Kelley, thanks. My gut feeling is that music and moving picture
cataloging have some very interesting use cases that could show some
real benefit from roles. I admit that when I need movie information
(usually for my gaps when doing the NYT crossword puzzle) I turn to
ISBD, which lists the diff
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
But I find it interesting that for so many of you (and I refer here to others
who replied) that you are more motivated to declare change impossible than to
think about ways to make possible changes.
**
I sometimes wonder what the silent maj
Jean and all:
I would also like to echo my support to your observations about RDA as the
alternative and intuitive cataloging rules that make it for professional
and non-professional catalogers and others to contribute bibliographic
records to today's library catalogs which not only keep the inven
The default for 046 is an ISO 8601 date
(http://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/ad046.html), so it apparently doesn't have
to be specified in subfield $2, but there is a code (iso8601) defined in the
source codes (http://www.loc.gov/standards/sourcelist/date-time.html) that
could be used in subfield
I have. At least what they thought of RDA monograph records.
McCutcheon, Sevim. "RDA Testing in Triplicate: Kent State University's
Experiences Testing RDA." Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 49 (7/8)
(2011), p. 607-625.
Presents the experiences of KSU's participation in three RDA tests: o
Yes, we have at University of North Texas. Our reference librarians, in all
areas of the library, love RDA records. Patrons find such records far easier to
understand than AACR2 records, the reference librarians report, and the
reference librarians themselves find the records easier to understan
Just a question here, and I think this was part of what the podcast was
getting at: Has anyone asked *practicing* reference librarians what they
thought of RDA?
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Harden, Jean wrote:
> This "more effort" issue worried me, too, until I oversaw a project, using
>
Billie Hackney made two points we hear a lot:
>My two biggest issues with RDA are (1) difficulties with the legacy
>data ... and (2) the practical fact that creating an RDA record is
>more work, more typing, more effort for overworked catalogers.
1) We are capable of making retrospective changes
Thank you for the algorithm. I've raised the possibility of doing something
along these lines in other fora, but so far no one has been willing even to
discuss, let alone experiment. Sadly, at least for my own database (because of
the past practice of jamming two different things--print and mic
This "more effort" issue worried me, too, until I oversaw a project, using
people who were learning to catalog right then. They were supposed to be
cataloging in AACR2. To my tremendous surprise, the great majority of their
errors were in fact RDA-compliant. The project and this observation were
Exactly, John. Thank you. I absolutely agree that there is no logical reason
why this cannot be done by checking boxes in this day and age. And maybe it
will happen at some point. And that would be great.
During the RDA test, determining what terms to put in the X00/X10 $e took a lot
of time
Karen Coyle said:
>In contrast, there are lists where if I had made that suggestion
>someone would have come back with a complete list of types and
>possible algorithms to get the best results.
We have developed a program to retrospectively insert 33X in legacy
records. But none of our clients
There are two elements in RDA that could map to 100: "Creator" (RDA 19.2) and
"Other Person, Family or Corporate Body Associated with a Work" (RDA 19.3). A
100 field must be one or the other. By comparison, a 700 can be either of
these, or a person related to the expression, manifestation, or it
Billie Hackney wrote:
But it doesn't change the fact that creating an RDA record is more work, more
typing, and more effort for overworked catalogers.
-
This is not an invalid criticism of RDA, and an area where early criticisms
felt that
My two biggest issues with RDA are (1) difficulties with the legacy data, which
Jim Weinheimer has already addressed much better and more completely than I
ever could, and (2) the practical fact that creating an RDA record is more
work, more typing, more effort for overworked catalogers. Wheneve
Perhaps a suitably generic term, like "creator", could be automatically
assigned to 100 fields since, regardless of what the medium is, AACR2 main
entry rules are design to identify the primary creator as Main Entry. It
wouldn't work 100 percent of the time--and I imagine getting the exceptions
On 20/09/2012 16:55, Karen Coyle wrote:
> But I find it interesting that for so many of you (and I refer here to
> others who replied) that you are more motivated to declare change
> impossible than to think about ways to make possible changes. That's
> not only self-defeating, that is library-def
I have to join Karen's bandwagon here. I am profoundly disappointed by the
extreme negativism in response to programmatic changes she suggests. Yes, of
course there are exceptions! That's why the cataloging rules are a 3"
three-ring binder rather than a 16 page pamphlet. But in the name of m
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 7:14 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
> Karen Coyle said:
>
>>No role in the 100 almost always means "author."
>
> Not in our database. We have criminal defendants (our earlier client
> base was heavily law firms), artists (early clients included art
> schools), composers (we do
It's like debating how to choose a data type and store a computable value if
aggregated for fact generation.
Remember we are also obligated for backward comparability of legacy data, and
balancing the need to represent time and date of web of data prior biblical
time across nations, languages
In our library, a high percentage of 100 fields are for the artist,
photographer or architect, and there is nothing in the 245 to indicate that is
what they are. Adding "author" would make no sense. It's the same situation
with the 700 field. And it would be nearly impossible to work out whic
On 20/09/2012 11:01, Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
> Yes, but it is one thing to create new rules and another to get
> those who are supposed to comply with them to actually do so.
> And as long as you need to shell out considerable sums to even read
> those rules, and get no glimpse of the pleasingly
Am 20.09.2012 09:57, schrieb James Weinheimer:
All of these considerations show more and more that RDA and FRBR are
intellectual/academic constructs and divorced from the world of
reality.
Yes, but it is one thing to create new rules and another to get
those who are supposed to comply with t
On 20/09/2012 02:31, Karen Coyle wrote:
> Two comments:
>
> 1) some of these can be added, albeit not perfectly, using automated
> processing. If a 245 $c says: "illustrated by Joe Blow" and there's an
> added entry for "Blow, Joe," then the role can be added. No role in
> the 100 almost always me
Thank you Amanda. What we've tended to do at the BL is only to use edtf
for things that ISO 8601 can't express, such as approximate and
uncertain dates. As 4.1.2.3 c) in the ISO allows YY for a specific
century, we haven't used edtf for this, though the edtf formulation is
certainly correct; as of
25 matches
Mail list logo
