[RDA-L] 264 with copyright date and first published date and reprint date
Hello, I have one a case with the following: Reprinted date 2013 First published date 2012 Copyright Robin Mansell (c)2012 (the author) I recorded them in RDA 246 as follows: 008 date type r Date 1 = 2012Date 2 = 2013 264 #1 $a Oxford : $b Oxford University Press, $c [2013] 264 #4 $a [Oxford] : $b Robin Mansell, $c (c)2012 588 ## $First published 2012 and reprinted in 2013. 020 ##9780199697052 Kindly advise Thank you Basma Chebani Head of Cataloging and Metadata Services Department University Libraries / Jafet American University of Beirut Beirut - Lebanon Tel: 961-1-35 ext.2614 basma.cheb...@aub.edu.lb -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of McDonald, Stephen Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 8:49 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 264 with only a copyright date Gene Fieg asked, regarding the inclusion of copyright date and inferred publication date in an RDA record: And how is the user supposed to make sense of this? How are thesis advisors supposed to make sense of this when checking bibliographical citations? How will it display I don't see what you think is confusing about this. The user will look for a publication date, and will find it. What is confusing about that? The same with thesis advisors. What publication date do you think thesis advisors would expect to find? This inferred publication date is only used when there is no evidence of a publication date except the copyright date. A thesis advisor would almost certainly rather some guess of the publication date than no date at all. I would note that theses generally don't have copyright dates, and do have other dates which can be inferred as publication date. So this isn't usually an issue with theses anyway. As for how it will display, that is up to the ILS, of course. One reasonable way (but hardly the only possible way) it could be displayed is: Publication date: [2011] Copyright: (c)2011 That's the way we have it set up in our catalog (Millennium, the same as you have, I believe). Steve McDonald steve.mcdon...@tufts.edu
[RDA-L] Business case and evaluation
21.08.2013 12:30, James L Weinheimer: When I have mentioned that it was necessary to make sense of the RDA project in practical terms, or in other words, make a business case, it was obviously deemed unnecessary. What's necessary, nonetheless and all the more, will be evaluations, done by third parties with no shares in this enterprise. All components of the migration to RDA should be looked at: -- education -- workflow -- per unit costs -- changes in legacy data; bib records and authority -- changes in software -- changes in services and their costs (utilities and such) -- effects on users: find, identify, select tasks (specifically looking at effects of inconsistencies) -- overall costs to name some of the more important items. Only, who's going to commission those evaluations? Or who's going to be responsible for not doing that? B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] 264 with only a copyright date
An appropriate display would like this:
RDA record:
*Publication:* New York : Harper, [1961]
*Copyright date:* c1961
AACR2 record:
*Publication: *New York : Harper, c1961
Which one is clearer and not liable to misinterpretation by users
(non-catalogers)?
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Gene Fieg gf...@cst.edu wrote:
I wasn't talking about the copyright of theses.
In terms of theses: author cites New York : Harper, c1961
Catalog record reads 264 New York : Harper, [1961]
264 c1961
Thesis advisor checks citation and notes the [1961].
Calls in author. Our catalog says it was published in 1961, are you sure
you want to keep c1961.
That is what says in the book, says author.
Hmm, says advisor, I wonder why we have [1961] and where did it come from?
AACR2: New York : Harper, c1961
Which one is clearer and not liable to misinterpretation by users
(non-catalogers)?
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:28 AM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
Amy Mercer posted:
264 #4 $a London; $a Toronto : $b Schott, $c (c)2011
No. Field 264 4 has only $c date. The publisher may or may not be
the copright holder.
You do not record a copyright date in 264 1; in the absence of an
imprint date, you record an inferred imprint date in brackets, i.e.,
the copyright date in brackets without the copyright symbol. We do not
record a 264 4 date if the same as 264 1, even if in brackets in 264
1. I agree that the two 264s with the same date looks redundant. You
are right to seek a more sensible solution.
We would do this imprint as:
264 1 $aLondon [England] ;$aToronto [Ontario] : $bSchott,$c[2011]
We always transcribe or supply jurisdiction; since there is a London in
both Ontario and England that seems particularly important in this
case.
