Re: [RDA-L] Where to Direct Questions about RDA Examples?

Others have made many points in this discussion that I agree with, which I'd just like to summarize and reiterate; my opinion that the heading should be constructed as simply Snoopy remains unchanged. If one consults the OCLC bib file and other reference resources for the predominant form of name

Re: [RDA-L] Dr. Snoopy

Here's the thing, though. Snoopy doesn't have the profession of author, because as we all know, he didn't really write the book. He is a fictitious dog, lacking in digits and English language necessary to put out the work he authored (even in the cartoons, he never speaks). So I don't believe we

Re: [RDA-L] Dr. Snoopy

Mr. Rochkind: The change is here: AACR2 21.4C1 If responsibility for a work is known to be erroneously or fictitiously attributed to a person, enter under the actual personal author or under title if the actual personal author is not known. Make an added entry under the heading for the person to

[RDA-L] Where to Direct Questions about RDA Examples?

I'm wondering where to send questions about RDA examples that I believe need changing. Under 19.2.1.3 (Recording Creators), in the Examples of Two or More Persons, Families, or Corporate Bodies Responsible for the Creation of the Work Performing Different Roles we find Snoopy, Dr. listed as the

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

I would be curious to see links to evidence-based papers from rigorous research studies that prove that patrons want FRBR/WEMI in searching, retrieval, etc. I've found nothing on the IFLA website, where I would have thought they would reside. All papers there (http://www.ifla.org/en/node/881) seem

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

I've been following this discussion with interest, but feel the need to inject an unhappy reality into it. I attended a program on Friday, given by a Digital Strategist, an ALA mover and shaker. This person dismissed all of cataloging in a single sentence, offhand, while discussing something else.

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

Mac (and others): I didn't mean that the Digital Strategist was right--obviously, as a cataloger, I know the contrary. Just that that is often the opinion of those movers and shakers, and I don't see how we can convince them that a: their glib assumptions are wrong, and b: it still matters to

Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????

Everyone: The book in question was cataloged by University of Chicago, an American cataloging agency, presumably therefore supposed to be using American spellings for things. The book itself was in Swedish, so would not have said anywhere specifically that it had all beautiful colo(u)red

Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????

Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Wed, 2 Mar 2011, Deborah Tomares wrote: Everyone: IMNSHO not all the illustrations were beautiful. And frankly, this is the problem

Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????

combination. John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian Schaffer Library, Union College 807 Union St. Schenectady NY 12308 518-388-6623 mye...@union.edu -Original Message- Deborah Tomares wrote: I sent the question around publicly because I was not sure if this was a hitherto-unknown RDA provision

[RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????

I just cataloged the book corresponding to OCLC #702491897. When I looked at the record, the 300 read: 319 pages : |b illustrations (some coloured, all beautiful), maps ; |c 25 cm. I've corrected the spelling of coloured to American usage--is there an RDA provision I'm missing about this, or was

[RDA-L] RDA, Internationalization and Standardization?

I've been attempting to make sense of RDA and it's underlying FRBR philosophy, but some points are still eluding me. I was hoping someone could shed some light on this, for example. RDA proponents often cite as one of their concerns the need for our data to play nice with other metadata schemata,

Re: [RDA-L] RDA, Internationalization and Standardization?

. ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Thu, 23 Dec 2010, Deborah Tomares

Re: [RDA-L] core-elements

Karen: Copying from the RDA rules from the RDA Toolkit: (apologies for length. I will also just say that I don't think core is at all complete enough to help patrons really identify and select what they want, but that's editorializing. Rules below) 0.6 Core Elements 0.6.1General: Certain

Re: [RDA-L] Forms of Names in Authorities (was: Status ... Part Two)

Thank you, Mr. Brenndorfer, for explaining why RDA has chosen to change the name authority descriptors from titles of position etc. to free-text descriptions, as shown in Mr. Schiff's document http://faculty.washington.edu/aschiff/BCLAPresentationWithNotes-RevAug2010.pdf . He wrote: Many of the