05.08.2011 00:36, Karen Coyle:
John Attig:
Access points are treated rather strangely in RDA. The access
point is not itself an element, but is a construct made up of other
elements, which contains instructions about what and when to
include various elements in an access point.
That
On 04/08/2011 21:33, Karen Coyle wrote:
snip
But the rule is that mostly, you use the publication date of
the first manifestation of the expression. (I can't find the rule
for this right now, since I don't have access to a lot) The only
example I can find right now is King Kong:
Apologies for cross-posting
I would like to announce my latest Cataloging Matters podcast, which is
A Conversation Between a Patron and the Library Catalog. This one is
an experiment that I hope you will enjoy.
It's available at
If you don't feel decently galvanized yet, find stimulating stuff on
the JSC website, now updated with loads of presentations, by
Barbara Tillett and Judy Kuhagen.
http://www.rda-jsc.org/rdapresentations.html
The latest one by Judy Kuhagen should do the trick. On slides 116/116,
she says
Bernhard:
Just a clarification: The Open Metadata Registry was originally funded
by the US National Science Foundation, e.g., with 'public' money, not as
part of a private initiative. It was intended to be (and still is) an
open-source project based on a set of freely available services.
J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
*It seems to me such as container should be added here as a source
of title representing the resource as a whole. This is often true of
boxed sets of videorecordings (VHS and DVD), boxed sets of CDs, kits,
games, and boxed pieces to be assembled. all of
-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: August 4, 2011 8:14 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] RDA and collective title
RDA 2.1.2.2 --
Is the usefulness of RDA going to require this kind of exegesis? Whew!
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 7:18 AM, Brenndorfer, Thomas
tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
Bernhard said:
One more reason, one might think, to get rid of MARC ASAP.
Not really, though. Firstly, because it is utterly unrealistic,
and second. because MARC is flexible enough to be used in
new software applications that do new tricks with the old
stuff AND are able to deal with some new
Thomas said:
Kits come up as an example again in 2.1.2.3, since kits would tend to
be characterized as multipart resources not single unit resources.
You've put your finger on why we had such difficulty doing an
intelligible record for a kit using RDA. A kit is a single item,
often the only
Quoting Bernhard Eversberg e...@biblio.tu-bs.de:
One more reason, one might think, to get rid of MARC ASAP.
Not really, though. Firstly, because it is utterly unrealistic,
and second. because MARC is flexible enough to be used in
new software applications that do new tricks with the old
stuff
-- Forwarded message --
From: Gene Fieg gf...@cst.edu
Date: Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:42 PM
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Browse and search BNB open data
To: kco...@kcoyle.net
Sometimes that MARC data isn't there because of local policies as well.
As for systems not being able to use the
Karen said:
It is easy to find records for translations that do not have a uniform
title for the original.
Our smaller clients strongly object to a 240 for translations,
particularly if the foreign language text is not on the title page;
they say it confuses patrons. We change the 240 to to
I said:
Our smaller clients strongly object to a 240 for translations ...
I should have added they are not very fond of 130s either,
particularly when the 130 says (motion picture) and the 245 says
[videorecording]. They say patrons see it as a contradiction.
They will accept 130s for Bible,
Quoting J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca:
Don't assume failure on the part of the cataloguer; it may be patron
desire. Patron convenience seems to be the forgotten factor in much
or our discussions.
Not only do I not assume failure on the part of the cataloguer, I
don't assume failure at
-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: August 5, 2011 12:55 PM
To: Brenndorfer, Thomas
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA and collective title
Thomas said:
Kits come up as an example again in 2.1.2.3, since kits would tend to
On 8/5/11 at 2:16 PM, Karen Coyle wrote in part:
But the fact is that we can only work with the data we have in our
bibliographic records regardless of what data *possibilities* there are in the
MARC record. I believe this is indisputable.
I like this. I just hope that this indisputable fact
17 matches
Mail list logo
