Re: [RDA-L] recording production statements

Deborah cited RDA: >I did see that 2.7.4.2 contradicts 2.7.4.7, but I interpreted it the other >way around: that 2.7.4.7 should be adjusted, because we were not allowed to >supply a publisher, etc. name under AACR; so I felt that RDA was continuing >that policy. However, I see that we *are* allowe

Re: [RDA-L] recording production statements

Chris Fox asked: >Do I infer date of production based on the performance date (2008), >or when I think the disc was actually created (2013)? If you decide on 2013, don't forget 518 for performance date. Might it be that the video recording was made of the 2008 performance, and a copy made for

Re: [RDA-L] recording production statements

Thanks so much to all of you for your input and help. Do I infer date of production based on the performance date (2008), or when I think the disc was actually created (2013)? I guess if this is a work attribute, then the date would more likely be the 2008, and the particular item I have in m

Re: [RDA-L] recording production statement for unpublished DVD

Deborah posted the example: > >264 0 $a[Place of production not identified] : $b [producer not >identified], $c [probably 2008] We would record $c[2008?] if not certain of the year, not "probably". Every client we have would send such a production statement back to us in high dungeon, particul

Re: [RDA-L] recording production statements

I did see that 2.7.4.2 contradicts 2.7.4.7, but I interpreted it the other way around: that 2.7.4.7 should be adjusted, because we were not allowed to supply a publisher, etc. name under AACR; so I felt that RDA was continuing that policy. However, I see that we *are* allowed to supply a Publisher'

Re: [RDA-L] recording production statements

On the producer's name, 2.7.4.2, sources of information, include the same sources as the others: Take producers' names from the following sources (in order of preference): a) the same source as the title proper (see 2.3.2.2) b) another source within the resource itself (see 2.2.2) c) one of the o

Re: [RDA-L] recording production statements

Chris, If you decide that the DVD is, indeed, unpublished: 2.7.2.6 (Place of Production Not Identified in the Resource) says: "If neither a known nor a probable local place or country, state, province, etc., of production can be determined, record Place of production not identified." 2.7.4.7 (N

Re: [RDA-L] Dust jacket as a Source of Information

Hideyuk reported: >Our interpretation has been that the jacket is not considered >part of the resource. Therefore information taken from the dust jacket should be in brackets in a transcribed field, and source cited in 588. Summary in 520 is not transcribed, but source should be cited af

Re: [RDA-L] Dust jacket as a Source of Information

Whoops. That is quite a change. But good to know we don’t have to rely on an interpretation anymore, and the dust jacket has ‘come in from the cold’ and is now considered good enough to be treated as a part of the resource itself. I will adjust my thinking accordingly (even though I know

Re: [RDA-L] recording production statements

Chris Fox asked: >If true, where and how in the MARC record do I record the production statem= >ent? Use 264 0 $a$b$c, with the place, name of the dance company, and year, each in its own two brackets. Providing producer of unpublished material (264 0)is one of RDA's very few good innovatio

Re: [RDA-L] Dust jacket as a Source of Information

"A cover or jacket issued with the resource (or an image of that cover or jacket)" has been been included in the list of sources that may be used when there is no title page. This change was approved by the JSC in November 2012 and will be published this summer. See http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs

Re: [RDA-L] dimension of discs and end punctuations of 264 field

Thanks a lot. Deborah. Have a great weekend :) Joan Wang On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Deborah Fritz wrote: > Joan, > > ** ** > > Yes, abbreviate ‘inches’ as ‘in.’ as per Appendix B, because 3.5.1.3 > (which gives us the alternative to use the system of measure we prefer) > says “Abbrevia

Re: [RDA-L] Dust jacket as a Source of Information

Thanks Hideyuki. Maybe LC could add this interpretation to the LC PCC PS for 2.4.2 (Other Sources of Information), if we asked them, very nicely. In the meantime, I will proceed under the assumption that interpretation is shared by all. Deborah - - - - - - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc.

