Re: [RDA-L] Dr. Snoopy
On 04/27/2011 10:40 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote: snip This is one change I would like to see, but as an AACR2 revision rather than requiring a new set of rules. It would be advantageous to have a single main entry for Geronimo Stilton works, and have works produced under that pseudonym brought together in the catalogue and on the shelf. That the pseudonym is personified as a mouse or cockroach is beside the point. The author is writing under than name. /snip I agree that all of these changes could easily have been handled through AACR2/LCRI revisions. I have done a little bit of looking around at the question of authorship and found an interesting article from The Indexer vol. 18, no. 2 Oct. 1992, Name of an author! by Anne Piternick. http://www.theindexer.org/files/18-2/18-2_095.pdf Traditionally, there has been focus on the idea of finding the real author of a resource and trying to add that person's name. From my own researches previously, I discovered lots of problems originally with the concept of corporate authorship, i.e. how can the United Nations author anything? This item could not have been written by an entire organization but by specific individuals. I have still had to argue this with non-specialists. In the old days, anything with no specific author, e.g. a journal of a learned society, was handled as an anonymous work. Slowly, the idea of corporate author came forth (Panizzi was first, I believe) and there have been lots of changes since then. We have also seen changes in how pseudonyms are handled, the concept of bibliographical identities, and so on. Concerning spirits, the author mentions them and cites a 1986 article in Nature that was said to be written by God as revealed to Ralph Esting. She could not find the citation, but if we were cataloging this, based on the Spirit rules, I guess the name heading would be God (Spirit) which I find really bizarre, but is probably not any different from Archangels (Spirit) or Heavenly Spirit (Spirit). I haven't found anything about why spirit writings (or channeled books, or books written through channeling) are handled as personal names, but it seems to be a very popular topic even today, and I could imagine someone saying, Well, who knows? This might really be the spirit of Joan of Arc. Let's set them up as personal names. Mr. Piternick also discusses computer programs, and questions if they can write books. She mentions the Rachter program which wrote a book and asks who is the author: the program or the persons who wrote the program. (The book is online by the way http://ubu.artmob.ca/text/racter/racter_policemansbeard.pdf. LC cataloged it as title main entry with 700s for the two programmers while poor Racter was left out completely) This reminds me of the wonderful Postmodernism Generator http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/ that generates a completely meaningless essay about postmodernism. I hope we don't start cataloging these essays! My own opinion of Geronimo Stilton, which is not a spirit or pseudonym but everybody can agree is a fictitious character, is that today, people will search using keyword, as in Worldcat http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=geronimo%20stilton, and when they choose a record, they should see some nice subjects with Geronimo Stilton that can lead them to lots of other books. Stilton, Geronimo (Fictitious character) -- Comic books, strips, etc. Stilton, Geronimo (Fictitious character) -- Juvenile fiction. This seems to be adequate access. In my opinion, changing a long standing rule such as this will open up a hornets' nest of associated complications that will be difficult to decide upon, and even more difficult to find a common level of consistency; all to achieve something that is of extremely limited utility to the public, if any at all, which would be similar to what I mentioned before with the changes to Russia/Soviet Union/Former Soviet republics. It would be better to focus our energies in other areas. -- James L. Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Re: [RDA-L] Dr. Snoopy
Stephen wrote snip And let's not forget spirits, who can also be authors under AACR2 (e.g., Seth (Spirit)). snip While we're thinking about oddities. What do we want to do with Kilgore Trout? Kilgore Trout is a fictitious author in a number of Kurt Vonnegut's works. In 1975, a book appeared called Venus on the half-shell by Kilgore Trout. The author picture was Kurt Vonnegut wearing a mop for a wig, but he had not written the book. That honor went to Philip Jose Farmer. Is Kilgore Trout to be established as Kilgore Trout (Fictitious character), or as a persona of P.J. Famer (or something to do with Vonnegut?) Is the preferred access point for the work Trout, Kilgore ... Venus on the half shell, or is the author part Farmer?
Re: [RDA-L] Fictitious beings as pseudonyms (was: Dr. Snoopy)
James Weinheimer said:
My own opinion of Geronimo Stilton, which is not a spirit or pseudonym
but everybody can agree is a fictitious character, is that today, people
will search using keyword ...
This seems to be adequate access.
But so long as we insist on Cuttering by main entry, the Chilton works
will be scattered on the shelf. Finding the bibliographic records is
not enough. We need to facilitate *physical* discovery. Many patrons
bypass the catalogue and just browse.
Better to standardize on one entry, as opposed to departing from
normal Cuttering practices, and have to deal with new items being an
exception to normal practice.
To repeat, if an author writes under a name, it is a pseudonym,
whether a spirit, a cat, a mouse, a cockroach, or a snack (Lemony
Snicket which is established). There is no more reason to suppose the
spirit is real than the other creatures and object mentioned. The
distinction is straining at a gnat. It's the persona the author uses.
Still waiting for an answer to Anne Rice writing as Anne Rampling in
RDA.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Place of publication in RDA
To save cataloger's time for researching the actual name of the larger
jurisdiction ...
The cataloguer must establish the larger jurisdiction to code
008/25-17, which is rarely if ever used to create OPAC display. By
not including that known information in 260$a, the cataloguer is
depriving the patron of needed information. As others have pointed
out, many do not go beyond brief display.
In terms of work for the cataloguer, creating a note is more work than
just putting the jurisdiction where it belongs. This is one area in
which I hope wise cataloguers will practice jury nullification of an
RDA rule.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
Judith Kuhagen said:
As Kathy noted, there will be a MARBI proposal about copyright date
for the June 2011 ALA Annual Conference.
But that proposed new subfield for copyright year is included in a
*very* complex coding scheme proposed for 260. Couldn't we just add
one new subfield for copyright, either displayed out of order, or
reuse $d, thus not over complicating it?
It's been decades since $d has been used for plate or publisher
number, and the copyright sign would distinguish copyright years from
that earlier use.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
I recommend waiting to see the new MARBI Proposal on encoding copyright date
before critiquing the possible content. MARBI Discussion Paper 2011-DP01
explored several options for encoding this information; the final Proposal will
take into account the various e-mail and in-person discussions of that paper.
And no, we cannot reuse 260 $d for copyright date; reusing subfields or fields
almost never happens due to issues with legacy data. I still see pre-AACR2 OCLC
master records with 260 $d, used correctly. It's far better to define a new
field or subfield than to ask systems to parse content within a subfield to
determine what kind of data is recorded there.
Kathy Glennan
Head, Special Resources Cataloging / Music Cataloger
University of Maryland
kglen...@umd.edu
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:31 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
Judith Kuhagen said:
As Kathy noted, there will be a MARBI proposal about copyright date for
the June 2011 ALA Annual Conference.
But that proposed new subfield for copyright year is included in a
*very* complex coding scheme proposed for 260. Couldn't we just add one new
subfield for copyright, either displayed out of order, or reuse $d, thus not
over complicating it?
It's been decades since $d has been used for plate or publisher number, and the
copyright sign would distinguish copyright years from that earlier use.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Fictitious beings as pseudonyms (was: Dr. Snoopy)
I think this is covered by LCRI 22.2B, Multiple
Headings--Contemporaries, point 5:
If different names appear in different editions of the same work,
choose for all editions of the same work the name that predominates in
the editions of the same work. If, however, a change in the person's
bibliographic identification from an older name to a newer name that
seems to be stable has taken place, choose that name for all editions.
