS rule that states this. Can anyone help me out?
--
LC PCC PS 1.7.1. Punctuation in Notes. 3. Square brackets.
Steven Arakawa
Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation
Catalog Metada Services
Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University
P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240
(203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu
-Original
504 field is among recorded elements. I think that there is no arbitrary
requirement that the data should exactly reflect the resource itself.
Thanks,
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Michael Cohen mco...@library.wisc.eduwrote:
I understand that in
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Deborah Fritz
Sent: March-07-13 6:03 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] (OCoLC)829311087
Thomas said: The basic problem is then thrown back to MARC
Good morning,
May I please get some feedback on the following? This is the way RDA reads
to me:
eBook
336 - text
337 - computer
338 - online resource
Playaway Audio
336 - spoken word
337 - audio
338 - audio cartridge
Thank you very much,
*Pamela Withrow, MLIS*
Cataloger
Perma-Bound
On 08/03/2013 02:02, Robert Maxwell wrote:
snip
The one core relationship in RDA is to record the relationship between the
resource being cataloged and the work manifested in it (see RDA 17.3). There
are several ways to do this. One of the ways to do it is by using an
authorized access
Hi Liz and others,
As it happens, I gave this exact problem a great deal of thought about 30 years
ago. It was long before FRBR of course, but the issue itself has not changed.
At the time I argued that reproductions were new works, and for describing the
relationship between the original and
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer
[weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com]
Sent: March-08-13 10:36 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
On
This is applicable to all art or arts, music included.
See CCQ, vol. 50 (or 51?) nos. 5-8.
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote:
I agree with Sara. Honestly, I think about the question the whole morning.
Finally I feel that a photography of an original
Each resource contains intellectual or artistic content and there are
relationships between the essence of that content and the
person/family/corporate body responsible for it. The basic work in the FRBR
sense is still there in the photograph, and FRBR makes a relationship between
that
Barbara, Yes. It helps. Thanks for your explanation both in theory and
practice.
Thanks again.
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Barbara Tillett babstill...@me.com wrote:
Each resource contains intellectual or artistic content and there are
What may be adding to the apparent confusion about the impact of all this
is that the LC-PCC PS on Chapter 17 says Do not apply chapter 17 in the
current implementation scenario.
I'm surprised no one else has pointed that out yet.
Kai
On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 01:02:22 +, Robert Maxwell
Yes, I took note of that PS during our local RDA training, and I am quite
puzzled by it. Because the fact is, LC *is* implementing Chapter 17, and has
been basically forever. They are doing it by the method described in 17.4.2.2
and, sometimes, by the method described in 17.4.2.3. Many of us
On 08/03/2013 17:48, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
snip
You don't seem to be aware that AACR2 has two parts.
Part 1: describe the resource (which could include data about any FRBR entity
in the resource-- work, expression, manifestation, item)
Part 2: provide access to the *WORK*. Catalogers
I wish to comment on several aspects of this thread.
First, I would respectfully disagree with Joan Wang's statement below. I do
not find RDA to be more explicit when it comes to mistakes in title (or in any
other transcribed field), but rather less explicit.
There are two or three sources of
Really? There is a part 2 to AACR2? I never got that far into the book! ;-)
In my opinion, laziness has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Catalogers were
always supposed to check to see if there were other editions of the work and
relate those editions using a uniform title when appropriate. If
First, I would respectfully disagree with Joan Wang’s statement below. I
do not find RDA to be more explicit when it comes to mistakes in title (or
in any other transcribed field), but rather less explicit.
First of all, I thank for your disagreement. I could not understand [sic]
until I became
I'm glad this is still being discussed, so I don't feel like a total fussbudget
for pining over a three-letter word.
The issue, in my opinion, is not really whether we use sic or some other
phrase (though I confess I find sic a wonderfully parsimonious way of
indicating an error.)
It is, as
In the rare cases when I've seen a [sic] in a display it's been a disservice
especially when it's close to the beginning of a title, as it throws off the
sort order, and in fact most users are none the wiser and so assume [sic] is
part of the title.
I have seen titles with unusual spelling
I have always been told that good data outlives poor systems. Still, you seem
to know what you're doing. I'm curious how you're going to manage the
de-siccing. You will have to, I presume, look at each instance and decide what
to do about it, case-by-case, as (as previously mentioned) some
Yes, you're absolutely right; de-sicing will require re-examination of the
item. That's one of the several reasons I've deferred it until the RDA
conversion is over.
Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc.
Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300
e-mail:
Re: Thomas' comment, and in fact most users are none the wiser and so assume
[sic] is part of the title. I'm curious where you get this fact. It may be a
function of different user bases
We serve users of all ages and all walks of life. Probably many who are not
good spellers to begin with.
RDA Listers:
Do I have this right?
Both $4 and $e replace the ending period of the name (unless it ends
in an abrevations like Ltd.? There is no period at the end of the
relator code or term?
A comma precedes each $e, but $4 has no punctuation?
Thanks, Mac
__ __ J. McRee (Mac)
On 08/03/2013 20:48, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
snip
But they haven't stopped. The choice of main entry (just choosing the main
author responsible) is still part of the choice for identifying the work. The
uniform title choice (or lack of a decision about it) doesn't change the fact
that a
I have been putting a comma after the name and a period after the relator code
and no period after $4.
Example:
Smith, James, $e publisher. $4 pbl
Don't know that any one way is better than the other, but in the absence of any
instructions anywhere, I defaulted to this pattern because it
Each of the X__ Headings--General Information sections (i.e., X00,
X10, X11, X30) in MARC Bibliographic has the instruction about the
ending punctuation. Each one says in the punctuation section at the bottom:
Fields 100, 600, 700, and 800 [e.g.] end with a mark of punctuation or
a closing
29 matches
Mail list logo
