/ Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 6:55 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9
I confess to having been part of the writing
I agree. The field of activity is War crimes or Punk rock music. What you
actually do in those fields is specified in 374 (College teachers Music
critics). I don't think subdivisions such as History and criticism or Study
and teaching are necessarily wrong, but I don't think they're necessary
A good place to record this is as a part of the Biographical Information
element (RDA 9.17, MARC 678). For example, n 93090208, n 95063896, n
92045780.
Bob
Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT
I routinely catalog resources like this and I can't recall ever having seen any
records using 765 for this situation, so I don't think it can be said there is
a consensus for adding a 765 field under RDA for translations.
The current practice is to use 1XX/240 if there is one work or expression
The search “dx:rda” in the OCLC authorities keyword search finds all the
RDA-coded records, but since there are 785,362 of them this morning you might
want to find some way to limit the search rather than go through them all ☺
Bob
Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections
This access point for Wiggin, Ender was first established by BYU *without* a
qualifier, following LC's instructions only to add qualifier to these access
point if there was a conflict. Somebody at BL took it upon themselves to add
the qualifier (without the appropriate subfield coding, as you
No one should be correcting authorized access points that were correctly
established under current policy, which is to include the qualifier if there is
a conflict but otherwise not.
Bob
Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham
@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of M. E.
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 2:49 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Thanks RE: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious
character)
Robert Maxwell robert_maxw...@byu.edumailto:robert_maxw...@byu.edu wrote:
No one should
Kevin, this is a matter for your good judgment, which you should trust. We do,
in fact, give precedence to title pages, so you have good reason for looking to
the presentation there in order to identify the creator of the work. Once
you’ve made that judgment, the next question is whether you
:41 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
Robert Maxwell said:
I realize this isn't the PCC list or the MARC list, but would people be
willing to push for officially switching to Adam's suggested
700 12 $i Contains (work): $a Owens
I agree with Kevin and am tickled that he's tickled about this :-)
I realize this isn't the PCC list or the MARC list, but would people be willing
to push for officially switching to Adam's suggested
700 12 $i Contains (work): $a Owens, Jo, $d 1961- $t Add kids, stir briskly.
(or alternately,
I personally find the expression level extremely useful for distinguishing
between, e.g., different translations, different formats, etc. It's not a
relationship between works. A translation isn't a different work from the
original. A recording of a work isn't a different work from the text.
Dana,
The punctuation practice comes from Appendix E.1.2.5 (Punctuation of access
points — Access points representing works and expressions): “Enclose a word,
phrase, date, or other designation used for conflict resolution in
parentheses.” It’s logical to me that the first thing you would use
This happens all the time with the series Collection des universités de France
(Greek or Latin texts with French parallel translations). I usually do this in
this situation: cxciv, 47, 148 pages. There are actually three sequences
here, and each has an end number. If thought necessary, a note
Note: LC-PCC PS 6.27.3, on which I believe Kevin bases his comment, is LC
practice, not PCC practice, though PCC catalogers are free to follow LC
practice.
I personally think there are significant problems with using the same access
point for the work and the expression, and consequently using
RDA 3.4.5.2.
a) If the volume is numbered in terms of pages, record the number of pages.
b) If the volume is numbered in terms of leaves, record the number of leaves.
If the sheets in the volume are printed on both sides, but numbered on only
one, they are numbered in terms of leaves. So for
This would be clearer if we were creating clear separate descriptions for the
separate entities (e.g. work/expression/manifestation/item descriptions, each
linked as appropriate to related entities such as the author of the work)
instead of the grab-bag of the current MARC bibliographic record.
Appendix B does not apply to “transcribed elements” (see B.4). The Pubication
Statement is a transcribed element (see 2.8.1.4). Also B.4 instructs “If
supplying all or part of a transcribed element, generally do not abbreviate
words.”
