I see that the relationship designators writer of introduction and writer of
preface have been fast tracked into RDA Appendix I. However, nowhere in RDA
can I see an explanation of what an introduction is and what a preface is.
It may be that the unwritten assumption is that a preface is by
I'm rather unsure about what the title and statement of responsibility
area should look like if there is both a formal name of the conference
and a specific title of a conference on the preferred source of information.
Let's consider the following example (which I've translated from German
to
And what about writer of afterword, while we're at it?
I've just have such a case in front of me: A novel, where the translator
has also provided notes and the said afterword. It gives information
about the author and her work. What is here presented as an afterword
might, in other cases,
Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:
Sometimes I think RDA makes too many distinctions. It would be far more
sensible to have only one relationship designator covering writers of things
like prefaces, introductions, forewords and afterwords. Then we wouldn't have
to wreck our brains about the
I've just posted the following proposals for the November 2013 JSC meeting
on the public web site (http://www.rda-jsc.org/workingnew.html):
-- 6JSC/ACOC/7 (Compilers and editors of compilations – Amendments to RDA
20.2.1)
-- 6JSC/ACOC/8 (Addition of the Copyright holder relationship -
You can choose the higher-level designator writer of supplementary textual
content if you don't want to or cannot identify a more specific
relationship.
Judy Kuhagen
JSC Secretary
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Mary Mastraccio ma...@marcive.com wrote:
**
Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:
I think the point that was being made--and with which I was agreeing--is that
sometimes too much specificity isn't really that helpful. In other words, it is
nice there is a higher-level designator but have we gone too far in some
lower-level designators? In most cases the very specific
05.08.2013 16:04, JSC Secretary:
You can choose the higher-level designator writer of supplementary
textual content if you don't want to or cannot identify a more specific
relationship.
This leaves me wondering whether or not the relationship designators
are a D aspect or (also) an A aspect.
Mac,
Would you please post the bibliographic citations and how to
order the two RDA guidance aids by Weihs and Fritz? Thank you
for your valuable guidance on the RDA listserv.
Lynne
I'm with Lynn. How do we order?
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 5:28 PM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
Autocatters and RDA-Lers,
Help is on the way.
Excellent author Jean Riddle Weihs and another capable cataloguer are
working on an RDA/MARC21 manual for school libraries. Like Deborah
The MARC Code List for Relators does lump some of them together:
Author of afterword, colophon, etc. [aft]
A person or organization responsible for an afterword, postface, colophon,
etc. but who is not the chief author of a work
Author of introduction, etc. [aui]
A person or organization
I am not speaking for every American cataloger here, but we would have the
m.e as the conference since it is a named conference. A parallel to this
would be if you had the title followed by statement of responsibility with
a personal name and did not make the personal name the main entry or
Catalog Management Librarian – IRC54107
Embry-Riddle AeronauticalUniversity (ERAU) seeks a Catalog Management Librarian
to be responsible forthe day-to-day operation of the cataloging unit. This
position will provideexpertise and leadership to a cataloging unit of one
professional
Gene,
Thanks, but perhaps I didn't explain my problem clearly enough. It's not
about the main entry - I had indeed assumed that the conference would be
creator according to 19.2.1.1.1 d). My problem is about the
bibliographical description of such an item. Where does the name of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 05.08.2013 17:56, schrieb Heidrun Wiesenmüller:
---
100th CONFERENCE OF GERMAN LIBRARIANS
IN BERLIN 2011
LIBRARIES FOR THE FUTURE -
FUTURE FOR THE LIBRARIES
[this is printed slightly smaller than
Without seeing the actual item, I would place it in the area of resp.
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller
wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote:
Gene,
Thanks, but perhaps I didn't explain my problem clearly enough. It's not
about the main entry - I had indeed assumed that
Gene,
Without seeing the actual item, I would place it in the area of resp.
Sorry, that was too much shorthand for a non-native speaker:
Does resp here mean the same as depends? If so, on what - the layout?
If you want to have a closer look, here's a scan of the title page:
I meant area of responsibility. The 245 line would read [title] / |c [name
of conference]
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller
wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote:
Gene,
Without seeing the actual item, I would place it in the area of resp.
Sorry, that was too much
Thanks, Gene. Now all is revealed (actually, I should have been able to
work that one out myself...)
I'm quite happy to hear that. German catalogers will have to get used to
so many new things; it's rather nice if some things stay the same.
Heidrun
On 05.08.2013 19:46, Gene Fieg wrote:
I
Based on the layout in the scan, I would have transcribed the 100. Deutscher
Bibliothekartag as the title proper, Bibliotheken fur die Zukunft as the other
title, and Herausgaben von Ulrich Hohoff etc as the statement of
responsibility. I would have provided variant access for the other
I don't think there is any principle or rule at work; it seems to be mostly a
matter of cataloger's judgment. Such statements often give additional
information like the place and date of a conference, which might make them seem
less like a statement of responsibility. Some might include a
Heidrun said:
Sometimes I think RDA makes too many distinctions.