Re: [RDA-L] Dust jacket as a Source of Information

The Sources of Information for most, if not all (except the 'Preferred Names') information for Persons, Families and Corporate bodies is "Take information on dates associated with the person from any source". So there is no problem with getting that kind of information from the dust jacket; wh

Re: [RDA-L] Dust jacket as a Source of Information

A question was filed with lchelp4...@loc.gov as to whether or not a dust jacket of a print resource that consisted of pages was considered, in the course of RDA cataloguing, to be within the resource. PSD responded on June 12, 2012 as follows: Our interpretation has been that the jacket is

Re: [RDA-L] Dust jacket as a Source of Information

Deborah, While I can understand some bias against the dust jacket since the blurb is publisher-created and inclined to make you think this is the best book ever; often the jacket is the only good source for author information and verification, so perhaps an exception could be made for this informa

Re: [RDA-L] dimension of discs and end punctuations of 264 field

Joan, Yes, abbreviate 'inches' as 'in.' as per Appendix B, because 3.5.1.3 (which gives us the alternative to use the system of measure we prefer) says "Abbreviate terms for units of measurement as instructed in appendix Bhttp://access.rdat

[RDA-L] Dust jacket as a Source of Information

Under AACR there was an LCRI that basically said we were not to consider information coming from a dust jacket as coming from a prescribed source of information (presumably because it could get lost) A 'Quick Search' of RDA has not turned up any mention of a dust jacket (except in an example un

[RDA-L] recording production statements

Please excuse cross-posting... Hello, I am trying to catalog a DVD which I *think* would be considered unpublished: A professor here wrote to the choreographer of a performance he saw to find out if it was possible to obtain a recording of the dance. He was told by the choreographer that she

Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

John Williams said: >I think that in 10 years time a scholar looking for materials on Italian >politics would very much like to know if a book had been published in 2013 >or 2014. SLC agrees with the various guidelines (LC, PCC) that one should use the single year in 008 and 26X as on the item.

Re: [RDA-L] Describing reproductions

>instead, I was wondering where I might access some of SLC's RDA >records for microfilmed monographs/serials. SLC will not begin producing RDA records until September 1st, because ebrary (through whom some of our e-publisher and e-aggregator clients distribute records and PDFs) will not accept RDA

Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator for one who writes a foreword

Forgot to say, a writer of a foreword is at the expression level. Using *writer of added commentary* or *writer of added text *depends on the book in your hand*. * On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Joan Wang wrote: > I would use *writer of added commentary*. There is a difference between* * > *wr

Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator for one who writes a foreword

I would use *writer of added commentary*. There is a difference between* **writer of added commentary* and *writer of added text*. The latter is used for a primarily non-textual work. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Baumgarten, Richard, JCL <

[RDA-L] relationship designator for one who writes a foreword

I have searched all through 1.4 to find the proper designator to enter in the subfield e for a person who wrote a foreword to a book. Do I use author or writer of added text or something else entirely? Richard Baumgarten Cataloger Johnson County Library P.O. Box 2901 Shawnee Mission, Kansas 662

Re: [RDA-L] New format reproductions and RDA

Whether the resource is in the original format or a reproduction does not make a difference in regard to choice of access points for the work and expression. The MARC fields and subfields should be the same. The only instance in which access points might not be appropriate is if the name is fo

Re: [RDA-L] Describing reproductions

I'm about as "passionate" about LCRI 11 and MARC 533 as can be (if I don't mention it often), having cataloged mostly microforms (monograph and serial) for just over twenty years. But anyway, just getting that off my chest (and just deleted an increasingly lengthy paragraph of "reasons why"),

Re: [RDA-L] New format reproductions and RDA

Benjamin A Abrahamse said: "On the CONSERlist there has been discussion of this same issue and the point has been raised: if we can (perhaps for slightly different reasons) countenance a "provider neutral" practice with respect to electronic reproductions, could we think of microfilm reproducti

Re: [RDA-L] RDA-L Digest - 26 Mar 2013 to 28 Mar 2013 (#2013-76)

Benjamin A Abrahamse said: "On the CONSERlist there has been discussion of this same issue and the point has been raised: if we can (perhaps for slightly different reasons) countenance a "provider neutral" practice with respect to electronic reproductions, could we think of microfilm reproducti

Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

I think that in 10 years time a scholar looking for materials on Italian politics would very much like to know if a book had been published in 2013 or 2014. In fact the month in 2013 would be useful, and I like the idea of adding a note. Catalogers receiving the book in 2014 would know very well t