Bob
Robert L. Maxwell
Head, Special Collections and
Heidrun,
I believe the code in 008/35-37 and the code in subfield $a of 041 (and
probably most of the other 041 subfields, except $h) do qualify as legitimate
ways to record language of expression under 6.11.1.3. We are told to record
the language or languages of the expression using an
Heidrun,
Translated from the French is an unstructured description of the relationship
of the resource to another expression (though it's not a very specific
description) and is covered by RDA 24.4.3. See also the example at 26.1.1.3
The English edition of a Spanish publication, which is also
Heidrun,
You're correct, page numbers are manifestation level information. This has been
pointed out before, but I think the information is thought so useful that it
continues to be recorded as you see. RDA could correct this by putting the
instruction for recording the location of a
First, it's your judgment as to what constitutes an edition statement. If you
think Second print is an edition statement you can record it as is. And in
this case you have a good argument for the resource with the statement Seond
print being a different edition.
If you're uncomfortable with
For Example 1 I would supply 2013 as the publication date. Books are always
printed before they are published. Presumably these were printed and delivered
to the publisher in late 2012. Then they were published, i.e., issued to the
public. That could easily have happened the following year. To
Mac, you have brought this issue up often enough, but what do you do about
other parts of the record that are geared toward a particular language
community? Notes in 5XX fields are going to be in English in English-language
records, for example, and for good reason. We use English terms in the
Julie,
Strictly speaking once you've recorded or supplied a date of publication (264
_1 $c) you have fulfilled the RDA core requirement and can quit. However, if
there is in fact a date I found in the resource that I've used to infer the
date of publication I like to include it in the
Julie,
In addition to what Adam said, in current practice we are required to include
subfields $a, $b, and $c in 264 _1 even if we've included core if elements
later on, so your first example should read:
264 #1 $a Syracuse, New York : $b [publisher not identified], $c [date of
publication
The content type would be “still image”. The media and carrier type depend on
the carrier. If it’s a regular photograph the media type is “unmediated” and
the carrier type is probably “card” (or possibly “sheet”). “Sheet” is defined
in the glossary as “a flat piece of thin material;” “Card” is
and Access / Resource Description and Access de la
part de Robert Maxwell
Date: jeu. 2013-06-13 21:09
À: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Objet : Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?
Julie,
In addition to what Adam said, in current practice we are required to include
subfields $a, $b
I would certainly put relationship designators for works at the beginning of
the string. It doesn't make any sense at the end, and for display purposes it
needs to be at the front. I suppose you could program your system to flip it to
the front but why, when you can just as easily put it at the
You are correct, access points do not need to be justified in the body of the
bibliographic record in RDA. There is no equivalent to AACR2 21.29F (If the
reason for an added entry is not apparent from the description ... provide a
note ...) However, neither does RDA forbid making such notes so
The RDA alternative implies that all the names would be in one field in MARC,
which doesn't work; hence the LC-PCC PS not to apply it.
Bob
Robert L. Maxwell
Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept.
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568
We
I've also noticed a very common missing relationship related to this one. We
need Soundtrack to: or something to cover the relationship between a film and
its soundtrack.
Bob
Robert L. Maxwell
Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept.
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young
It is, in fact, permissible to include the language of expression in the access
point for an expression, even if it is the original language. Libraries may
choose to use the authorized access point for the work to represent the first
expression, as LC does in LCPS 6.27.3:
Thea Stilton is a fictitious character, but RDA 9.0 explicitly includes
fictious characters (Persons include fictitious entities, such as literary
figures, legendary figures, etc.). So if a fictitious character presents
himself or herself as the creator of a resource or a contributor to an
I know others have responded already and I agree with giving the Arabic form
(“15, 418 pages”) in the “main” extent statement, but I usually also give a
parallel field with the Greek numeral in these cases.
This isn’t a case of RDA 3.4.5.2—the Greek numeral isn’t a word, it’s a
numeral, so
A meeting or event is a type of corporate body according to both AACR2 and RDA.
If the publication is the proceedings of the meeting/event the conference is
considered the creator. I've been using author as the relationship designator
in those cases. Corporate bodies (including events) can have
If we're voting, I've been lobbying for this since RDA was published, both for
families and fictitious characters. It is against basic authority principles to
have two different access points for the same entity. And I agree with Richard,
the broader LCSH family name terms could certainly
2.3.1.6 says Do not transcribe words that serve as an introduc tion **and are
not intended to be part of the title** We shouldn't zero in on the first half
of the sentence without remembering the second half-and the second half puts
the decision of whether or not to record such words completely
The bibliographic record in MARC is not a surrogate for the work; it's a
mishmash of information about all the FRBR entities. So a relationship
designator added to a name in a bibliographic record does not have to link the
name to the work. Actually, though, in the example cited you have more
In my RDA cataloging of graphic novels and comic books I've been using
illustrator for some of these (penciller, inker, cover artist) but I use
calligrapher for letterers and colorist for colorists.
