[RDA-L] Transcription and spacing
The other day, we were discussing the rules for transcription in 1.7. We wondered how exact an exact transcription has to be according to the standard rule of RDA. When it says as it appears on the source, does this also refer to spacing? There is one explicit rule for spacing (1.7.6), but this only covers initials and acronyms. Consider the following examples: Resource 1 has (somewhere in the title proper or other title information): 1925 - 1988 Resource 2 has (somewhere in the title proper or other title information): 1745-1910 Would you transcribe first year space hyphen space second year in the first case, and first year hyphen second year in the second? Or would you rather regularize this according to ordinary writing conventions and give both time intervals in the same way? A similar example would be this: Resource 1 has (somewhere in the title proper or other title information): § 211 Resource 2 has (somewhere in the title proper or other title information): §14 Again the question: Would you make a difference here in transcription? Thanks for your help. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Transcription and spacing
28.05.2013 08:28, Heidrun Wiesenmüller: The other day, we were discussing the rules for transcription in 1.7. We wondered how exact an exact transcription has to be according to the standard rule of RDA. When it says as it appears on the source, does this also refer to spacing? There is one explicit rule for spacing (1.7.6), but this only covers initials and acronyms. Consider the following examples: Resource 1 has (somewhere in the title proper or other title information): 1925 - 1988 Resource 2 has (somewhere in the title proper or other title information): 1745-1910 Would you transcribe first year space hyphen space second year in the first case, and first year hyphen second year in the second? Or would you rather regularize this according to ordinary writing conventions and give both time intervals in the same way? Well, I see the only importance of this in indexing: a) 1745-1910 is one (hyphenated) title word, 1939 - 1945 makes two. (Does RDA say anything about observing a difference between hyphen and dash?) b) If you have a title string index for browsing or left-anchored searching (agreed, no one wants that any more), then there will likely be a chaos at points like 1914 or 1939. If the consensus is that these matters don't matter, then it is a non-issue. (For de-duplication matching, you will mostly strip all apaces out before you compare titles.) It is, by the way, unfortunate that RDA says absolutely nothing about the requirements and issues of indexing. Or does it? The result will be, as with AACR2, that local specifications will diversify and throw a spanner into the works of federated searching and webservices for accessing other catalogs. (German RAK, by the way, had ordering rules. These were beneficial for the problems mentioned in that they resulted in more harmonious specifications in that regard.) But as said above, as nobody wants these indexes any more, forget about all this and avoid counterproductive pedanticism where it has no impact on Access. B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] Transcription and spacing
-Original Message- From: Bernhard Eversberg e...@biblio.tu-bs.de Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 08:55:42 +0200 b) If you have a title string index for browsing or left-anchored searching (agreed, no one wants that any more), then there will Hm... How very useful are those indexes for autocomplete, i.e. for the engine to predict a phrase (mainly these days when we have to type with 1-2 fingers :-) Dan -- Dan Matei director, Direcția Patrimoniu Cultural Mobil, Imaterial și Digital [Movable, Intangible and Digital Heritage Department] (aka CIMEC) Institutul Național al Patrimoniului [National Heritage Institute], București [Bucharest, Romania] tel. 0725 253 222, (+4)021 317 90 72; fax (+4)021 317 90 64, www.cimec.ro
[RDA-L] authorized access point for collaborative works
Hi, All I have a question about authorized access point representing the work (main entry) for collaborative works. RDA 6.27.1.3 does tell us if there is only one principal creator, the principal would be selected as the main entry. If there is more than one principal creator (or in doubt), the first-named would be selected as the main entry. I hope that my understanding is correct. RDA 6.27.1.3 provides an alternative: construct the authorized access points for all creators named instead of the principal. The specific rule is as follows: a ) the authorized access points for all creators named either in resources embodying the work or in reference sources; include them in the order in which they are named in those sources b) the preferred title for the work It has an example: EXAMPLE Gumbley, Warren, 1962– ; Johns, Dilys; Law, Garry. Management of wetland archaeological sites in New Zealand Resource described: Management of wetland archaeological sites in New Zealand / Warren Gumbley, Dilys Johns, and Garry Law My question is: how it works in MARC encoding? Any clarification would be appreciated. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] authorized access point for collaborative works