In case of doubt on any point, choose the latest name used for all
editions.
RDA says something similar at 6.27.1.7:
If the identity used most frequently cannot be readily determined,
construct the authorized access point representing the work using the
authorized access point representing the identity appearing in the
most recent resource embodying the work followed by the preferred
title for the work.
I'd consider that the books originally published only with the
Rampling name but now appearing with the Rice name given top billing
as well would fall under either of these rules, and that one could
establish a uniform title for all editions of a previously Rampling
title under the Rice heading. The problematic bit here is that the
rule calls for this to be done title by title. We have to wait for all
the Rampling titles to be reissued under the Rice name before we can
merge Rampling into Rice. If there's a lesser novel that never gets
republished, the rule does not support changing its entry on the basis
of a larger trend to use Rice over Rampling, resulting in a split of
the preferred access points for titles which arguably ought to share a
single form of name entry.
Stephen
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:10 AM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
Still waiting for an answer to Anne Rice writing as Anne Rampling in
RDA.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
Technical Services, University Libraries
University of Minnesota
160 Wilson Library
309 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Ph: 612-625-2328
Fx: 612-625-3428
Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
Just a question here. What is the rationale in RDA for including both dates
if they are the same?
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Kuhagen, Judith j...@loc.gov wrote:
As Kathy noted, there will be a MARBI proposal about copyright date for the
June 2011 ALA Annual Conference. That topic and others related to the 260
field were presented as discussion paper topics at the January 2011 ALA
Midwinter Meeting. The other 260 topics will be covered by a MARBI proposal
for June; it will include 008 information as well.
Judy Kuhagen
Policy and Standards Division
Library of Congress
Washington, D.C.
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [
RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kathy Glennan [kglen...@umd.edu
]
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 6:34 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
Expect to see a MARBI Proposal for ALA Annual in New Orleans that proposes
specific subfields for copyright and phonogram dates.
I would code the separate elements of publication date and copyright date
in the fixed field as they appear in OCLC #670190952. MARC already enables
us to separately encode publication date and copyright date in the fixed
fields. Since these are separate elements, I can see no reason not to record
both dates in the fixed fields, even if their character strings are
identical.
Kathy Glennan
Head, Special Resources Cataloging / Music Cataloger
University of Maryland
kglen...@umd.edu
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 2:32 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
Jay Shorten said on Autocat:
OCLC 670190952 (no LC number), has 260c 2010, (c)2010. Is it really
necessary to code this in the fixed fields as t 2010 2010? Wouldn't s
2010 be better?
In RDA publication date is a core element, but copyright date is not.
I expect to see more [2011], (c)2011 when the item has only copyright date.
A subfield code is needed for copyright date.
I would code 008 s with a single date.
Also, shouldn't the 300 end in a period?
Under RDA ISBD practice, only when a 490 follows. We are still using the
ISBD fiction that the ending mark of punctuation *introduces* the next
field. As OPAC displays more and more deconstruct the ISBD display, it is
time to abandon this fiction, and standardize ending punctuation of RDA
elements and MARC fields. Field 246 needs one for example, to agree with
730/740, and to have a period on notes created by 246.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing
HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/http://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Place of publication in RDA
The proposal that I just submitted will not only serve the purpose for data
input suggestion at the time of record creation, but it can also be used for
content validation and database cleanup during the record submission at
client level and database update at server level. Thanks!
Amanda Xu
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:19 AM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
To save cataloger's time for researching the actual name of the larger
jurisdiction ...
The cataloguer must establish the larger jurisdiction to code
008/25-17, which is rarely if ever used to create OPAC display. By
not including that known information in 260$a, the cataloguer is
depriving the patron of needed information. As others have pointed
out, many do not go beyond brief display.
In terms of work for the cataloguer, creating a note is more work than
just putting the jurisdiction where it belongs. This is one area in
which I hope wise cataloguers will practice jury nullification of an
RDA rule.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
Gene,
As stated several times on various lists, the two dates are different RDA
elements. In your library if you have a Date of publication or in its absence
a Date of distribution, you can ignore the Copyright date.
Judy
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg [gf...@cst.edu]
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 2:02 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
Just a question here. What is the rationale in RDA for including both dates if
they are the same?
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Kuhagen, Judith
j...@loc.govmailto:j...@loc.gov wrote:
As Kathy noted, there will be a MARBI proposal about copyright date for the
June 2011 ALA Annual Conference. That topic and others related to the 260
field were presented as discussion paper topics at the January 2011 ALA
Midwinter Meeting. The other 260 topics will be covered by a MARBI proposal
for June; it will include 008 information as well.
Judy Kuhagen
Policy and Standards Division
Library of Congress
Washington, D.C.
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf
Of Kathy Glennan [kglen...@umd.edumailto:kglen...@umd.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 6:34 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
Expect to see a MARBI Proposal for ALA Annual in New Orleans that proposes
specific subfields for copyright and phonogram dates.
I would code the separate elements of publication date and copyright date in
the fixed field as they appear in OCLC #670190952. MARC already enables us to
separately encode publication date and copyright date in the fixed fields.
Since these are separate elements, I can see no reason not to record both dates
in the fixed fields, even if their character strings are identical.
Kathy Glennan
Head, Special Resources Cataloging / Music Cataloger
University of Maryland
kglen...@umd.edumailto:kglen...@umd.edu
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On
Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 2:32 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
Jay Shorten said on Autocat:
OCLC 670190952 (no LC number), has 260c 2010, (c)2010. Is it really
necessary to code this in the fixed fields as t 2010 2010? Wouldn't s
2010 be better?
In RDA publication date is a core element, but copyright date is not.
I expect to see more [2011], (c)2011 when the item has only copyright date. A
subfield code is needed for copyright date.
I would code 008 s with a single date.
Also, shouldn't the 300 end in a period?