Remember RDA 18.5.1.3 says record one or more appropriate terms from the list
in Appendix I but
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
If the date in the authority record is a mistake, it should be corrected.
However, remember that a date that is used to differentiate in an authorized
access point should be the date of the work (RDA 6.4 and 6.27.1.9b) or (in
this case) the date of the expression (RDA 6.10 and 6.27.3ii), which
Steven’s point reminds me. In addition to what I said about qualifiers on my
earlier post, remember also you only need to add a qualifier (date, form of
work, place of origin, something else) if you need to differentiate. So if a
person’s works (or a selection) have only been published once,
,
should those records also be for objects? This actually seems to be an
unsettled area.
Kelley
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Robert Maxwell robert_maxw...@byu.edu wrote:
In my opinion a Playaway is unmediated. You don't need anything other
than the object itself (and a source of electricity
In my opinion a Playaway is unmediated. You don't need anything other than the
object itself (and a source of electricity) to get the information, in contrast
to, say, a CD, which you need to put in a machine in order to use. Media type
is a categorization reflecting the general type of
I like Kevin's suggestion for punctuation.
However, in my experience working with RDA records I have to say I have almost
never seen records where the cataloger transcribed everything including
qualifications, places, etc., in spite of the LC-PCC PS generally do not
abridge a statement of
The general core statement for statement of responsibility at 2.4 says:
Statement of responsibility relating to title proper is a core element. Other
statements of responsibility are optional.
The core statement for statement of responsibility relating to title proper at
2.4.2 says:
If more
RDA does not address this, but there is an LC-PCC Policy statement that
catalogers may follow if they like and should if they're creating PCC records:
LC-PCC PS for
1.7.1[http://access.rdatoolkit.org/images/rdalink.png]http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp1target=rda1-787#rda1-787
I agree that author seems strange, but I've been using it and the more I use
it the less strange it seems :-)
Bob
Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
Whatever the code definition says, a praeses is not the same thing as a thesis
advisor. A praeses is the person who presides at the defense of an academic
disputation, which is not the same thing as a modern thesis defense. An
academic disputation took place as part of the pre-19th century
. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 2:22 PM
To: Robert Maxwell
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA relationship terminology
Robert Maxwell said:
Whatever the code definition says, a praeses is not the same thing as
a thesis advisor.
So a term
My own practice is to use all the content types I need to describe the
resource. I usually include content types corresponding to anything I've put in
300 $b (in addition to text).
Bob
Robert L. Maxwell
Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept.
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham
I would not call this GMD quite obvious:
Trouble blues|h[electronic resource] /|cCurtis Jones.
This is in a record for streaming audio, that is, a sound recording.
On the other hand, our catalog also has this:
Ariadne auf Naxos|h[electronic resource] =|bAriadne on Naxos.
Is this for a sound
Several people have written in quoting LC practice (supply a date), or giving
other reasons why not to use date of publication not identified, but I don't
think anybody's actually answered Karen's question, which is how to code the
fixed fields in a MARC record if you do choose to record the
The terms in the MARC relator list may also be used if the terms in RDA
Appendix J are not appropriate or sufficiently specific:
http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html
Bob
Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
I don't think I agree with this as an argument for not including high level
general terms in the relationship terms available for use. We do need creator
and contributor. I don't think it's a matter of it being redundant in MARC.
In E/R or presumably in linked data you'd just have a person
- - -
Deborah Fritz
TMQ, Inc.
debo...@marcofquality.commailto:debo...@marcofquality.com
www.marcofquality.comhttp://www.marcofquality.com
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Robert
? And is there recognition that, either way, this is
ambiguous?
