20.03.2013 15:49, Laurence S. Creider:
Second, I agree that the notion of publication needs reconsideration in
light of a longer consideration of the history of the book from ancient
times until now. I do not think that anything fit for public reception
is a workable definition.
For our
Is part of the problem that we use published versus unpublished as a
dividing line for textual material but not for other types of material?
Typescripts or unpublished items produced with a printing press or even
Word documents can be coded as manuscript though they are not
handwritten, but the
Am 21.03.2013 12:01, schrieb Elizabeth O'Keefe:
Is part of the problem that we use published versus unpublished as a
dividing line for textual material but not for other types of material?
Well, apart from the difficulty of drawing it, the Lubetzkian question
has to be asked: Is this dividing
I think this angle didn't come up in the previous thread. If so, I
apologize in advance.
Under AACR2, we were not to apply a conventional collective title to a
collection of works like poems or short stories that had a distinctive
title proper. I'm wondering if people will continue to observe
Adger,
It is still possible to identify such a collection (compilation) by a
distinctive title. The justification is found in the 1st sentence at
6.2.2.10:
If a compilation of works is known by a title that is used in resources
embodying that compilation or in reference sources, apply the
Casey Mullin said, regarding 6.2.2.10: The best practice for when to apply
this condition has not really been established. Certainly, Leaves of grass by
Whitman would qualify for most catalogers, but new collections published for
the first time probably wouldn't.
I don't understand why new
Michael Borries michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu wrote:
A quick question. RDA 2.5.2.2 states that the sources of information
for an edition statement are:
** **
1. the same source as the title proper
** **
2. another source within the resource itself
** **
3. one of the
On 21/03/2013 12:26, Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
snip
Am 21.03.2013 12:01, schrieb Elizabeth O'Keefe:
Is part of the problem that we use published versus unpublished as a
dividing line for textual material but not for other types of material?
Well, apart from the difficulty of drawing it, the
Hm.
If something has to be known by its title to avoid getting a conventional
collective title, doesn't that imply a certain amount of exposure to the
public before the time of cataloguing in order for people to become
familiar with the resource (get to know it)? (Certainly, there aren't
going
I'm not sure if I'm reading RDA correctly here, but I'm going to paraphrase
what I think RDA is saying:
6.2.2.10: If the compilation is known by a distinctive title already, go
ahead and use that as the preferred title (i.e., 240 if necessary).
Otherwise:
6.2.2.10.1: If the compilation is a
For OCLC users, the future optional addition will continue to be
absolutely necessary to avoid inadvertent record mergers via OCLC's
Duplicate Detection and Resolution algorithm; notes don't have adequate
weight to avoid the merger.
A -
Aaron Smith
Assistant Manager for Technical Services
The
Aaron Smith aaronkaysm...@gmail.com wrote:
For OCLC users, the future optional addition will continue to be absolutely
necessary to avoid inadvertent record mergers via OCLC's Duplicate Detection
and Resolution algorithm; notes don't have adequate weight to avoid the
merger.
And I
I sent this question to OCLC, but I'm on a bit of a deadline and the RDA
list does seem the right place after all.
I’m back again looking at reproductions. This time I’m looking at the
publisher from an RDA standpoint.
My primary question (I’ve a few follow-on prepared but let’s start with
Does anybody have a practice list that is used to avoid inadvertent record
mergers. We have corrected many inappropriate mergers. Some records for
different material types (with different 300 fields) were mergered. In the
meantime, I found many duplicate records in OCLC and keep on reporting
it.
To me, it has to do with the phrases known by and resources embodying
that compilation or in reference sources; these imply that the
compilation as a work in its own right has been around for awhile, and
with that particular title.
YMMV, of course.
Casey
On 3/21/2013 10:08 AM, Kevin M
Dear colleagues:
I'm sending this message to both the OLAC and RDA listservs in hopes of getting
a broad response. In my cataloging of AV (specifically DVDs), I've been
increasingly noticing that RDA-style relator terms (per RDA Appendix I) are
appearing on both AACR2 and RDA bibliographic
Hi Peter,
Let me make a partial response to your questions speaking here as the
current chair of the Program for Cooperative Cataloging. We have had
two Task Force reports related to this issue. The first is the Report
of the PCC Post-Implementation Hybrid Bibliographic Records Guidelines
The way I read If a compilation of works is known by a title that is used in
resources embodying that compilation or in reference sources that means that
any brand-spanking-new publication which happens to be a compilation would meet
that condition. Unless you're arguing that Stephen King's
Catalogers at UCSD are in full agreement with Kevin on this point and UCSD
raised this issue on PCC-List with regards to LC’s decision that they will
always be using a collective title for works like this. UCSD is concerned also
with LC’s further policy decision that they will not differentiate
Excellent point, Adolfo.
I believe that particular LC-PCC PS was written before
"Selections" was re-framed as a work attribute. At that time,
"Poems. Selections" was an undifferentiated _expression_ access
point.
And to Kevin's point, what gets me
Re known by and for how long. The point I was trying to make in my last post
was that for most modern publications, the title appearing on the title page
and cover is the one that it is known by. To whom? To the author, to the
publisher, to the reader, and yes, to the catalogers holding it
Kevin's reading is a
perfectly reasonable one. What concerns me is that LC's practice
(which is to treat every compilation as NOT meeting this
criterion, by default) is in sharp conflict with what Kevin seems
to be advocating (which, to my reading, brings us back
22 matches
Mail list logo