Joan, If it is truly a collaborative work by the three named authors, then, it will look like this: 100 1_ Gumbley, Warren, 1962– $e author. 245 10 Management of wetland archaeological sites in New Zealand / $c Warren Gumbley, Dilys Johns, and Garry La. 700 1_ Johns, Dilys, $e author. 700 1_ La., Garry, $e author. Also check out LC's training video module 4: relationships. http://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/RDA%20training%20materials/LC%20RDA%20Training/LC%20RDA%20course%20table.html On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote: Hi, All I have a question about authorized access point representing the work (main entry) for collaborative works. RDA 6.27.1.3 does tell us if there is only one principal creator, the principal would be selected as the main entry. If there is more than one principal creator (or in doubt), the first-named would be selected as the main entry. I hope that my understanding is correct. RDA 6.27.1.3 provides an alternative: construct the authorized access points for all creators named instead of the principal. The specific rule is as follows: a ) the authorized access points for all creators named either in resources embodying the work or in reference sources; include them in the order in which they are named in those sources b) the preferred title for the work It has an example: EXAMPLE Gumbley, Warren, 1962– ; Johns, Dilys; Law, Garry. Management of wetland archaeological sites in New Zealand Resource described: Management of wetland archaeological sites in New Zealand / Warren Gumbley, Dilys Johns, and Garry Law My question is: how it works in MARC encoding? Any clarification would be appreciated. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Tony Fang Media Monographs Original Cataloger Metadata Intellectual Access 160 Wilson Library, University of Minnesota Libraries Phone: (612) 626-8344
Re: [RDA-L] authorized access point for collaborative works
Tony Thanks for your reply. Your example is taking the first-named as the main entry and also encoding the other two. So the alternative means encoding all creators instead of only the principal? I thought that we would do the same thing when we encode the principal or the first-named as the main entry. And encoding how many creators is a core element issue. It is not an issue about the choice of main entry (authorized access point representing the work). That is why I was curious with the difference of the alternative. If they are in separate fields, is there an order requirement? And Library of Congress policy says Do not apply ??? Thanks, Joan Wang On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Tony Fang fangx...@umn.edu wrote: Joan, If it is truly a collaborative work by the three named authors, then, it will look like this: 100 1_ Gumbley, Warren, 1962– $e author. 245 10 Management of wetland archaeological sites in New Zealand / $c Warren Gumbley, Dilys Johns, and Garry La. 700 1_ Johns, Dilys, $e author. 700 1_ La., Garry, $e author. Also check out LC's training video module 4: relationships. http://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/RDA%20training%20materials/LC%20RDA%20Training/LC%20RDA%20course%20table.html On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote: Hi, All I have a question about authorized access point representing the work (main entry) for collaborative works. RDA 6.27.1.3 does tell us if there is only one principal creator, the principal would be selected as the main entry. If there is more than one principal creator (or in doubt), the first-named would be selected as the main entry. I hope that my understanding is correct. RDA 6.27.1.3 provides an alternative: construct the authorized access points for all creators named instead of the principal. The specific rule is as follows: a ) the authorized access points for all creators named either in resources embodying the work or in reference sources; include them in the order in which they are named in those sources b) the preferred title for the work It has an example: EXAMPLE Gumbley, Warren, 1962– ; Johns, Dilys; Law, Garry. Management of wetland archaeological sites in New Zealand Resource described: Management of wetland archaeological sites in New Zealand / Warren Gumbley, Dilys Johns, and Garry Law My question is: how it works in MARC encoding? Any clarification would be appreciated. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Tony Fang Media Monographs Original Cataloger Metadata Intellectual Access 160 Wilson Library, University of Minnesota Libraries Phone: (612) 626-8344 -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] authorized access point for collaborative works
The RDA alternative implies that all the names would be in one field in MARC, which doesn't work; hence the LC-PCC PS not to apply it. Bob Robert L. Maxwell Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept. 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Joan Wang [jw...@illinoisheartland.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 10:28 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] authorized access point for collaborative works Tony Thanks for your reply. Your example is taking the first-named as the main entry and also encoding the other two. So the alternative means encoding all creators instead of only the principal? I thought that we would do the same thing when we encode the principal or the first-named as the main entry. And encoding how many creators is a core element issue. It is not an issue about the choice of main entry (authorized access point representing the work). That is why I was curious with the difference of the alternative. If they are in separate fields, is there an order requirement? And Library of Congress policy says Do not apply ??? Thanks, Joan Wang On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Tony Fang fangx...@umn.edumailto:fangx...@umn.edu wrote: Joan, If it is truly a collaborative work by the three named authors, then, it will look like this: 100 1_ Gumbley, Warren, 1962– $e author. 245 10 Management of wetland archaeological sites in New Zealand / $c Warren Gumbley, Dilys Johns, and Garry La. 700 1_ Johns, Dilys, $e author. 