They certainly do. In the cases you cite, I would use $econtributor.
In most cases, a single word should be used, not a phrase, in order
not to over clutter the display.
Take the distinction between 2-D and 3-D moving images.
Lynn eBare requested:
Would you please post the bibliographic citations and how to order the
two RDA guidance aids by Weihs and Fritz?
The Weihs aid is still being written. I'm copying to the Jean and
Sheila, the authors.
The Fritz binder was AACR2, not RDA. I haven't heard if Deborah is
Ben,
your two cents are, as usual, worth a lot more than that ;-)
I hadn't realized that RDA has brought a change here. Now I understand
why I found so many cases of the conference name as other title
information in the catalogs.
Thanks also for pointing out the subtle difference in the
Still seeking info. on this, especially now as I see that the MARC Code
List for Relators (http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html) advises
to use the spelling Honoree rather than Honouree. Anyone from LC or PCC
know if there is anything in the works to create a PS stating to use the
I emailed Deborah Fritz to see if she was going to do an RDA version. She said
she was not at this time. I am hoping she will change her mind. I usded her
AACR2 ver daily.
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access on
behalf of J. McRee
I meant, of course, Bibliotheken not Biblitheken.
--Ben
Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of
What about liturgical works? The main entry (i.e., the name in a
name-title AAP) is the associated church or denomination, but this is
nevertheless categorised as 'other corporate body associated with the
work', in which case 'issuing body' is correct.
'issuing body' could also be used as a
Heidrun posted:
100th CONFERENCE OF GERMAN LIBRARIANS
IN BERLIN 2011
LIBRARIES FOR THE FUTURE -
FUTURE FOR THE LIBRARIES
[this is printed slightly smaller than the name of the conference above,
but still in capitals]
edited by
Ulrich Hohoff and Daniela Luelfing
--
245 10
I have a book which is issued in both a main series: Champs (Flammarion
(Firm)), which is numbered, and in a subseries: Champs (Flammarion
(Firm)).|p Essais, which is unnumbered. My book is a paperback. The
subseries appears at the bottom of the front cover of my book as Champs
essais. The
I fully agree with Dana's initial determination that the main series title
should be recorded in brackets. As described below, the word Champs
appearing on the resource seems to be clearly referring to the subseries title.
I suppose it's possible that the two words could be presented in
You could have a 490 for Champs essais or Champs. Essais and give the
number from the spine in a quoted note. Then you could have two 830s: one for
the main series with number and one for the subseries.
--
John Hostage
Senior Continuing Resources
A question on relationship designators and corporate bodies that perhaps
someone with more expertise can explain.
Appendix I, I.2. is divided into 2 sections. I.2.1. Relationship designators
for creators and I.2.2. Relationship designators for other persons, families or
corporate bodies
I agree with John.
Consider each element separately:
Title Proper of Series (2.12.2)
Source: a source within the resource-good
Enter it exactly as found, except for 1.7: Champs
Numbering within Series (2.12.9)
Source: a source within the resource-good
Enter exactly as found,
I think it would be better to get all thought of main entry out of mind when
working with the RDs in I.2.1. There are two entirely separate determinations
going on: the relationships between people/families/corporate bodies and works
(chapter 19), and authorized access points for works
Hi Kevin and others,
I started writing this message before John Deborah's comments came in,
but I'm going to include some further information because it seems that it
might change Kevin's decision. Thanks everyone for your thoughts. I'm
sorry I didn't include this information in my first
The list of designators is a controlled list, and as best as I can say, you
must use the term there as found, with the British/Canadian spelling. The
records that you've found that don't are, in my opinion, incorrect.
Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries
On Mon, 5 Aug 2013, Dana
Based on typography, I think you've made a perfectly fine case for doing 490 1
Champs ; $v [no.]. $a Essais ; $v [no.] No bracketing needed for the main
series.
Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries
On Mon, 5 Aug 2013, Dana Van Meter wrote:
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 18:18:42 -0400
I've just posted the following document for the November 2013 JSC meeting
on the public web site (http://www.rda-jsc.org/workingnew.html):
-- 6JSC/ALA rep/6 (Note on manifestation and item)
I've replaced the pdf for 6JSC/Music/3 with a different file; the number of
pages is different although
Dana Van Meter posted:
I have a book which is issued in both a main series: Champs (Flammarion
(Firm)), which is numbered, and in a subseries: Champs (Flammarion
(Firm)).|p Essais, which is unnumbered.
It was my understanding that the numbering applied to the main series
only, so it should not
40 matches
Mail list logo