Under RDA ISBD practice, only when a 490 follows. We are still using the ISBD
fiction that the ending mark of punctuation *introduces* the next field. As
OPAC displays more and more deconstruct the ISBD display, it is time to abandon
this fiction, and standardize ending punctuation of RDA elements and MARC
fields. Field 246 needs one for example, to agree with 730/740, and to have a
period on notes created by 246.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.camailto:m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing
HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/http://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edumailto:gf...@cst.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Sneaky Pie and Rita Mae Brown
Keith, I don't think that all of the real-life dog and cat subjects in LCSH were established for them as creators/contributors to works. I suspect that most of them were established for works about them rather than by them. Adam ^^ 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 Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Keith R. Trimmer wrote: Adam, Thanks for the comments. I immediately agreed with you about the 500s (I was thinking of pseudonymns like Ellery Queen), but wondering about users who under AACR2 are directed to Rita when they search for Sneaky, but under RDA would not be informed of any link between the two. In this instance, they would find Rita's name inside the actual books and on bib records, should they wish to explore other titles she has authored on her own, but the authority file would make no such connection.) Since the LCPS allows for establishing non-human entities as authors, then 'Millie's book / as dictated to Barbara Bush' would presumably be recataloged with Millie as 100 (and Barbara as 700), and Millie (Dog) would move out of the subject authority file where she's a 150 and into the name authority file. I presume that means all of the 129 other dogs currently established as 150s would need to be changed to 100s as well, yes? Surely if dogs and cats can be established as authors, then all headings for dogs and cats would need to move to the name authority file... Later, kt On Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Adam L. Schiff wrote: Yes, that sounds about right to me Keith. Unless the books somehow indicate that Sneaky Pie is the predominant creator (through typography for example), the first named creator would be used as part of the authorized access point for the work, which would translated into a 100 field for Rita Mae and a 700 added entry for Sneaky Pie. Whether the authority record for Rita Mae gets linked via a 500 to the authority record for Sneaky Pie (and vice versa) is an interesting question, but I think the answer is no. We don't normally link authority records for two persons who co-author a work. And this is not a case where Sneaky Pie is an alternate identity of Rita Mae. Sneaky's an actual non-human being. There IS a relationship between the two but at present we don't have relationship designators establish to record the relationship between owner and pet. (Neither do we record relationships between spouses, siblings, parents/children, etc. in our authority records). So I think the answer to you question is that Sneaky Pie gets removed from the name authority for Rita Mae, and gets his (her?) own authority record with no 500 references between them. Adam ^^ 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 Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Keith R. Trimmer wrote: So under RDA, the authority record for Rita Mae Brown gets changed and one 400 for Sneaky Pie Brown becomes a 500 because we now need a new authority record for her cat, since they co-wrote the Mrs. Murphy mysteries together. The other 400 would be moved from Rita Mae's record to the new one for Sneaky Pie. Right? And on all of the bib records, they'd still be entered under Rita Mae, since her name comes first on the title page, and Sneaky Pie gets an added entry.. Keith Trimmer Head, Serials, Music and Japanese Cataloging Section USC Libraries Los Angeles On Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Adam L. Schiff wrote: Of course Superman and Clark Kent are only subject headings. Have they created any resources like Dr. Snoopy has? ;-) ^^ 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 Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Deborah Tomares wrote: 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 can, or should, apply the same rules and standards to him that we do to real, live, preferably human authors. And yes--I would have one heading for both Superman and Clark Kent. And it would be a subject heading, not a personal name heading. That's where I believe fictitious characters belong, and where most users would expect to find them. As in my Spiderman example before, I don't think
[RDA-L] RDA Toolkit (on the chopping block)
My library (in its current frenzy of needing to cut resources) is looking for titles to cut, and they are asking me about both Cataloger's Desktop and RDA Toolkit. They are especially wondering why we are buying RDA Toolkit when it has not even been implemented yet. I said that I use it to converse with other catalogers, while we are still trying to figure this out. I am also doing workshops where I touch on RDA. I also can imagine that sometime in the near future, I will likely be helping to write guidelines of one sort or another. I know that there is a paper version of RDA that has been published. http://www.alastore.ala.org/detail.aspx?ID=3065 Has anyone bought that and are you using it? I am just wondering if, for now, I should buy the paper version ... and wait until we hear more about the LC implementation recommendations ... and put off buying the online RDA Toolkit for a year or two? What do you think? Julie PS Is there a less expensive rate for someone who is just buying RDA Toolkit on their own, as an individual (for the purpose of keeping up with the conversation, giving workshops, and all the kinds of work that is done outside of my own library?) -- Julie Renee Moore Catalog Librarian California State University, Fresno julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com 559-278-5813 There is more to life than simply increasing its speed. ~ Mahatma Gandhi
Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
And to further reiterate, they are different RDA elements because they are
in fact different things. Copyright date is a legal date that reflects
the year in which an issue is registered for copyright protection. It is
not the same thing as a publication date.
In AACR2 we were conveniently allowed to substitute copyright date for a
publication date. In RDA we have two separately defined elements, and we
must always record a publication date, an estimation/guess of the
publication date, or the phrase [date of publication not identified].
In RDA, if you've recorded a publications date or an estimation/guess,
then you are not required to record the copyright date as well (although
you may do so, and the LC Policy Statement for the testing period said to
always give it if it is on a resource). In RDA, copyright date is only a
required element if the neither the date of publication nor date of
distribution is identified.
Adam
^^
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, 28 Apr 2011, Kuhagen, Judith wrote:
Gene,
As stated several times on various lists, the two dates are different RDA
elements. In your library if you have a Date of publication or in its absence
a Date of distribution, you can ignore the Copyright date.
Judy
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg [gf...@cst.edu]
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 2:02 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
Just a question here. What is the rationale in RDA for including both dates if
they are the same?
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Kuhagen, Judith
j...@loc.govmailto:j...@loc.gov wrote:
As Kathy noted, there will be a MARBI proposal about copyright date for the
June 2011 ALA Annual Conference. That topic and others related to the 260
field were presented as discussion paper topics at the January 2011 ALA
Midwinter Meeting. The other 260 topics will be covered by a MARBI proposal
for June; it will include 008 information as well.
Judy Kuhagen
Policy and Standards Division
Library of Congress
Washington, D.C.
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of
Kathy Glennan [kglen...@umd.edumailto:kglen...@umd.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 6:34 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
Expect to see a MARBI Proposal for ALA Annual in New Orleans that proposes
specific subfields for copyright and phonogram dates.
I would code the separate elements of publication date and copyright date in
the fixed field as they appear in OCLC #670190952. MARC already enables us to
separately encode publication date and copyright date in the fixed fields.
Since these are separate elements, I can see no reason not to record both dates
in the fixed fields, even if their character strings are identical.
Kathy Glennan
Head, Special Resources Cataloging / Music Cataloger
University of Maryland
kglen...@umd.edumailto:kglen...@umd.edu
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On
Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 2:32 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
Jay Shorten said on Autocat:
OCLC 670190952 (no LC number), has 260c 2010, (c)2010. Is it really
necessary to code this in the fixed fields as t 2010 2010? Wouldn't s
2010 be better?
In RDA publication date is a core element, but copyright date is not.
I expect to see more [2011], (c)2011 when the item has only copyright date. A
subfield code is needed for copyright date.
I would code 008 s with a single date.
Also, shouldn't the 300 end in a period?