700 1_ La., Garry, $e author. Also check out LC's training video module 4: relationships. http://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/RDA%20training%20materials/LC%20RDA%20Training/LC%20RDA%20course%20table.html On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgmailto:jw...@illinoisheartland.org wrote: Hi, All I have a question about authorized access point representing the work (main entry) for collaborative works. RDA 6.27.1.3 does tell us if there is only one principal creator, the principal would be selected as the main entry. If there is more than one principal creator (or in doubt), the first-named would be selected as the main entry. I hope that my understanding is correct. RDA 6.27.1.3 provides an alternative: construct the authorized access points for all creators named instead of the principal. The specific rule is as follows: a ) the authorized access points for all creators named either in resources embodying the work or in reference sources; include them in the order in which they are named in those sources b) the preferred title for the work It has an example: EXAMPLE Gumbley, Warren, 1962– ; Johns, Dilys; Law, Garry. Management of wetland archaeological sites in New Zealand Resource described: Management of wetland archaeological sites in New Zealand / Warren Gumbley, Dilys Johns, and Garry Law My question is: how it works in MARC encoding? Any clarification would be appreciated. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409tel:618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Tony Fang Media Monographs Original Cataloger Metadata Intellectual Access 160 Wilson Library, University of Minnesota Libraries Phone: (612) 626-8344tel:%28612%29%20626-8344 -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] authorized access point for collaborative works
Robert, Thanks. That is what I thought. I do not think that it would work in MARC. But it raises a totally different idea (right?). Thanks again, Joan Wang On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Robert Maxwell robert_maxw...@byu.eduwrote: The RDA alternative implies that all the names would be in one field in MARC, which doesn't work; hence the LC-PCC PS not to apply it. Bob Robert L. Maxwell Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept. 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. -- *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Joan Wang [ jw...@illinoisheartland.org] *Sent:* Tuesday, May 28, 2013 10:28 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] authorized access point for collaborative works Tony Thanks for your reply. Your example is taking the first-named as the main entry and also encoding the other two. So the alternative means encoding all creators instead of only the principal? I thought that we would do the same thing when we encode the principal or the first-named as the main entry. And encoding how many creators is a core element issue. It is not an issue about the choice of main entry (authorized access point representing the work). That is why I was curious with the difference of the alternative. If they are in separate fields, is there an order requirement? And Library of Congress policy says Do not apply ??? Thanks, Joan Wang On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Tony Fang fangx...@umn.edu wrote: Joan, If it is truly a collaborative work by the three named authors, then, it will look like this: 100 1_ Gumbley, Warren, 1962– $e author. 245 10 Management of wetland archaeological sites in New Zealand / $c Warren Gumbley, Dilys Johns, and Garry La. 700 1_ Johns, Dilys, $e author. 700 1_ La., Garry, $e author. Also check out LC's training video module 4: relationships. http://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/RDA%20training%20materials/LC%20RDA%20Training/LC%20RDA%20course%20table.html On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote: Hi, All I have a question about authorized access point representing the work (main entry) for collaborative works. RDA 6.27.1.3 does tell us if there is only one principal creator, the principal would be selected as the main entry. If there is more than one principal creator (or in doubt), the first-named would be selected as the main entry. I hope that my understanding is correct. RDA 6.27.1.3 provides an alternative: construct the authorized access points for all creators named instead of the principal. The specific rule is as follows: a ) the authorized access points for all creators named either in resources embodying the work or in reference sources; include them in the order in which they are named in those sources b) the preferred title for the work It has an example: EXAMPLE Gumbley, Warren, 1962– ; Johns, Dilys; Law, Garry. Management of wetland archaeological sites in New Zealand Resource described: Management of wetland archaeological sites in New Zealand / Warren Gumbley, Dilys Johns, and Garry Law My question is: how it works in MARC encoding? Any clarification would be appreciated. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Tony Fang Media Monographs Original Cataloger Metadata Intellectual Access 160 Wilson Library, University of Minnesota Libraries Phone: (612) 626-8344 -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] Help with relationship designator
Hi Mac. I also feel a little uncomfortable using contributor type
relationship designators in a 100 field with the creator type relationship
designators, but I thought that doing so is supposed to be acceptable
according to the PCC Guidelines for the Application of Relationship
Designators in Bibliographic Records which Adolfo Tarango referenced on
5/17 in response to the thread Designator Relator Code
(http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca/msg09665.html).
