Hi all,
We are beginning to transition into original cataloging with RDA, but we have
encountered a situation concerning the title proper and other title information.
The title as presented on the title page is:
Evaluation of pilot project:
Emergency traffic control for responders
In the
Hi Cathy
I don't believe there's any conflict here, between what you want to do
(use Emergency traffic control for responders as the title proper) and
what RDA is telling you to do in 2.3.2 Title proper and 2.3.4 Other
title information.
The title proper is defined as the chief name of a
I thought that RDA is for making things simpler, but when I read 2.3.4 and
beyond, I found “avant-titres” which I have never heard of and could not find
in Webster online either.
I consider it’s ironic to have words like this in RDA Toolkit.
--angelina
2.3.4.1 Scope
Other title
I echo Jenny on this, but will address Cathy's last question: If you were
to transcribe all of the title as the title proper, would you include the
colon as well?
2.3.1.4 (Recording Titles) - 1.7.1 (General Guidelines on Transcription) -
1.7.3: omitting punctuation on the source that
Deborah Fritz debo...@marcofquality.com wrote:
It is also very interesting that Mark indicates that there **was**, at
one point, an LC PS for 2.8.6.1 (Scope for Date of Publication) that
continued the practice of using a date of release to supply a publication
date, but that LC PS also did
J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
Pam said:
The Toolkit states Record the extent of the resource by giving the number
of units and an appropriate term for the type of carrier as listed under
3.3.1.3.
Therefore, wouldn't we use 1 videodisc rather than 1 DVD?
RDA also has the option of
I agree with Jenny and Deborah's responses, that Cathy's inclination to
consider Emergency traffic control for responders as the title proper is the
better way to go. In evaluating title information, I try to take into account
all presentations of the title(s) that are prominent on the
I think that is more commonly called half-title. The definitions in 2.3.4.1
are basically just ported over from the glossary definition in AACR2. Could
probably use an update...
Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
Kevin M Randall k...@northwestern.edu wrote:
This touches on one of my favorite cataloging pet peeves, which is the
tendency of many catalogers to treat as other title information things
that really should be seen as essential parts of the title proper.
Another example came up on AUTOCAT a
The ISBD consolidated edition defines it as “other title information
introducing the title proper, and occurring above the title proper on the
prescribed source of information for the title and statement of responsibility
area.” Sounds sort of like “Evaluation of pilot project” in the other
This conversation is a useful counterexample to the perennial question: why
don't catalogers just scan and OCR title pages instead of fussing with all of
these silly rules about transcribing them? Deciding, this is avant titre, and
this is title proper, or, this colon here does not necessarily
Hi Mac,
Sheila Intner I ask for permission to put your RDA practices in a
footnote in the forthcoming 5th ed. of Standard Cataloging for School
and Public Libraries. We would, of course, give you credit.
Thank you for all you are doing to bring light to the darkness some
people feel about
And then we could use some imagination here and use 246 for Studying...
I do not have the book in front of me (don't know if we have it)
But another 246 could be used: Historical Israel, biblical Israel
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 9:04 AM, M. E. m.k.e.m...@gmail.com wrote:
Kevin M Randall
That is my thought. When you feel hard to make a decision on a title proper
or other title information, make sure that users can search them in various
ways. Certainly, these various titles should be meaningful.
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Gene Fieg gf...@cst.edu wrote:
And then we could
Which perhaps begs the question of why have two different Type codes for the
same kind of content? (Which I acknowledge is an encoding and communication
format question rather than an RDA question.)
John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
Schenectady NY 12308
In the light of ongoing discussions in Germany, this is a very
interesting question for me.
According to the German RAK rules, there is a clear solution for this
case (which I believe I have mentioned before on this list, but my
former example was perhaps a less obvious one):
First, here's
Heidrum, I agree and disagree in equal parts.
There are a lot of means, besides the order of phrases on the t.p., by which
publishers can indicate the titleness of one particular phrase on the t.p.
Perhaps Evaluation of pilot project is in 9-point type but emergency traffic
control for
Hi all again,
Oops, I forgot to mention in my initial email that both segments of the title
have the same font size and are both boldface.
Thanks to all for discussion on this topic!
Cathy
Cathy Crum
Cataloging Supervisor
State Library Services
Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives
I've always had a problem with considering ETDs published, although I
understand that for practical purposes it is easier to consider everything
available via remote access as published. But I really don't see an
electronic dissertation as anything less of a manuscript than a printed
one.
On 19/03/2013 13:15, Crum, Cathy (KDLA) wrote:
snip
We are beginning to transition into original cataloging with RDA, but
we have encountered a situation concerning the title proper and other
title information.
The title as presented on the title page is:
Evaluation of pilot
Cathy Crum posted:
Evaluation of pilot project:
Emergency traffic control for responders
We would transcribe as:
245 00 $aEvaluation of pilot project :$bemergency traffic control for
responsponders.
246 20 $aEmergency traffic control for responders
or
245 00 $aEmergency traffic
Adam
I remember that I asked the question before, and got an answer Yes. If we
do not consider ETDs published, do we consider them manuscripts? The
following is the definition of manuscript from RDA Toolkit:
1)
In general, a text, musical score, map, etc., inscribed or written entirely
by hand,
Even printed theses by computer have always been considered unpublished
manuscripts rather than published textual monographs, so I am not sure
that it matters if one has a printout from the computer file or a digital
image of the file contents. Theses are produced in one or a very few
number
My understanding is that back in 2007 when the OhioLINK libraries drew up a
standard for ETDs, there were many long philosophical discussions about the
published vs. unpublished status. These concluded when OCLC said they
consider ETDs to be published. At my library we have therefore been coding
Adam said:
Even printed theses by computer have always been considered unpublished
manuscripts rather than published textual monographs
With 264 0, the distinction means little in RDA. Only one fixed field
and 264 2nd indicator are affected.
Theses are produced in one or a very few number of
Cathy,
I had assumed this to be the case, else you would have surely mentioned
it before.
Admittedly, as Ben pointed out, there can be cases where it's obvious
from other visual clues that what comes first is not supposed to be the
title proper. I agree that in such cases, transcription
John Hostage wrote:
The ISBD consolidated edition defines it as other title information
introducing the title proper, and occurring above the title proper on
the prescribed source of information for the title and statement of
responsibility area. Sounds sort of like Evaluation of pilot
Heidrun said:
Perhaps the line of separation between title proper and other title
information is really not all that important.
When constructing a uniform title, or the form of a subject or added
entry for the work, it can be *very* important.
A cataloguer off list asked about a situation in
SLC Directors (Mac, Gary, Rich, Matt, with Norma absent) met March
18th to determine SLC RDA practices.
1. SLC will adopt RDA beginning September 1st, 2013. This date was
influenced by ebrary accepting no RDA records before October, and no
AACR2 records October or later.
2. In view of that,
Mac wrote:
Perhaps need for distinctiveness should influence date inclusion in
title proper? If different works have the same title, but different
dates, they are needed?
Interesting idea - very pragmatic.
In relation to at head of title data, the most frequent occurrence for
us is motion
30 matches
Mail list logo