Under RDA ISBD practice, only when a 490 follows. We are still using the ISBD
fiction that the ending mark of punctuation *introduces* the next field. As
OPAC displays more and more deconstruct the ISBD display, it is time to abandon
this fiction, and standardize ending punctuation of RDA elements and MARC
fields. Field 246 needs one for example, to agree with 730/740, and to have a
period on notes created by 246.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.camailto:m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing
HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/http://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Gene Fieg
Re: [RDA-L] Fictitious beings as pseudonyms
On 04/28/2011 05:10 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote: snip But so long as we insist on Cuttering by main entry, the Chilton works will be scattered on the shelf. Finding the bibliographic records is not enough. We need to facilitate *physical* discovery. Many patrons bypass the catalogue and just browse. Better to standardize on one entry, as opposed to departing from normal Cuttering practices, and have to deal with new items being an exception to normal practice. /snip How materials are placed on the shelves is primarily a local matter. It just seems to me that if current methods for shelf browsing have worked pretty well in the past, and unless there have been demonstrations and people throwing firebrands against it, which I have not heard of, I don't see any problem. Have there been complaints from our patrons about this? If so, those complaints should be addressed, but with no complaints, there is no problem. Materials on related topics and by the same authors are scattered on the shelves all the time. This was one thing I have gone into deep discussions about with my students: while I think that shelf browsing is definitely the most pleasant activity in a library, or in a bookstore, it must be accepted that it is not a very good way to find the materials you really want and need. There is nothing new about this, and has been the case since the library at Alexandria. Therefore, if you rely on shelf browsing to get your information, you are guaranteed to miss a lot of materials you want. Period. End of topic. Still, if there is evidence that there has been serious problems with the arrangement of materials on the shelves, we must deal with it. But let's not fix things that are not broken. That is only asking for trouble. -- James L. Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
I think I understand the reason why people want this in a 2XX (human habit and systems habits), but we added the 542 for copyright information in 2008, and it has a subfield for copyright date, as well as renewal date (for the cases in which one has that info), and other information relating to copyright status. Adding a 2XX field for copyright date just doesn't seem right. (although it is called 'date of copyright notice' -- but that is the sense of the subfield in the 542, IMO). kc Quoting Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.edu: And to further reiterate, they are different RDA elements because they are in fact different things. Copyright date is a legal date that reflects the year in which an issue is registered for copyright protection. It is not the same thing as a publication date. In AACR2 we were conveniently allowed to substitute copyright date for a publication date. In RDA we have two separately defined elements, and we must always record a publication date, an estimation/guess of the publication date, or the phrase [date of publication not identified]. In RDA, if you've recorded a publications date or an estimation/guess, then you are not required to record the copyright date as well (although you may do so, and the LC Policy Statement for the testing period said to always give it if it is on a resource). In RDA, copyright date is only a required element if the neither the date of publication nor date of distribution is identified. Adam ^^ 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, 28 Apr 2011, Kuhagen, Judith wrote: Gene, As stated several times on various lists, the two dates are different RDA elements. In your library if you have a Date of publication or in its absence a Date of distribution, you can ignore the Copyright date. Judy From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg [gf...@cst.edu] Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 2:02 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question Just a question here. What is the rationale in RDA for including both dates if they are the same? On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Kuhagen, Judith j...@loc.govmailto:j...@loc.gov wrote: As Kathy noted, there will be a MARBI proposal about copyright date for the June 2011 ALA Annual Conference. That topic and others related to the 260 field were presented as discussion paper topics at the January 2011 ALA Midwinter Meeting. The other 260 topics will be covered by a MARBI proposal for June; it will include 008 information as well. Judy Kuhagen Policy and Standards Division Library of Congress Washington, D.C. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kathy Glennan [kglen...@umd.edumailto:kglen...@umd.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 6:34 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question Expect to see a MARBI Proposal for ALA Annual in New Orleans that proposes specific subfields for copyright and phonogram dates. I would code the separate elements of publication date and copyright date in the fixed field as they appear in OCLC #670190952. MARC already enables us to separately encode publication date and copyright date in the fixed fields. Since these are separate elements, I can see no reason not to record both dates in the fixed fields, even if their character strings are identical. Kathy Glennan Head, Special Resources Cataloging / Music Cataloger University of Maryland kglen...@umd.edumailto:kglen...@umd.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 2:32 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question Jay Shorten said on Autocat: OCLC 670190952 (no LC number), has 260c 2010, (c)2010. Is it really necessary to code this in the fixed fields as t 2010 2010? Wouldn't s 2010 be better? In RDA publication date is a core element, but copyright date is not. I expect to see more [2011], (c)2011 when the item has only copyright date. A subfield code is needed for copyright date. I would code 008 s with a single date. Also, shouldn't the 300 end in a period? Under RDA ISBD practice, only when a 490 follows. We are still
Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
Maybe I have misunderstood AACR2 all this time, but I was under the impression that if you had a publication date and it was the same as the copyright date, you did not need to use the copyright date. Is/Was that the case? And if so, if I am reading the comments about RDA correctly, it still is the case. Right? On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.eduwrote: And to further reiterate, they are different RDA elements because they are in fact different things. Copyright date is a legal date that reflects the year in which an issue is registered for copyright protection. It is not the same thing as a publication date. In AACR2 we were conveniently allowed to substitute copyright date for a publication date. In RDA we have two separately defined elements, and we must always record a publication date, an estimation/guess of the publication date, or the phrase [date of publication not identified]. In RDA, if you've recorded a publications date or an estimation/guess, then you are not required to record the copyright date as well (although you may do so, and the LC Policy Statement for the testing period said to always give it if it is on a resource). In RDA, copyright date is only a required element if the neither the date of publication nor date of distribution is identified. Adam ^^ 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, 28 Apr 2011, Kuhagen, Judith wrote: Gene, As stated several times on various lists, the two dates are different RDA elements. In your library if you have a Date of publication or in its absence a Date of distribution, you can ignore the Copyright date. Judy From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [ RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg [gf...@cst.edu] Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 2:02 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question Just a question here. What is the rationale in RDA for including both dates if they are the same? On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Kuhagen, Judith j...@loc.govmailto: j...@loc.gov wrote: As Kathy noted, there will be a MARBI proposal about copyright date for the June 2011 ALA Annual Conference. That topic and others related to the 260 field were presented as discussion paper topics at the January 2011 ALA Midwinter Meeting. The other 260 topics will be covered by a MARBI proposal for June; it will include 008 information as well. Judy Kuhagen Policy and Standards Division Library of Congress Washington, D.C. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [ RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kathy Glennan [kglen...@umd.edumailto:kglen...@umd.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 6:34 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question Expect to see a MARBI Proposal for ALA Annual in New Orleans that proposes specific subfields for copyright and phonogram dates. I would code the separate elements of publication date and copyright date in the fixed field as they appear in OCLC #670190952. MARC already enables us to separately encode publication date and copyright date in the fixed fields. Since these are separate elements, I can see no reason not to record both dates in the fixed fields, even if their character strings are identical. Kathy Glennan Head, Special Resources Cataloging / Music Cataloger University of Maryland kglen...@umd.edumailto:kglen...@umd.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 2:32 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question Jay Shorten said on Autocat: OCLC 670190952 (no LC number), has 260c 2010, (c)2010. Is it really necessary to code this in the fixed fields as t 2010 2010? Wouldn't s 2010 be better? In RDA publication date is a core element, but copyright date is not. I expect to see more [2011], (c)2011 when the item has only copyright date. A subfield code is needed for copyright date. I would code 008 s with a single date. Also, shouldn't the 300 end in a period? Under RDA ISBD practice, only when a 490 follows. We are still using the ISBD fiction that the ending mark of punctuation *introduces* the next field. As OPAC displays more and more deconstruct the ISBD display, it is time
Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
On 04/28/2011 09:50 PM, Gene Fieg wrote: snip Maybe I have misunderstood AACR2 all this time, but I was under the impression that if you had a publication date and it was the same as the copyright date, you did not need to use the copyright date. Is/Was that the case? And if so, if I am reading the comments about RDA correctly, it still is the case. Right? /snip See LCRI 1.4F6 http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/aacr2-chapter-1/1-4f6-date-of-publication-distribution-etc My understanding is that with RDA, this changes completely. -- James L. Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
Kathy Glennan said:
I recommend waiting to see the new MARBI Proposal on encoding
copyright date before critiquing the possible content. MARBI
Discussion Paper 2011-DP01 explored several options ...