The examples in the PCC Guidelines seem to indicate that one can use
creator and contributor type relationship designators in the same field,
as long as they are entered in WEMI order. One could also use a
combination of 100 700 fields for the same person, with only creator
relationship designators in the 100 field, and contributor type
designators in the 700 field. My institution has opted to accept AACR2
records and not upgrade them as we don't have the manpower required to do
so, but create original records in RDA. I'm starting to feel like just
whimping out on this one and accepting the AACR2 copy, but adding a 700
for Garfinkle.
I also see an answer in PCC Guideline 3 to another question of mine about
whether we can use the more specific relator terms which are indented
under the bold terms: Within a hierarchy of relationship designators,
prefer a specific term to a general one if it is easily determined. For
example, use librettist rather than author for the creator of a libretto.
Thanks again for your help.
-Dana
-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 7:49 PM
To: vanme...@ias.edu
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Help with relationship designator
Dana Van Meter said:
I would prefer something more along the lines of |e author of added
commentary, rather than |e author, but that doesn't exist.
These two do exist:
writer of added commentary
writer of added text
but if added, the relator terms would be longer than the entry itself.
What is that going to look like in the OPAC?
Is contributor a valid relationship designator?
It's not in the list, but I was told (to my incomprehension) that it is
valid since it is a named category in RDA. If such named categories are
valid as relators, they should be added to the term list.
Terms in the list but not in the codes should be added. Codes not in the
list should be added as terms. We were told that codes would be updated
for lcking terms, but I've not heard of the terms being updated by RDA
categories or MARC relator codes. The terms and codes should agree.
Perhaps one reason I thought the 100 and 700 should be exchanged, is that
the long list of reltors seems more logical on an added entry.
Not all the terms you are adding to the 100 seem approprite for a main
entry.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Can Lecturer be used as a valid fas track relahave a good example of a DVD + Book RDA
Were there supposed to be an answer to my questions here from the JSC Secretary? I don't see that anything came through other than my message. Does anyone else have any text? Thanks, Dana From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of JSC Secretary Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 10:04 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Can Lecturer be used as a valid fas track relahave a good example of a DVD + Book RDA On May 24, 2013 6:45 PM, Dana Van Meter vanme...@ias.edu wrote: This answer prompts some questions for me. 1. Are we allowed to use, then, the more specific terms indented underneath the relationship designator performer (which is in bold), or are we to use performer only, to cover all those types of situations represented by the more specific indented not in bold terms? If we can use the more specific indented terms, how were we supposed to know that? I wasn't sure if we are allowed to use these indented terms, or if they're just further (and more specific) examples of what is meant by the bold faced code. If we can use these more specific indented terms, I think it might be helpful if RDA specifically said that following the definition of a bold faced term (or you can use these more specific terms, or something to that effect). Using the example of the term author, I see that there are MARC relator codes for the more specific terms librettist[lbt] and lyricist [lyr], but there isn't a MARC code for screenwriter, so I would not automatically assume that I could use those more specific indented terms as relator terms in a |e. There also seem to be MARC relator codes for terms which are not named in RDA, such as Music copyist [mcp]. Are we able to use relationship designators or terms such as music copyist in a |e if they have a MARC 3-letter code, even if the term does not appear in RDA? 2. I have a print series which contains lectures, can |e performer be used for lecturers/speakers when the lecture is in print form? Thank you for your help. Dana Van Meter Catalog Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Brenndorfer, Thomas Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2013 12:10 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Can Lecturer be used as a valid relator term and do you have a good example of a DVD + Book RDA record? From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Browning, Sommer [sommer.brown...