Thank you to everyone for sharing their suggestions and ideas. I think we will
probably not use any RD for the conference (at least for now).
Best wishes,
Debbie
Deborah Lee
Senior cataloguer
Book Library
Courtauld Institute of Art
Somerset House
Strand
London WC2R 0RN
Telephone: 020 7848
I agree, the types you describe represent at least a change of content type
(or a new Expression), and I could be persuaded that they don't constitute new
works. As Mac suggests, the types would be logically recorded as form/genre
(MARC 655).
Francis
From: Resource Description and Access /
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
With the demise of MARBI, I hope LC will continue adding needed codes.
--
MARBI was (well, is for the next 7 weeks) an ALA body. It has functioned as
the de facto approval body for the deliberations of the MARC Advisory
Committee, a
I agree with Mac and you that it appears that these types of terms will
probably be best handled by the entity 'Object', once that entity is covered
by RDA. In the meantime, in MARC records, they (or their official
equivalents) can go in 655, as you both say.
The attributes of these types of
Deborah,
I've been following this post with great curiosity.
I'm trying to get the full picture here. It is VERY important that people
understand that this thing is a bathtub book, popup book, and etc. Are we
still going to describe the fact that it is a bathtub book, board book,
etc. in the
Hi all,
I am trying to clarify something about places of publication for a single
publisher.
Let's say you have multiple places of publication, let's say London,
Toronto, New York (in that order).
According to RDA 2.8.1.4 Transcribe places of publication and publisher's
names in the form in
Ooops! My mistake. For some reason, I was thinking we put that into the
300, but I don't think we actually did. (I don't normally catalog board
books -- but I do catalog a lot of other funny formats!)
So the 300 would probably stay similar to how it is now (except spelling
everything out) ...
-Original Message-
From: Brenndorfer, Thomas
Sent: May-09-13 2:43 PM
To: Brenndorfer, Thomas
Subject: RE: [RDA-L] What is the appropriate RDA element for a term like
Board book or Scented book
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
Deborah Friz posted earlier:
Does anyone know, which, if any, of the RDA elements for Physical
Carriers would be appropriate for this type of information:
Board book
etc.
In addition to a 655 genre heading, while it might need an RDA option
to be added, one possibility would be to have a
Please excuse the cross-posting.
I am doing local training for my library on RDA. I have often said that the
reason why we are moving to RDA is because this is now our national
standard. I have also said that part of the reason for moving to RDA is a
first step toward moving us into linked data
You are quite right, of course, Thomas--Nature of Content is at the Work level,
and I still don’t think that a pop-up version of “Horton Hears A Who” is a
different work, although it certainly would be a different expression because
of the addition of the Content Types.
And since it is an
HI, Julie-
I think it's great that you're providing the local training, and are also
offering the rationales for the RDA rules, not just the rules themselves.
I don't have a clear vision of what Bibframe or other post-MARC catalog will
look like either, so can't offer you the right answer to
And how are these field going to be displayed in an easily understandable
manner to the patron. Will we need a priest of RDA near the shoulder of
every patron as she/he searches for that DVD she knows is in the library
somewhere, because the AACR2 catalog told her so?
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at
Dawn,
You're quite right that only the first place of publication is core. For
element which are not core, RDA 0.6.1 says: The inclusion of other
specific elements is discretionary. The agency responsible for creating
the data may establish policies and guidelines on levels of description
Although that sounds like a really good idea, without an added option,
unfortunately, I do not think the RDA instructions for Extent of Text
(3.4.5.2) do not allow us to use 'other' terms.
Even though 3.4.1.3 says (For instructions on using other terms to
designate the type of unit see
If we have to go back AACR2, why we do not have an option in RDA? Does an
inclusion of a place in the home country make users more comfortable? Also,
I thought that place of publication is one element no matter how many
places are included.
Thanks,
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library
On Thu,
This reminds me of one of Sammy's (my son's) first favorite books was
called Dinos. It was on textured foam pages. There was a small amount of
text. And the thing that intrigued him the most was that the dinosaurs
could come out of their shapes (rather like a 1-piece puzzle on each page!)
He could
As one other person said weeks ago, one has to create a separate set of fields
for displaying to the user (or maybe there is a MARC subfield for that - we
don't use MARC :-)
Lawrence Wardroper
Services de la bibliothèque | Library Services
Service administratif des tribunaux judiciaires |
On 5/9/2013 3:56 PM, Gene Fieg wrote:
And how are these field going to be displayed in an easily
understandable manner to the patron. Will we need a priest of RDA near
the shoulder of every patron as she/he searches for that DVD she knows
is in the library somewhere, because the AACR2 catalog
On 09/05/2013 22:17, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
snip
On 5/9/2013 3:56 PM, Gene Fieg wrote:
And how are these field going to be displayed in an easily
understandable manner to the patron. Will we need a priest of RDA near
the shoulder of every patron as she/he searches for that DVD she knows
is
My software, and by extension, my users using my software, use the MARC
leader, 007, 008, 040, and other fixed/coded fields, every day. It is
not data that nobody uses or can use.
But that's your opinion, that it has been a mistake to have fixed fields
and coded fields in MARC from the
I think useful/useless in the eye of the beholder. While it is very
important to have data that is understandable by non-catalogers, it is also
important to acknowledge that catalogers are also users. The data catalogers
need for reporting and analysis doesn't have to be made visible to all, but
Are the 336,337,338's meant to be displayed? Probably not. Maybe, meant to be
used as accessible codes for a FRBRised catalog search yet to be developed?
Carolyn Kadri
Special Collections Cataloger
University of Texas at Arlington
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
On 09/05/2013 23:11, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
snip
My software, and by extension, my users using my software, use the
MARC leader, 007, 008, 040, and other fixed/coded fields, every day.
It is not data that nobody uses or can use.
But that's your opinion, that it has been a mistake to have
Julie suggested:
500 Board book.
or
500 Pop-up book with sound effects.
or
500 Board book in the shape of a shark.
Why not incorporate this information into the 520 summary? An where
appropriate 300$a and/or $b?
I like: 300 $a1 board book (12 unnumbered pages) ;$bcoloured
illustrations,
I did not at all take Jonathan Rochkind's comment as meaning that any
particular code has always been just as valuable to the majority of users as
any other particular code. His point seemed to be that some information that
is of use to users of the catalog happens to be in a coded form, and
No, the 336, 337, 338's were not meant to be displayed.
Julie Moore
Fresno State
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Kadri, Carolyn J ka...@uta.edu wrote:
Are the 336,337,338’s meant to be displayed? Probably not. Maybe, meant to
be used as accessible codes for a FRBRised catalog search yet to
Kevin said:
The new 336-338 fields follow in the decades-long tradition of coded data i=
n MARC ...
Then why not use language neutral codes, or user friendly terms
suitable for display?
I do realize that horse is long gone.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | /
Deborah said concerning incorporating expression level format into 520:
It might not seem to matter so much with our mixed-up MARC bib records,
especially in the 500 general note fields, but it will matter a great deal
in the future that we use the correct element for the data that we provide.
Joan,
If we have to go back AACR2, why we do not have an option in RDA? Does
an inclusion of a place in the home country make users more
comfortable? Also, I thought that place of publication is one element
no matter how many places are included.
There is no need for an option. RDA
30 matches
Mail list logo
