Kelley McGrath wrote:
snip
There was a discussion a while ago now about the problems (or not) with
MARC. I gave a presentation at ALA Midwinter called Will RDA Kill MARC? I
was sort of waiting for the official version to be posted, but, although the
person organizing the presentation has tried to
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Weinheimer Jim j.weinhei...@aur.edu wrote:
But I wonder if what you point out is a genuine problem, especially in an
RDA/FRBR universe. The user tasks are to find, identify, yadda -- works,
expressions, manifestations, and *items*. Not sub-items. This record
James - If we just keep business as usual, I am convinced libraries will go the
way of the dinosaurs, and very soon (as we've seen academic and public
libraries shutting down branches and closing catalog depts to rely on vendors
or technicians to do copy cataloging only).
The metadata we
Will p for pressing (AACR2 6.4F) be spelled out as pressing, or
will it be exempt like in., min., and cm?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__
I cannot speak authoritatively, but the exceptions you list are for units of
measure. I believe that is the general principle here being applied. Since
pressing is not a unit of measure, I doubt it will be abbreviated. But I'll
be interested to see whether my reasoning is correct.
Naomi Young
Barbara,
I agree with what you say almost completely. Libraries must update their world
views to include what the general public actually uses by adapting to the new
information environment, or as I described it in my talk at the RDA@yourlibrary
conference, these are matters of Darwinian
I'm glad to hear that RDA is being included in Cataloging/Metadata classes. I
remember my cataloging class (winter 1981) when on the last day of class my
instructor passed around a photocopy of an AACR cataloging card and said
you'll never see these again. AACR2 began Jan. 1, 1982, but I
It will be spelled out as phonogram if the sound recording copyright
symbol is not available (RDA 2.11.1.3). It never meant pressing.
---
John Hostage Authorities and Database Integrity
Librarian
Langdell Hall
Am 11.02.2011 15:13, schrieb Weinheimer Jim:
Where I disagree is that I believe the changes of RDA really are just little
tweaks to AACR2 and the LCRIs; they are not indicative of any real change
either for the sharing or production of our records, and will not help or
hinder the new
All very progressivist,
But, it's always a worry that we're genetically engineering a Dodo.
Martin Kelleher
Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian
University of Liverpool
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
I graduated from Indiana University Spring 2009. My cataloging professor
did more than mention RDA to my class. Actually, our final class project
was to work on a wiki (using then the RDA Constituency Review Draft)
comparing RDA to AACR2. Granted, I attended the Indianapolis campus, the
instructor
James Weinheimer wrote:
Where I disagree is that I believe the changes of RDA really are just
little
tweaks to AACR2 and the LCRIs; they are not indicative of any real change
either for the sharing or production of our records, and will not help or
hinder the new directions you outline. But
Thomas,
That's exactly the point of the RDA vocabularies. See:
http://dlib.org/dlib/january10/hillmann/01hillmann.html and
http://metadataregistry.org/rdabrowse.htm
Diane
On 2/11/11 10:49 AM, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
Is it a fair assumption to make that while encoding standards are
Diane,
Although not teaching cataloging or metadata creation, I'd love to see your
materials. It may help with my copy catalogers' training. Thank you for being
so generous.
Pat
Patricia Sayre McCoy 1121 E. 60th Street
Head, Law Cataloging Serials Chicago, IL 60637
Quoting Weinheimer Jim j.weinhei...@aur.edu:
But I wonder if what you point out is a genuine problem, especially
in an RDA/FRBR universe. The user tasks are to find, identify, yadda
-- works, expressions, manifestations, and *items*. Not sub-items.
Jim, I think you're at the wrong end of
Kevin M. Randall wrote:
snip
Jim, it sounds from this comment that you really are not grasping what RDA
is all about. If you look at it just in terms of the guidelines themselves,
or the resulting MARC records currently being created, certainly it would
seem that it's just a little tweaking here
Although not as widely recognized as it should be, ISBD is a unitary
standard to address content, communication, and display. The latter two
aspects are intertwined in how ISBD covers both the Areas and the
punctuation to formulate the data in a unit card.
Whether online catalogs retain the
p is written out as phonogram if the phonogram symbol is not available to
catalogers recording this data.
^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Weinheimer Jim
Sent: February 11, 2011 2:34 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] general interest in RDA
While
Yes and no. On the one hand, music catalogers have been much more
diligent about using uniform titles for works. On the other hand, in
terms of recorded performances, all of what they deal with could be
considered expressions. As expressions, their access points are not
differentiated, e.g., by
Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.edu wrote:
p is written out as phonogram if the phonogram symbol is not
available to catalogers recording this data.
Phonogram 2005 (as opposed to copyright 2005, which is a
well-understood phrase) isn't going to be confusing for end users? I
imagine most
Curious as to why there needed to be a separate symbol for sound recording
copyright in the first place, I looked it up in wikipedia. I didn't realize
it had to do with a separate treaty on sound recording copyrights. Here are
some links:
Actually the word would be lowercase: phonogram 2005
Whether or not it's confusing to users, the point is that we are
transcribing the sound recording copyright information in the form in
which it appears on the resource. Users already see these symbols on
their recordings. I think it's
Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Actually the word would be lowercase: phonogram 2005
I know, but it was a word at the beginning of a sentence here.
I think it's really a moot point, since most of
us have the (p) symbol available to us to use
I was about to say what? I
Reading the Wikipedia article on Sound recording copyright symbol, it
seems clear (assuming that we can rely on Wikipedia ;-)) that transcribing
the (P) as phonogram as RDA tells us to do if we don't have the symbol
itself available to use is not quite correct:
The (P) symbol, a circled P, is
Kevin M. Randall said:
But the underlying philosophy and structure of RDA are nothing short of
revolutionary ...
But until we have a coding system capable of encoding the FRBR WEMI
distinctions. and ILSs capable of exploiting them, what's the
point?
So we take out O.T. and N.T.; move 110$k to
Yes, Connexion has the characters you can use, they are with the other
special characters.
When editing a record:
Type ALT-E to bring up the Enter Diacritics and Special Characters box
You'll see the phonogram symbol (as well as the copyright symbol) there.
The phonogram symbol is in the
Diane,
I second that. It will be extremely helpful with training.
Regina
Regina Coeli Silva-Silfa
World Bank/International Monetary Fund Network Libraries
Project Manager/Principal Cataloger
700 19th St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20431
Room 2-120.7
rsilvasi...@imf.org
(202) 623-7036
Mac Elrod wrote:
Kevin M. Randall said:
But the underlying philosophy and structure of RDA are nothing short of
revolutionary ...
But until we have a coding system capable of encoding the FRBR WEMI
distinctions. and ILSs capable of exploiting them, what's the
point?
Which is precisely
29 matches
Mail list logo