@ucdenver.edu] Sent: April-05-13 5:21 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Can Lecturer be used as a valid relator term and do you have a good example of a DVD + Book RDA record? I've searched the list and couldn't find if these questions had been asked before so here goes. 1. We are cataloging a Great Courses DVD and course guide. We have the lecturer and course guide author in the 100 field. What should his relator term be? Is $e creator sufficient? Though he isn't the creator of the DVD.? He is a kind of performer and author.? Using $e lecturer seems silly. The presence in the 100 field also would mean that the name would form part of the authorized access point for the work, but this is not appropriate for moving image works (Great Courses DVDs are cataloged primarily as moving image DVD videos, with the course guide being accompanying material). For moving images works, only the preferred title for the DVD is used alone for the authorized access point for the work (RDA 6.27.1.3), so the lecturer would not be found in the 100 field. As a lecturer, the person would be contributing to the expression, essentially as a 'performer'. In the list of designators under 'performer' are 'speaker' or 'teacher'. The designator ' speaker' is the best fit, as RDA refers specifically to the delivery of a lecture (as opposed to a 'teacher' who is providing instructions or a demonstration). The lecturer is also the writer of the course guide, so that is a clear work relationship. Instead of a contributor to the expression, the lecturer is the Creator of a work, specifically an 'author.' Adding these two designators to the lecturer in 700 field would be the best fit for the two roles: $e speaker $e author 2. Related note: Can the relationship designator just be left off entirely? Yes, but the person would not be found in the 100 field because the description is primarily for a moving image work. A name in a 700 field can have designators supporting relationships to works or expressions in the resource, but the 100 field is reserved for allowable names that can form part of the authorized access point for the work.
[RDA-L] Bibframe
Every now and then I see the word Bibframe in emails. Is it replacing MARC? How is that going to be? -- angelina Angelina Joseph Cataloging Librarian Ray Kay Eckstein Law Library Marquette University Milwaukee, WI 53201 Ph: 414-288-5553 Fax: 414-288-5914 email: angelina.jos...@marquette.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Bibframe
BibFrame refers to the Library of Congress program, Bibliographic Framework Initiative that is indeed exploring a transition from the MARC format. Please check their website for more information: http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/ They also have a listserv you are welcome to join. - Barbara Tillett, JSC Chair On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Joseph, Angelina angelina.jos...@marquette.edu wrote: Every now and then I see the word “Bibframe” in emails. Is it replacing MARC? How is that going to be? ** ** *-- angelina* Angelina Joseph Cataloging Librarian Ray Kay Eckstein Law Library Marquette University Milwaukee, WI 53201 Ph: 414-288-5553 Fax: 414-288-5914 email: angelina.jos...@marquette.edu ** ** -- Dr. Barbara B. Tillett, Ph.D. Chair, Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA
Re: [RDA-L] Bibframe
Thank you, Barbara. --angelina joseph From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of JSC Chair Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 2:51 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Bibframe BibFrame refers to the Library of Congress program, Bibliographic Framework Initiative that is indeed exploring a transition from the MARC format. Please check their website for more information: http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/ They also have a listserv you are welcome to join. - Barbara Tillett, JSC Chair On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Joseph, Angelina angelina.jos...@marquette.edumailto:angelina.jos...@marquette.edu wrote: Every now and then I see the word Bibframe in emails. Is it replacing MARC? How is that going to be? -- angelina Angelina Joseph Cataloging Librarian Ray Kay Eckstein Law Library Marquette University Milwaukee, WI 53201 Ph: 414-288-5553tel:414-288-5553 Fax: 414-288-5914tel:414-288-5914 email: angelina.jos...@marquette.edumailto:angelina.jos...@marquette.edu -- Dr. Barbara B. Tillett, Ph.D. Chair, Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA
Re: [RDA-L] Bibframe