All options are needlessly complex.
And no, we cannot reuse 260 $d for copyright date; reusing subfields
or fields almost never happens due to issues with legacy data.
The new $d could be defined as $d(c), i.e., $d plus copyright sign.
Our programmer would have no difficulty with that.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] RDA Toolkit and Cataloger's Desktop
Julie Moore said:
My library (in its current frenzy of needing to slash resources) is looking
for titles to cut, and they are asking me about both Cataloger's Desktop and
RDA Toolkit.
With the amount of free Web resources (including MARC, which I assume
will have RDA examples if/when RDA is adopted), our 20 cataloguers use
neither Cataloger's Desktop nor will they use RDA Toolkit.
We do purchase Classweb, for those who don't have print LCC. (A
complete set of print LCC is quite expensive, and soon out of date;
only two of us have it.)
Offlist I am sending a list of URLS we send cataloguers for one of our
clients, to demonstrate what I mean.
Also, I am certain there will be suggested changes to AACR2 to help
create RDA compatible records. The logical arrangement, clear prose,
known terminology, and well done index, are all too helpful to give
up.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
Do you mean the real copyright sign glyph, or do you mean a c in
parens? Or can people use whatever they want?
It's not that this individual thing is THAT hard for software to pull
out; it's that the piling on of all these individual not that hard
things results in a much more expensive and confusing software
development process.
If it doesn't mean the same thing, it shouldn't be in the same MARC
field. That's just plain a principle of proper data encoding. Glad MARBI
understands it.
On 4/28/2011 3:43 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Kathy Glennan said:
I recommend waiting to see the new MARBI Proposal on encoding
copyright date before critiquing the possible content. MARBI
Discussion Paper 2011-DP01 explored several options ...
All options are needlessly complex.
And no, we cannot reuse 260 $d for copyright date; reusing subfields
or fields almost never happens due to issues with legacy data.
The new $d could be defined as $d(c), i.e., $d plus copyright sign.
Our programmer would have no difficulty with that.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
Anyone have an answer to why RDA requires you to enter [date of publication not identified] instead of just leaving the data element blank? Just leaving it blank seems more efficient for the cataloger AND easier for software to deal with (not having to know that the magic string [date of publication not identified] really means no date is present; not having to know the magic string in every possible language a cataloger might enter it.) On 4/28/2011 4:23 PM, Kathy Glennan wrote: [date of publication not identified]
Re: [RDA-L] Sneaky Pie and Rita Mae Brown
At an Authority Control Interest Group meeting some ALA's back, LC's Lynn El-Hoshy noted that subject authorities for animals are actually undifferentiated. For example, there's only one subject authority for Lassie (Dog) which covers all individual dogs named Lassie. There's also a separate subject heading for Lassie (Fictitious character), so there could actually be three levels to this--Sneaky Pie Brown as an undifferentiated name for cats, as a fictional character, and as an authorial individual. Arf! Arf! What's that Lassie? Timmy's fallen in the well, and you've written this book about it? Stephen On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.edu wrote: Keith, I don't think that all of the real-life dog and cat subjects in LCSH were established for them as creators/contributors to works. I suspect that most of them were established for works about them rather than by them. Adam ^^ 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 Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Keith R. Trimmer wrote: Adam, Thanks for the comments. I immediately agreed with you about the 500s (I was thinking of pseudonymns like Ellery Queen), but wondering about users who under AACR2 are directed to Rita when they search for Sneaky, but under RDA would not be informed of any link between the two. In this instance, they would find Rita's name inside the actual books and on bib records, should they wish to explore other titles she has authored on her own, but the authority file would make no such connection.) Since the LCPS allows for establishing non-human entities as authors, then 'Millie's book / as dictated to Barbara Bush' would presumably be recataloged with Millie as 100 (and Barbara as 700), and Millie (Dog) would move out of the subject authority file where she's a 150 and into the name authority file. I presume that means all of the 129 other dogs currently established as 150s would need to be changed to 100s as well, yes? Surely if dogs and cats can be established as authors, then all headings for dogs and cats would need to move to the name authority file... Later, kt On Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Adam L. Schiff wrote: Yes, that sounds about right to me Keith. Unless the books somehow indicate that Sneaky Pie is the predominant creator (through typography for example), the first named creator would be used as part of the authorized access point for the work, which would translated into a 100 field for Rita Mae and a 700 added entry for Sneaky Pie. Whether the authority record for Rita Mae gets linked via a 500 to the authority record for Sneaky Pie (and vice versa) is an interesting question, but I think the answer is no. We don't normally link authority records for two persons who co-author a work. And this is not a case where Sneaky Pie is an alternate identity of Rita Mae. Sneaky's an actual non-human being. There IS a relationship between the two but at present we don't have relationship designators establish to record the relationship between owner and pet. (Neither do we record relationships between spouses, siblings, parents/children, etc. in our authority records). So I think the answer to you question is that Sneaky Pie gets removed from the name authority for Rita Mae, and gets his (her?) own authority record with no 500 references between them. Adam ^^ 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 Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Keith R. Trimmer wrote: So under RDA, the authority record for Rita Mae Brown gets changed and one 400 for Sneaky Pie Brown becomes a 500 because we now need a new authority record for her cat, since they co-wrote the Mrs. Murphy mysteries together. The other 400 would be moved from Rita Mae's record to the new one for Sneaky Pie. Right? And on all of the bib records, they'd still be entered under Rita Mae, since her name comes first on the title page, and Sneaky Pie gets an added entry.. Keith Trimmer Head, Serials, Music and Japanese Cataloging Section USC Libraries Los Angeles On Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Adam L. Schiff wrote: Of course Superman and Clark Kent are only subject headings. Have they created any resources like Dr. Snoopy has? ;-) ^^ 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 ~~
Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
Karen, I think there's a difference in recording this data that may make the 2XX proposal make more sense than using 542 $g. In a record creation context, the cataloger is simply recording a copyright date that appears on a resource, without trying to supply the rest of the elements required to determine copyright status. In an RDA context, the copyright date (when used) is essentially transcribed from the resource. To the best of my knowledge RDA does not provide any further instructions about recording any additional information about copyright including: copyright holder, copyright renewal date, copyright jurisdiction, etc. When following RDA instructions, copyright date is not necessarily transcribed, since the cataloger has the option of using the copyright or phonogram symbol or spelling out the appropriate word. In any case, in an RDA record, the copyright/phonogram date does not stand alone -- it has some sort of qualifier in front of it. This is not the case in 542 $g. RDA also makes the distinction between copyright and phonogram dates (the latter being used for recorded sound); this distinction is not currently available in Field 542. I see that the original MARBI Discussion Paper (2007-DP05) suggests using a single field to contain all copyright information, even if repeating other data somewhere else in the record, because of the complications. I think that these distinctions in the purpose of recording the copyright date justify having this particular data repeated. Kathy Glennan Head, Special Resources Cataloging / Music Cataloger University of Maryland kglen...@umd.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 3:42 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question I think I understand the reason why people want this in a 2XX (human habit and systems habits), but we added the 542 for copyright information in 2008, and it has a subfield for copyright date, as well as renewal date (for the cases in which one has that info), and other information relating to copyright status. Adding a 2XX field for copyright date just doesn't seem right. (although it is called 'date of copyright notice' -- but that is the sense of the subfield in the 542, IMO). kc Quoting Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.edu: And to further reiterate, they are different RDA elements because they are in fact different things. Copyright date is a legal date that reflects the year in which an issue is registered for copyright protection. It is not the same thing as a publication date. In AACR2 we were conveniently allowed to substitute copyright date for a publication date. In RDA we have two separately defined elements, and we must always record a publication date, an estimation/guess of the publication date, or the phrase [date of publication not identified]. In RDA, if you've recorded a publications date or an estimation/guess, then you are not required to record the copyright date as well (although you may do so, and the LC Policy Statement for the testing period said to always give it if it is on a resource). In RDA, copyright date is only a required element if the neither the date of publication nor date of distribution is identified. Adam ^^ 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, 28 Apr 2011, Kuhagen, Judith wrote: Gene, As stated several times on various lists, the two dates are different RDA elements. In your library if you have a Date of publication or in its absence a Date of distribution, you can ignore the Copyright date. Judy From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg [gf...@cst.edu] Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 2:02 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question Just a question here. What is the rationale in RDA for including both dates if they are the same? On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Kuhagen, Judith j...@loc.govmailto:j...@loc.gov wrote: As Kathy noted, there will be a MARBI proposal about copyright date for the June 2011 ALA Annual Conference. That topic and others related to the 260 field were presented as discussion paper topics at the January 2011 ALA Midwinter Meeting. The other 260 topics will be covered by a MARBI proposal for June; it will include 008 information as well. Judy Kuhagen Policy and Standards Division Library of Congress Washington, D.C.
Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
Johathan asked:
Do you mean the real copyright sign glyph, or do you mean a c in
parens? Or can people use whatever they want?
According to RDA, it should be the glyph or copyright spelled out.
The glyph is preferable, but it seems to me (c) is a fair
approximation when the keyboard does not allow the glyph. and it was
the glyph I intended to indicate.
All of the three are programmable to avoid confusion with $d plate
numbers in legacy records. It's about 20 minutes of a programmer's
time. The prior use of 260$d is no excuse for not doing the easy to
comprehend thing. Sometimes our narrow mindedness makes us our own
worst enemies. Machine handling of data is far more flexible than
once it was.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
Field 542 seems to have been designed to hold official data relating to copyright registration (e.g., from the Catalog of the United States Copyright Office). If so, I would hesitate to use subfield $f for anything other than an exact transcription of the entire copyright statement as it is presented on the resource (e.g., Copyright 1948 SEPS in the subfield $g example in MARC 21 Bibliographic). Ed Jones -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Laurence Creider Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 2:43 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question Karen, I disagree. The issue here is not MARC, but ISBD, followed by the question of the function of this data. Since the US library community seems to have adopted ISBD for its displays, then one needs to figure out the function of the element within that standard. I think that Kathy is right about the need for redundancy here. If the same data string serves two different functions then you will need to specify those uses in whatever scheme is chosen in order to make it possible to extract the data in a meaningful way. MARC certainly has its limitations, but I get awfully tired of people blaming it (and catalogers) for everything keeping us from metadata utopia. MARC was wonderful for its time, good even beyond its time, and now it shows its age and needs replacement. But there is no need for terms like slavish and questioning the professionalism of the profession. -- Laurence S. Creider Special Collections Librarian New Mexico State University Las Cruces, NM 88003 Work: 575-646-7227 Fax: 575-646-7477 lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Karen Coyle wrote: Kathy, there is nothing in the 542 that says that any of the subfields is required -- one can use the 542 to only record the copyright date if desired. And there is no reason why RDA rules couldn't be used to fill in the 542 $g. The instruction says merely: For items under copyright, the initial year of copyright. Note that there is a separate subfield for the exact copyright statement, because that can contain important information, e.g. who holds the copyright. But all of this information is optional. I really don't see any reason why this could not be used for RDA. The decision about using a single field has nothing to do with requiring that the whole field be filled it -- that's there because there were options that would use more than one field given in the proposal. To me this is all evidence of our slavishness to MARC. An input system could have 'fill-in' boxes for date of publication and copyright date and it shouldn't matter where they get stored in the underlying machine-readable record. But I think we'll end up with a redundant 2XX because people key directly into the MARC format, and thus a subfield in 542 is a long way from the 260. As information technology this is nonsense -- WHERE data is stored in the record should have no bearing; WHAT it means is what is important. So we create redunancy -- at a cost -- and then complain about our system vendors and what they find necessary to charge us for problems that we make for ourselves. I would be greatly surprised to find any other community doing its data input this badly. And yet we call ourselves 'information professionals.' kc Quoting Kathy Glennan kglen...@umd.edu: Karen, I think there's a difference in recording this data that may make the 2XX proposal make more sense than using 542 $g. In a record creation context, the cataloger is simply recording a copyright date that appears on a resource, without trying to supply the rest of the elements required to determine copyright status. In an RDA context, the copyright date (when used) is essentially transcribed from the resource. To the best of my knowledge RDA does not provide any further instructions about recording any additional information about copyright including: copyright holder, copyright renewal date, copyright jurisdiction, etc. When following RDA instructions, copyright date is not necessarily transcribed, since the cataloger has the option of using the copyright or phonogram symbol or spelling out the appropriate word. In any case, in an RDA record, the copyright/phonogram date does not stand alone -- it has some sort of qualifier in front of it. This is not the case in 542 $g. RDA also makes the distinction between copyright and phonogram dates (the latter being used for recorded sound); this distinction is not currently available in Field 542. I see that the original MARBI Discussion Paper (2007-DP05) suggests using a single field to contain all copyright information, even if repeating other data somewhere else in the record, because of the complications. I think that these distinctions in the purpose of recording
Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
Is it Friday yet? I meant to say 542 was designed to hold a record of a search for authoritative data. -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Ed Jones Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 3:28 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question Field 542 seems to have been designed to hold official data relating to copyright registration (e.g., from the Catalog of the United States Copyright Office). If so, I would hesitate to use subfield $f for anything other than an exact transcription of the entire copyright statement as it is presented on the resource (e.g., Copyright 1948 SEPS in the subfield $g example in MARC 21 Bibliographic). Ed Jones -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Laurence Creider Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 2:43 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question Karen, I disagree. The issue here is not MARC, but ISBD, followed by the question of the function of this data. Since the US library community seems to have adopted ISBD for its displays, then one needs to figure out the function of the element within that standard. I think that Kathy is right about the need for redundancy here. If the same data string serves two different functions then you will need to specify those uses in whatever scheme is chosen in order to make it possible to extract the data in a meaningful way. MARC certainly has its limitations, but I get awfully tired of people blaming it (and catalogers) for everything keeping us from metadata utopia. MARC was wonderful for its time, good even beyond its time, and now it shows its age and needs replacement. But there is no need for terms like slavish and questioning the professionalism of the profession. -- Laurence S. Creider Special Collections Librarian New Mexico State University Las Cruces, NM 88003 Work: 575-646-7227 Fax: 575-646-7477 lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Karen Coyle wrote: Kathy, there is nothing in the 542 that says that any of the subfields is required -- one can use the 542 to only record the copyright date if desired. And there is no reason why RDA rules couldn't be used to fill in the 542 $g. The instruction says merely: For items under copyright, the initial year of copyright. Note that there is a separate subfield for the exact copyright statement, because that can contain important information, e.g. who holds the copyright. But all of this information is optional. I really don't see any reason why this could not be used for RDA. The decision about using a single field has nothing to do with requiring that the whole field be filled it -- that's there because there were options that would use more than one field given in the proposal. To me this is all evidence of our slavishness to MARC. An input system could have 'fill-in' boxes for date of publication and copyright date and it shouldn't matter where they get stored in the underlying machine-readable record. But I think we'll end up with a redundant 2XX because people key directly into the MARC format, and thus a subfield in 542 is a long way from the 260. As information technology this is nonsense -- WHERE data is stored in the record should have no bearing; WHAT it means is what is important. So we create redunancy -- at a cost -- and then complain about our system vendors and what they find necessary to charge us for problems that we make for ourselves. I would be greatly surprised to find any other community doing its data input this badly. And yet we call ourselves 'information professionals.' kc Quoting Kathy Glennan kglen...@umd.edu: Karen, I think there's a difference in recording this data that may make the 2XX proposal make more sense than using 542 $g. In a record creation context, the cataloger is simply recording a copyright date that appears on a resource, without trying to supply the rest of the elements required to determine copyright status. In an RDA context, the copyright date (when used) is essentially transcribed from the resource. To the best of my knowledge RDA does not provide any further instructions about recording any additional information about copyright including: copyright holder, copyright renewal date, copyright jurisdiction, etc. When following RDA instructions, copyright date is not necessarily transcribed, since the cataloger has the option of using the copyright or phonogram symbol or spelling out the appropriate word. In any case, in an RDA record, the copyright/phonogram date does not stand alone -- it has some sort of qualifier in front of it. This is not the case in 542 $g. RDA also makes the distinction between copyright and phonogram dates (the
