31.07.2013 00:04, James Weinheimer:
... The refusal to accept that 99% of people do not
fit into these little pre-conceived FRBR user tasks is why I think that
perhaps librarianship may be destined for extinction. We must free our
minds from these pre-conceptions!
Visions of doom for
On 31 July 2013 01:04, James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com wrote:
Show us how you can do the FRBR user tasks in Google: to
find/identify/select/obtain--*works* *expressions* *manifestations*
*items* by their AUTHORS, TITLES and SUBJECTS. Also, please demonstrate how
on the web, you
Whether or not it has an edition statement, you could (would be
advised to) add Font Size (3.13) large print, in either the 300$a
or 340$n or both
True. But in the absence of a GMD, or a large print icon, a 250 large
print edition statement (transcribed or supplied) would give helpful
to
On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 J. McRee Elrod posted:
We do not create records as an end in themselves for bibliographic utilities
or catalogues, but as a service to patrons in identifying what they seek.
Similarly, identifying abridged vs unabridged audio books is an attribute
patrons strongly
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Dan Matei wrote:
snip
On 31 July 2013 01:04, James Weinheimer wrote:
Show us how you can do the FRBR user tasks in Google: to
find/identify/select/obtain--*works* *expressions* *manifestations*
*items* by their AUTHORS, TITLES and SUBJECTS. Also, please
If it says anywhere on the resource 'Abridged', with or without 'edition',
that is now a Designation of Edition (see 2.5.2.3 and the example
'Abridged') and so is recorded without brackets.
If it doesn't say, but somehow you know, then I would recommend adding
*this* in brackets (from outside
This statement made me pause for thought: Also, please demonstrate how on the
web, you can 'select' something in Google without already 'obtaining' it. I
cannot do it. In Google with full-text, I select whether I want materials only
AFTER I obtain it. I cannot do anything else. If I am wrong,
RDA 2.5.14 provides an optional addition: “If a resource lacks an edition
statement but is known to contain significant changes from other editions,
supply an edition statement, if considered important for identification or
access. Indicate that the information was taken from a source outside the
That is my interpretation of the rules too, yes.
I guess my real question is why so many catalogers are now skipping both the
250 and the 300 phrase for these records. Especially since 250 seems to be
core. And then upgrading the ELvl.
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description
I've been part of a small task group formed by the OhioLINK consortium (a
consortium primarily of academic libraries in Ohio) working on updating
standards from AACR2 to RDA for ETDs.
We have a document we believe is final or very close to it. However, we'd
appreciate extra sets of eyes to
We are trying to find the specific rule that provides instruction on how to
record chapter headings as part of a 505 note. (Cataloguers want/demand
specific rule numbers) We are certain it does not fall under Chapters 25, 26
and 27. We are to presume it comes under rule 7.10. but, this rule
Would you be willing to share your document once you have finalized it?
We are slowly moving towards ETD, and it sounds like your document would
be quite helpful.
Thank you,
Larry Creider
--
Laurence S. Creider
Head, Archives and Special Collections Dept.
University Library
New Mexico State
I've posted the following additional documents for the November 2013 JSC
meeting on the public web site (http://www.rda-jsc.org/workingnew.html):
6JSC/BL/11 (Revision of RDA 11.4 and 11.13 and Glossary)
6JSC/LC/23 (Language of the Family (10.8))
6JSC/LC/26 (Changes to instructions on
I know there is an LC-PCC PS stating to use the American spelling of
color, but don't see any such LC-PCC PS for the spelling of the
relationship designator honouree. Doing a keyword search for rda and
honouree in a personal name yields 282 hits in LC's catalog, but doing the
same search with
A contents note is a structured description of a relationship: a listing of the
parts of the resource being described. It therefore falls under Section 8 of
RDA (Chapters 24-28).
There are no instructions in RDA Chapters 24-28 on how to construct a
structured description of a relationship.
Meanwhile, why not follow the guidelines in the LCRI to chapter 2 of AACR2
on formal notes:
And also consult a book entitled: Notes for catalogers
Formal Contents Note
Transcribe a formal contents note as follows:
1) use the appropriate value in indicator 1 of the MARC 21 505 field
(Formatted
Kristen Northrup posted:
I guess my real question is why so many catalogers are now skipping
both the 250 and the 300 [large print] phrase for these records.
Perhaps because the WEMI and fuzzy language make RDA difficult to
apply? Perhaps because too many cataloguers are attempting to follow
Tim Watters posted:
Similarly, identifying abridged vs unabridged audio books is an attribute p=
atrons strongly seek but RDA does not address at all that I can find. I am =
wondering if it could go in a bracketed 250?
I'm with Deborah on this one. Transcribe or supply that abridged edition
Don Charuk posted:
We are trying to find the specific rule that provides instruction on how =
to record chapter headings as part of a 505 note.
At present, this is more a matter of MARC than of RDA.
We find that if we are recording titles beyond the volume or chapter
level, i.e. detailed
There is no specific rule for this. But the basic instructions on
recording contents notes are in 24.4.3 - contents notes are a form of
structured description. 25.1.1.3 has examples of contents notes, but no
instructions on how to formulate them.
On Wed, 31 Jul 2013, Don Charuk wrote:
I believe there are guidelines in LC PCC PS 25.1.1.3?
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
If the cataloguer is following RDA, then they will be referencing the
patrons needs at all times:
- 0.4.3.1 Differentiation says that the data that we provide about a
resource, should be enough to allow a user to tell the difference between
similar resources
- 0.4.3.2 Sufficiency says that the
Deborah said:
But we need to think of data as data, now more than ever. Font size is a
particular type of data. If the text in a book is 'large print' then 0.4.3.1
and 0.4.3.2 principles guide us to add that data, but we need to add it as
the correct Font size element (in MARC 300$a or 340$n),
Mac Elrod wrote:
If the item says Large print edition seems to me that belongs in
250, just as you indicated for Abridged edition. Field 340 is far
too late for identification of the resource.
Yes, it would still be appropriate to record Large print edition as an
edition statement, *if*
Kevin said:
But field 340 would be where you would record the font size itself as a
descriptive aspect.
What does this accomplish for patrons, if 340 is not in brief display?
Records have *purposes*, one of which is to identify for patrons what
they seek. That an item is large print is more
Mac Elrod wrote:
Kevin said:
But field 340 would be where you would record the font size itself as a
descriptive aspect.
What does this accomplish for patrons, if 340 is not in brief display?
What good does the language code in 008/35-37 do? Or the place of publication
in 008/15-17?
FRBR user tasks are another way to specify which elements to use.
The edition statement is used to identify the resource in two main ways:
1. help identifying the manifestation by recording what's on the manifestation
(this should be done if Large print edition is on the resource).
2.
Thomas said:
The edition statement is used to identify the resource in two main ways:
1. help identifying the manifestation by recording what's on the manifestation
(this should be done if Large print edition is on the resource).
2. distinguish the manifestation from similar ones
If the
Kevin said:
What good does the language code in 008/35-37 do? Or the place of
publication in 008/15-17? Or the biography code in 008/34 for books?
Or the relief codes in 008/18-21 for maps?
Redundancy is one of the major problems of MARC, dating from when it
was more difficult to access
29 matches
Mail list logo