It may be awhile before it all comes to pass despite the decree that it should be in approximate sync with RDA. A recent question on the discussion list: Will it be possible to use a BIBFRAME authority to link a BIBFRAME Work describing a FRBR Work to a BIBFRAME Work description of a FRBR Expression? Maybe, but our students just want to find three sources for the report that's due tomorrow. Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of JSC Chair Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 2:51 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Bibframe BibFrame refers to the Library of Congress program, Bibliographic Framework Initiative that is indeed exploring a transition from the MARC format. Please check their website for more information: http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/ They also have a listserv you are welcome to join. - Barbara Tillett, JSC Chair On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Joseph, Angelina angelina.jos...@marquette.edumailto:angelina.jos...@marquette.edu wrote: Every now and then I see the word Bibframe in emails. Is it replacing MARC? How is that going to be? -- angelina Angelina Joseph Cataloging Librarian Ray Kay Eckstein Law Library Marquette University Milwaukee, WI 53201 Ph: 414-288-5553tel:414-288-5553 Fax: 414-288-5914tel:414-288-5914 email: angelina.jos...@marquette.edumailto:angelina.jos...@marquette.edu -- Dr. Barbara B. Tillett, Ph.D. Chair, Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA
Re: [RDA-L] Help with relationship designator
Are relationship designators required?
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:01 PM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
Dana van Meter said:
The examples in the PCC Guidelines seem to indicate that one can use
creator and contributor type relationship designators in the same field,
as long as they are entered in WEMI order.
Yes you may. But I still don't agree with the choice of main entry.
The poet is author, and needs only the one $e or $4. The editor
needs a whole string, including translator, which is not a main entry
role.
One could also use a combination of 100 700 fields for the same
person, with only creator relationship designators in the 100 field,
and contributor type designators in the 700 field
I don't think so. IMNSHO you should not have two entries for the same
person in the same record, not even real name and pseudonym.
I'm starting to feel like just whimping out on this one and accepting
the AACR2 copy, but adding a 700 for Garfinkle.
Please add it to the master record, whatever you decide on locally.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Help with relationship designator
They are not core in RDA. Required elements are clearly indicated as core
when you look at the RDA instructions.
For PCC policies, I suggest you use the PCC list.
- Barbara Tillett, JSC Chair
On Tuesday, May 28, 2013, Gene Fieg wrote:
Are relationship designators required?
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:01 PM, J. McRee Elrod
m...@slc.bc.cajavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'm...@slc.bc.ca');
wrote:
Dana van Meter said:
The examples in the PCC Guidelines seem to indicate that one can use
creator and contributor type relationship designators in the same field,
as long as they are entered in WEMI order.
Yes you may. But I still don't agree with the choice of main entry.
The poet is author, and needs only the one $e or $4. The editor
needs a whole string, including translator, which is not a main entry
role.
One could also use a combination of 100 700 fields for the same
person, with only creator relationship designators in the 100 field,
and contributor type designators in the 700 field
I don't think so. IMNSHO you should not have two entries for the same
person in the same record, not even real name and pseudonym.
I'm starting to feel like just whimping out on this one and accepting
the AACR2 copy, but adding a 700 for Garfinkle.
Please add it to the master record, whatever you decide on locally.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca javascript:_e({},
'cvml', 'm...@slc.bc.ca');)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'gf...@cst.edu');
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.
--
Dr. Barbara B. Tillett, Ph.D.
Chair, Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA
Re: [RDA-L] Bibframe
Angelina Joseph asked:
Every now and then I see the word Bibframe in emails. Is it replacing MAR=
C? How is that going to be?
You will have answers from those more in the loop than I, but there is
my *very* biased answer.
Bibframe is a work in progress, so no one knows if/when it will
replace MARC.