[RDA-L] Copyright date and relationships between elements
In reading RDA's section on Date of Publication and Copyright Date, I'm seeing a somewhat different pattern than what has been discussed. There are numerous relationships between the different elements that affect how we think about the elements, and ultimately how we should encode them and display them. Copyright Date is not just set against the Date of Publication as a separate element. The Date of Publication is a sub-element of an element in its own right-- Publication Statement. A Publication Statement essentially captures an event which has a place, agent, and date. A copyright date is not directly related to that event, other than suggesting a probable date of publication should the date of publication be unknown. Likewise, Production Statement, Publication Statement, Distribution Statement, and Manufacture Statement, are all independent elements, with their own sub-elements, and all are distinct from the Copyright Date element. These separate elements and related sub-elements are reflected in the layout of the Notes (RDA 2.20). A note is an annotation providing additional information relating to data recorded in another element. A note on dates of publication is captured in a Note on Publication Statement element (there is no note for the sub-element Date of Publication-- a note on a date of publication has to be covered by the note for the wider element, Publication Statement). A note on copyright dates is an optional annotation on the data in the original element-- Copyright Date. I think that mapping out all the data into these new RDA elements provides many possibilities for convenient future displays of that data, since it makes sense to have all relevant data about an element grouped together, rather than scattered around, with some in disconnected notes at the bottom of the record as AACR2 has it now. Splicing together the original elements in a MARC 260 field is a bit challenging, but it's a step in the right direction to get away from having interloping data elements, such as those the crowded 260$c subfield, interfering in the ability to provide new kinds of user-friendly displays, or even just interfering in the ability for encoding standards to have a single meaning for the value of a field. RDA, as a content standard, should be flexible enough to produce traditional displays (for reasonable backwards-compatibility) and new kinds of displays for the new digital environment. That's how the arrangement and interrelationships of RDA elements should be looked at. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
ISBD describes a display standard. It doesn't matter WHERE the data is in the underlying machine-readable record, it could display in its proper location to satisfy ISBD. The idea that the display has to be in MARC tag and subfield order is not only not sensible, it's not what we do today. We format our displays based on display instructions, we don't just toss all of MARC onto the screen as it has come in. So neither ISBD *nor* MARC are at fault here, it's our own inability to think clearly about data processing. The position of data in the underlying record should not be a barrier to us achieving the displays we desire. kc Quoting Laurence Creider lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu: Karen, I disagree. The issue here is not MARC, but ISBD, followed by the question of the function of this data. Since the US library community seems to have adopted ISBD for its displays, then one needs to figure out the function of the element within that standard. I think that Kathy is right about the need for redundancy here. If the same data string serves two different functions then you will need to specify those uses in whatever scheme is chosen in order to make it possible to extract the data in a meaningful way. MARC certainly has its limitations, but I get awfully tired of people blaming it (and catalogers) for everything keeping us from metadata utopia. MARC was wonderful for its time, good even beyond its time, and now it shows its age and needs replacement. But there is no need for terms like slavish and questioning the professionalism of the profession. -- Laurence S. Creider Special Collections Librarian New Mexico State University Las Cruces, NM 88003 Work: 575-646-7227 Fax: 575-646-7477 lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Karen Coyle wrote: Kathy, there is nothing in the 542 that says that any of the subfields is required -- one can use the 542 to only record the copyright date if desired. And there is no reason why RDA rules couldn't be used to fill in the 542 $g. The instruction says merely: For items under copyright, the initial year of copyright. Note that there is a separate subfield for the exact copyright statement, because that can contain important information, e.g. who holds the copyright. But all of this information is optional. I really don't see any reason why this could not be used for RDA. The decision about using a single field has nothing to do with requiring that the whole field be filled it -- that's there because there were options that would use more than one field given in the proposal. To me this is all evidence of our slavishness to MARC. An input system could have 'fill-in' boxes for date of publication and copyright date and it shouldn't matter where they get stored in the underlying machine-readable record. But I think we'll end up with a redundant 2XX because people key directly into the MARC format, and thus a subfield in 542 is a long way from the 260. As information technology this is nonsense -- WHERE data is stored in the record should have no bearing; WHAT it means is what is important. So we create redunancy -- at a cost -- and then complain about our system vendors and what they find necessary to charge us for problems that we make for ourselves. I would be greatly surprised to find any other community doing its data input this badly. And yet we call ourselves 'information professionals.' kc Quoting Kathy Glennan kglen...@umd.edu: Karen, I think there's a difference in recording this data that may make the 2XX proposal make more sense than using 542 $g. In a record creation context, the cataloger is simply recording a copyright date that appears on a resource, without trying to supply the rest of the elements required to determine copyright status. In an RDA context, the copyright date (when used) is essentially transcribed from the resource. To the best of my knowledge RDA does not provide any further instructions about recording any additional information about copyright including: copyright holder, copyright renewal date, copyright jurisdiction, etc. When following RDA instructions, copyright date is not necessarily transcribed, since the cataloger has the option of using the copyright or phonogram symbol or spelling out the appropriate word. In any case, in an RDA record, the copyright/phonogram date does not stand alone -- it has some sort of qualifier in front of it. This is not the case in 542 $g. RDA also makes the distinction between copyright and phonogram dates (the latter being used for recorded sound); this distinction is not currently available in Field 542. I see that the original MARBI Discussion Paper (2007-DP05) suggests using a single field to contain all copyright information, even if repeating other data somewhere else in the record, because of the complications. I think that these distinctions in
Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