Matthew
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Robert Maxwell
robert_maxw...@byu.edumailto:robert_maxw...@byu.edu wrote:
Matthew,
You're right, RDA doesn't specify, because it considers these two separate
elements and I imagine RDA would
Matthew,
You're right, RDA doesn't specify, because it considers these two separate
elements and I imagine RDA would be fine with either of your formulations. The
current practice is:
$b color illustrations
(or $b color illustration if there's just one).
By the way, not colored
Good question, Adam. I assume it's because people have gotten into their mind
that the rule is remove the parentheses and replace with a comma but of
course even though that usually works that isn't actually what is called for in
the last paragraph of 16.2.2.4, which says to precede the name of
Certainly if someone calls him/herself an editor or compiler but is actually an
author or creator, that person is the creator of the work. For example, authors
of bibliographies sometimes call themselves editors when they're actually the
author/compiler/creator of the bibliography. An example
RDA 7.17.1.3 says If the content of the resource is in colours other than
black and white or shades of grey, record the presence of colour using an
appropriate term. RDA doesn't prescribe the wording, but the second example to
this guideline reads some color. In current practice this
Milwaukee, WI 53201
Ph: 414-288-5553
Fax: 414-288-5914
email: angelina.jos...@marquette.edu
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On
Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 1:48 PM
To: RDA-L
I think many of the linking fields (including 787) are best used to record
manifestation-level relationships. If I were recording a work-level
relationship, I'd probably use 730 in this case, with an authorized access
point for the work; as you say, at least one of them would need to be
Yes, this is a good question. I don't think we've resolved yet whether once
there is a conflict BOTH names/titles need to be qualified or just one.
Bob
Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
I agree with the spirit of Marjorie's question, especially the part about
keeping one foot on either side of the fence. It is true that we have had no
official word on continued use of 1XX fields, by which I mean the MARC 21
Format for Bibliographic Data
There are plenty of elements in RDA MARC bibliographic records that are not
RDA-related, just as there were plenty of elements in AACR2 MARC bibliographic
records that are not AACR2-related. The fact that something is not found or
provided for in RDA does not prevent us from recording it in a
-table.pdf
On 7/27/12 10:33 AM, Robert Maxwell wrote:
There are plenty of elements in RDA MARC bibliographic records that are not
RDA-related, just as there were plenty of elements in AACR2 MARC bibliographic
records that are not AACR2-related. The fact that something is not found or
provided for in RDA
The guidelines were published in June and can be found at
http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/documents/264-Guidelines.doc.
The announcement of the publication of the guidelines appeared on several
lists, but appears not to have been announced on RDA-L.
There is also a notice in OCLC Technical Bulletin
I agree that it would be good for manuscripts catalogers to include 264 -0 $a
(place of production) and $b (producer's name) if the information is available,
but remember that in RDA (just as in AACR2) only the date of production element
is core in a production statement (see 2.7.6; 2.7.2
I agree with Adam's assessment about punctuation. Just wanted to point out,
however, that RDA doesn't REQUIRE that expressions of complete works be
qualified by a year of publication. Like any authorized access point that
conflicts with another, it can be qualified by a term indicating content
The relationship designators in RDA Appendices I-L may all be used, of course,
but those lists are not exclusive. Terms from other lists may be used (e.g. RDA
29.5.1.3 says If none of the terms listed in appendix K is appropriate or
sufficiently specific, use a term designating the nature of
I've been assigning relator terms for years under AACR2 in my cataloging so I
guess I'm just used to it-yes, it takes a little extra time, but I think the
benefits to our users of spelling out the relationship of the person/corporate
body/family to the resource far outweigh the extra thought
It seems to me that typography can play a part also, showing the page
designer's intent as to whether the phrase is associated with the title or
statement of responsibility. The RDA instruction expects us to determine if the
noun or phrase occurs with a statement of responsibility, and while
Steven,
You're right; I suspect the catalogers of the RDA records you saw just forgot.
I recommend you take the examples you've found and correct them for your
training materials. I'd be interested in seeing the examples you use in the end.
Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient
I agree with Kevin and point out that this is not a new issue with RDA. AACR2
1.8B1 says Give such numbers [e.g. ISBN] with the agreed abbreviation and with
the standard spacing or hyphenation.