IMNSHO it is a *giant* step backward, in substituting English names
for language neutral MARC field tags (in the form bf:title), all in
the name of being more consistent with Web data. Seems to ma XML MARC
would fill that need. There is also the matter of the ambiguity of
language, leading to wrong use of the element names. (Remember the
now storied cataloguer who enter the donor in Dublin Core's
contributor?)
Bibframe has Works and Instances, as opposed to WEM, so will be little
if any better than MARC for RDA. Expressions are treated as works.
There was talk of including relationship in authorities (read access
points), meaning an an authority for each role, and one assumes
multiple entries for the same person in the same Instance, e.g.,
director/actor, author/illustrator. I think that one has been
squashed. or at least reduced. (The access point in the data would
have a URI, pointing to the established form.)
There is talk of allowing only one ISBN per Instance, leading to
separate Instances for the same edition, e.g., different bindings,
simultaneous publication by more than one publisher. serials and sets
with an ISBN for each issue/volume, kits with multiple parts having
their own ISBN. No headway seems to have been made on that one.
My impression is that those doing the work have not been on the front
line of cataloguing, and are not fully aware of the messy nature of
the bibliographic universe.
There is talk of URIs being shared. e.g., if one library establishes
an authority its URI could be used by other libraries Iwhat if the
first library drops the authority when withdrawing the relevant
work?). The use of VIAF is also being talked about. (My name there
had four forms I think before I complained.)
Bibframe proponents assume technical ability and resources many small
libraries will lack. If implemented, there will be a divide between
have and have not libraries.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Help with relationship designator
Dana Van Meter said:
Not having a fuller list of terms in RDA is really a failing of RDA
Not to mention not haviving them in one alphabetical order. For a single
alphabetical list, see the MRI 21.0D:
http://special-cataloguing.com/mris/21
You need to sign up for a free account to consult.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Help with relationship designator
Suggestions for additional terms are always welcome. - Barbara Tillett, JSC
Chair
On Tuesday, May 28, 2013, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Dana Van Meter said:
Not having a fuller list of terms in RDA is really a failing of RDA
Not to mention not haviving them in one alphabetical order. For a single
alphabetical list, see the MRI 21.0D:
http://special-cataloguing.com/mris/21
You need to sign up for a free account to consult.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca javascript:;)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Dr. Barbara B. Tillett, Ph.D.
Chair, Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA
Re: [RDA-L] Can Lecturer be used as a valid fas track relahave a good example of a DVD + Book RDA
Dana Van Meter posted:
1. Are we allowed to use, then, the more specific terms indented
underneath the relationship designator performer (which is in bold)
Yes. For one list is alphabetical order see the MRI 21.0D:
http://special-cataloguing.com/mris/21
... MARC relator codes for terms which are not named in RDA, such as Music
copyist [mcp]. Are we able to use relationship designators or terms such
as music copyist in a |e if they have a MARC 3-letter code, even if the
term does not appear in RDA?
No. LC has said it will add MARC codes for terms in RDA but not MARC.
Barbara Tillet (JSC Chair) has said proposals for additional RDA
relator terms are welcome, but has not said terms having codes but
lacking from RDA will be added. That would be a good place to begin.
The code and term lists should be in agreement.
I have a print series which contains lectures, can |e performer
be used for lecturers/speakers when the lecture is in print form?
I would say no. Why not just use author? The person is not
lecturing, lecturer is not in the list; speaker is, but again, the
person is not speaking in a print resource.
Can Lecturer be used as a valid relator term ...
Unless it has been added since I last looked, no. It could be suggested
as a term, but isn't there overlap with speaker?
We are cataloging a Great Courses DVD and course guide. We have the
lecturer and course guide author in the 100 field. What should his
relator term be?
If s/he is speaking on the DVD, I would use $eauthor,$espeaker or
$4aut$4spk.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Bibframe
28.05.2013 23:45, J. McRee Elrod: Angelina Joseph asked: Every now and then I see the word Bibframe in emails. Is it replacing MAR= C? How is that going to be? You will have answers from those more in the loop than I, but there is my *very* biased answer. Bibframe is a work in progress, so no one knows if/when it will replace MARC. ... LC's Sally McCallum on May 24 informed the VBIBFRAME community thus: http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1305L=bibframeT=0P=43920