Quoting Ed Jones ejo...@nu.edu: Field 542 seems to have been designed to hold official data relating to copyright registration (e.g., from the Catalog of the United States Copyright Office). If so, I would hesitate to use subfield $f for anything other than an exact transcription of the entire copyright statement as it is presented on the resource (e.g., Copyright 1948 SEPS in the subfield $g example in MARC 21 Bibliographic). Field 542 (and I know, I wrote the proposal, at the request of LC) is designed to hold any information that could be used to make decisions about copyright status and use. It has subfields both for a copyright date (and there are essentially no constraints on what goes in there) - $g, and a transcribed copyright statement, in $f, which can serve as a surrogate for what the item says about itself in terms of copyright. 542 Information known about the item that may be used to determine copyright status. $f - Copyright statement Copyright statement as it is presented on the resource. $g - Copyright date For items under copyright, the initial year of copyright. kc Ed Jones -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Laurence Creider Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 2:43 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question Karen, I disagree. The issue here is not MARC, but ISBD, followed by the question of the function of this data. Since the US library community seems to have adopted ISBD for its displays, then one needs to figure out the function of the element within that standard. I think that Kathy is right about the need for redundancy here. If the same data string serves two different functions then you will need to specify those uses in whatever scheme is chosen in order to make it possible to extract the data in a meaningful way. MARC certainly has its limitations, but I get awfully tired of people blaming it (and catalogers) for everything keeping us from metadata utopia. MARC was wonderful for its time, good even beyond its time, and now it shows its age and needs replacement. But there is no need for terms like slavish and questioning the professionalism of the profession. -- Laurence S. Creider Special Collections Librarian New Mexico State University Las Cruces, NM 88003 Work: 575-646-7227 Fax: 575-646-7477 lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Karen Coyle wrote: Kathy, there is nothing in the 542 that says that any of the subfields is required -- one can use the 542 to only record the copyright date if desired. And there is no reason why RDA rules couldn't be used to fill in the 542 $g. The instruction says merely: For items under copyright, the initial year of copyright. Note that there is a separate subfield for the exact copyright statement, because that can contain important information, e.g. who holds the copyright. But all of this information is optional. I really don't see any reason why this could not be used for RDA. The decision about using a single field has nothing to do with requiring that the whole field be filled it -- that's there because there were options that would use more than one field given in the proposal. To me this is all evidence of our slavishness to MARC. An input system could have 'fill-in' boxes for date of publication and copyright date and it shouldn't matter where they get stored in the underlying machine-readable record. But I think we'll end up with a redundant 2XX because people key directly into the MARC format, and thus a subfield in 542 is a long way from the 260. As information technology this is nonsense -- WHERE data is stored in the record should have no bearing; WHAT it means is what is important. So we create redunancy -- at a cost -- and then complain about our system vendors and what they find necessary to charge us for problems that we make for ourselves. I would be greatly surprised to find any other community doing its data input this badly. And yet we call ourselves 'information professionals.' kc Quoting Kathy Glennan kglen...@umd.edu: Karen, I think there's a difference in recording this data that may make the 2XX proposal make more sense than using 542 $g. In a record creation context, the cataloger is simply recording a copyright date that appears on a resource, without trying to supply the rest of the elements required to determine copyright status. In an RDA context, the copyright date (when used) is essentially transcribed from the resource. To the best of my knowledge RDA does not provide any further instructions about recording any additional information about copyright including: copyright holder, copyright renewal date, copyright jurisdiction, etc. When following RDA instructions, copyright date is not necessarily transcribed, since the cataloger has the option of using the copyright or phonogram
Re: [RDA-L] Sneaky Pie and Rita Mae Brown
After this one, I won't say any more on the topic, especially since I think it probably belongs on another list. I'm aware that topical headings established for individual animals' names in LCSH are undifferentiated; I'm also aware that existing headings were established for works about them. My point was that, if we're establishing headings for dogs, cats, and fictitious characters as personal name authors (100 field) in the NAME authority file, then it seems to me that all others in the class would also need to be established as personal names and not as topical subjects. I just don't see how you can rationally justify splitting the file. Either they are named entities which belong in a 100 field or they're not. Whether all of the members of the class have actually authored books, as have Sneaky Pie and Millie, is irrelevant. LCPS 9.0 says Apply this chapter to fictitious entities and real non-human entities having roles as creators or contributors. To avoid changes in LCSH during the RDA Test ... create name authority records for such entities and tell the Policy and Standards Division (PSD) when there is a counterpart heading in LCSH; PSD will compile a list of subject headings for possible deletion, once a decision is made regarding implementation of RDA. To me, that says that, unless LC decides to change this policy statement and asserts that chapter 9 should NOT be applied to these entities, the 5696 topical headings for fictitious entities would need to be cancelled and replaced by name headings instead, as well as all of the named dogs, cats, etc. How much is this going to cost at LC and everywhere else? One option would be to change the policy statement and continue to establish these entities as topical subjects (150)--and not use the entity as the preferred access point in any bibliographic record. Another would be to have every ILS with authority control turned on changed so that 100s in bibliographic records could be controlled by either 100s or 150s in authority records (much as a 110 can be controlled by either a 110 or a 151 in existing authority records), but I suspect that would cause some unforeseen problems. But, Millie (Dog) could be coded as a 100 in a bibliographic record and still be authorized by the 150 in an authority record. Another option would be to add the 150 to the bibliographic format (or define a new 1XX for both the authority and bibliographic formats -- 140, anyone?) and use that for fictitious and non-human names. Another option, I suppose, would be to continue to establish all such entities as topical headings in the subject file, and also establish them separately in the names file if they are represented as authors. But that wouldn't sit well with me, it certainly isn't what we do now with human authors, and the LCPS referenced in the very beginning of this long note would seem to acknowledge that, when it mentions compiling a list of subject headings for possible deletion. Later, kt On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Stephen Hearn wrote: At an Authority Control Interest Group meeting some ALA's back, LC's Lynn El-Hoshy noted that subject authorities for animals are actually undifferentiated. For example, there's only one subject authority for Lassie (Dog) which covers all individual dogs named Lassie. There's also a separate subject heading for Lassie (Fictitious character), so there could actually be three levels to this--Sneaky Pie Brown as an undifferentiated name for cats, as a fictional character, and as an authorial individual. Arf! Arf! What's that Lassie? Timmy's fallen in the well, and you've written this book about it? Stephen On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.edu wrote: Keith, I don't think that all of the real-life dog and cat subjects in LCSH were established for them as creators/contributors to works. I suspect that most of them were established for works about them rather than by them. Adam ^^ 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 Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Keith R. Trimmer wrote: Adam, Thanks for the comments. I immediately agreed with you about the 500s (I was thinking of pseudonymns like Ellery Queen), but wondering about users who under AACR2 are directed to Rita when they search for Sneaky, but under RDA would not be informed of any link between the two. In this instance, they would find Rita's name inside the actual books and on bib records, should they wish to explore other titles she has authored on her own, but the authority file would make no such connection.) Since the LCPS allows for establishing non-human entities as authors, then 'Millie's book / as dictated to Barbara Bush' would presumably be recataloged