OCLC is just following the MARC documentation, which under Display constants
in 020 says ISBN
1.7 governs transcription. The basic rule is to apply the capitalization
guidelines of 1.7.2 (which direct us to Appendix A). These guidelines are
basically the same as AACR2. So following appendix A we'd get
Metal forming : mechanics and metallurgy.
1.7.1 alternative 1 allows agencies to
A few explanations about BYU's RDA records for Playaways.
In the 300 field we used 1 sound media player ..., the same as had been used
previously in AACR2. I see the non-BYU RDA records for Playaways used 1 audio
media player ... which is probably more in the spirit of RDA, which changed
most
This is because the date of publication element (2.8.6) is core, i.e. that
element must be recorded, even if only with a supplied date (or as a last
resort date of publication not identified). Once the date of publication
element has been recorded nothing else is required, unless the element is
John,
You are right that these appear to have been deliberate choices and not just
oversights, and so are not wrong or broken. It has long bothered me,
though, that FRBR defines a lot of things as attributes that it ALSO defines as
entities. Like place, which is an attribute of a number of
Here's what RDA says about contained in:
contained in (work) A larger work of which a part is a discrete component.
Reciprocal relationship: contains (work)
and the reciprocal definition:
contains (work) A work that is a discrete component of a larger work.
Reciprocal relationship: contained
University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568
From: Jonathan Rochkind [mailto:rochk...@jhu.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 2:23 PM
To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
Cc: Robert Maxwell
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording Relationships in MARC
Yes, those relationship
Robert L. Maxwell
Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept.
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568
From: Jonathan Rochkind [mailto:rochk...@jhu.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 3:00 PM
To: Robert Maxwell
Cc: Resource Description and Access
We are not a definitive source, but we have come up with a rule of thumb for
the BYU test records: field of activity is more of an abstract notion, such as
music or classical studies or philately; profession or occupation is the
actual thing the person does or is, such as clarinet player or
I do not presume to speak for LC's reasons, but as a testing library BYU is
following the practice recommended in LC's training documentation for the test.
In their module 2 (Identifying manifestations) the instruction for which
system of measurement to use under RDA 3.5 says Use
The trouble is, in my opinion, RDA is not compatible with the provider neutral
approach. We wrestled with this and thought about it a couple of months ago and
concluded (with LC) that we would not contribute provider neutral records to
the test.
Robert L. Maxwell
Head, Special Collections and
RDA only says to record the birth or death date. It does not specify how you
mark the data as referring to birth or death. If you will look at 9.3.2 (date
of birth) you will see that RDA simply says to record the date, e.g. 1974. It
is the same for other dates associated with a person. RDA
-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 10:35 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA Questions
RDA only says to record the birth or death date. It does not specify how you
mark the data as referring to birth or death. If you will look at 9.3.2 (date
This is a concern of mine, also, and I too would like to understand the
publishers' plans for archiving all iterations of RDA and making them
accessible.
Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bernhard Eversberg
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 2:36 AM
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA full draft
The complete full draft reveals
Not to defend RDA's treatment of this, but or between titles on a title page
is certainly different from and or with between titles on a title page.
Or usually separates two different titles for the *same* work. And or
with normally separate titles of *different* works. I think this is an
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 9:57 AM
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Full Draft of RDA Delayed
Karen Coyle wrote:
In terms of
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
[John Attig] Regarding Karen's second paragraph above, I believe that the
person
entity is intended to be universal, but the attributes
Gender is extremely useful information to researchers who want, e.g., to do a
study of women writers of the 18th century or other similar research. I believe
this is therefore appropriate information to include in entity records for
persons (which is what we're talking about here), always
-to-item reproduction. The product of a reproduction is always a
manifestation of one or more items.
Ed Jones
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
Access
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Alternate titles, an example of description
broken
into bits
Robert Maxwell said:
Except that in this case, if we consider or to be a part of the
title,
we *don't* want the system to skip over it in filing.
Speak for yourself sir
Yes, there is a difference. Alternative titles and parallel titles
aren't worded the same way. There remains the problem of what to do with
that pesky little or. If we treated them as parallel titles, would we
transcribe
The tempest = or The enchanted island
or perhaps
The
97 matches
Mail list logo