__ __ 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.
--
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] 264 with copyright date and first published date and reprint date
I would consider First published date 2012 as the publication date. Reprinted date 2013 would be a manufacture date. In this case, the manufacture statement can be ignored. Anyway, if you consider it important, put a 500 note for the reprinted date. Also, for the second 264 field (with the second indicator 4), the only thing you need is sub-field c for the copyright date. As you did, put a symbol before the date. Hopefully it helps. Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Basma Chebani b...@aub.edu.lb wrote: Hello, I have one a case with the following: Reprinted date 2013 First published date 2012 Copyright Robin Mansell (c)2012 (the author) I recorded them in RDA 246 as follows: 008 date type r Date 1 = 2012Date 2 = 2013 264 #1 $a Oxford : $b Oxford University Press, $c [2013] 264 #4 $a [Oxford] : $b Robin Mansell, $c (c)2012 588 ## $First published 2012 and reprinted in 2013. 020 ##9780199697052 Kindly advise Thank you Basma Chebani Head of Cataloging and Metadata Services Department University Libraries / Jafet American University of Beirut Beirut - Lebanon Tel: 961-1-35 ext.2614 basma.cheb...@aub.edu.lb -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of McDonald, Stephen Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 8:49 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 264 with only a copyright date Gene Fieg asked, regarding the inclusion of copyright date and inferred publication date in an RDA record: And how is the user supposed to make sense of this? How are thesis advisors supposed to make sense of this when checking bibliographical citations? How will it display I don't see what you think is confusing about this. The user will look for a publication date, and will find it. What is confusing about that? The same with thesis advisors. What publication date do you think thesis advisors would expect to find? This inferred publication date is only used when there is no evidence of a publication date except the copyright date. A thesis advisor would almost certainly rather some guess of the publication date than no date at all. I would note that theses generally don't have copyright dates, and do have other dates which can be inferred as publication date. So this isn't usually an issue with theses anyway. As for how it will display, that is up to the ILS, of course. One reasonable way (but hardly the only possible way) it could be displayed is: Publication date: [2011] Copyright: (c)2011 That's the way we have it set up in our catalog (Millennium, the same as you have, I believe). Steve McDonald steve.mcdon...@tufts.edu -- 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
[RDA-L] Reconciliation of RDA and MARC relators
Hello I've just come across NDMSO's MARC and RDA Relators Reconciled, http://www.loc.gov/marc/annmarcrdarelators.html, dated May. This offers a single list of relators, with MARC/RDA overlaps resolved. But I'm not clear about the status of this list. Does it mean that LC now approves the use of all the relators in it, including the ones which do not occur in Appendix I? The LC-PCC PS on I.1 still recommends the PCC guidelines, and they still require the use of terms from Appendix I. Or does it mean that the non-RDA terms will be fast-tracked into Appendix I? Or neither? I'm particularly interested in whether or when we can use 'thesis advisor'. Please can anyone elucidate? Best wishes, Bernadette *** Bernadette O'Reilly Catalogue Support Librarian Bodleian Libraries, Osney One Building Osney Mead Oxford OX2 0EW. bernadette.orei...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk 01865 2-77134 ***
Re: [RDA-L] 264 with copyright date and first published date and reprint date
Thank you, it is very helpful. Best regards Basma Chebani American University of Beirut basma.cheb...@aub.edu.lbmailto:basma.cheb...@aub.edu.lb From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joan Wang Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 4:02 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 264 with copyright date and first published date and reprint date I would consider First published date 2012 as the publication date. Reprinted date 2013 would be a manufacture date. In this case, the manufacture statement can be ignored. Anyway, if you consider it important, put a 500 note for the reprinted date. Also, for the second 264 field (with the second indicator 4), the only thing you need is sub-field c for the copyright date. As you did, put a symbol before the date. Hopefully it helps. Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Basma Chebani b...@aub.edu.lbmailto:b...@aub.edu.lb wrote: Hello, I have one a case with the following: Reprinted date 2013 First published date 2012 Copyright Robin Mansell (c)2012 (the author) I recorded them in RDA 246 as follows: 008 date type r Date 1 = 2012Date 2 = 2013 264 #1 $a Oxford : $b Oxford University Press, $c [2013] 264 #4 $a [Oxford] : $b Robin Mansell, $c (c)2012 588 ## $First published 2012 and reprinted in 2013. 020 ##9780199697052 Kindly advise Thank you Basma Chebani Head of Cataloging and Metadata Services Department University Libraries / Jafet American University of Beirut Beirut - Lebanon Tel: 961-1-35 ext.2614 basma.cheb...@aub.edu.lbmailto:basma.cheb...@aub.edu.lb -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 McDonald, Stephen Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 8:49 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 264 with only a copyright date Gene Fieg asked, regarding the inclusion of copyright date and inferred publication date in an RDA record: And how is the user supposed to make sense of this? How are thesis advisors supposed to make sense of this when checking bibliographical citations? How will it display I don't see what you think is confusing about this. The user will look for a publication date, and will find it. What is confusing about that? The same with thesis advisors. What publication date do you think thesis advisors would expect to find? This inferred publication date is only used when there is no evidence of a publication date except the copyright date. A thesis advisor would almost certainly rather some guess of the publication date than no date at all. I would note that theses generally don't have copyright dates, and do have other dates which can be inferred as publication date. So this isn't usually an issue with theses anyway. As for how it will display, that is up to the ILS, of course. One reasonable way (but hardly the only possible way) it could be displayed is: Publication date: [2011] Copyright: (c)2011 That's the way we have it set up in our catalog (Millennium, the same as you have, I believe). Steve McDonald steve.mcdon...@tufts.edumailto:steve.mcdon...@tufts.edu -- 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
[RDA-L] Position Announcement: Information Resources Coordinator, Kennedy Library, California Polytechnic State University
The Robert E. Kennedy Library has a posted a position for a Library Services Specialist IV (para-professional). The first review of applications will begin on August 30 th , but the position remains open until filled. The job description appears below. For a direct link to the position description or to apply, visit www.calpolyjobs.org to complete the required online staff application and apply to requisition #102968. POSITION DESCRIPTION Information Resources is responsible for acquiring, describing and managing new books and serials in all formats, overseeing the library collections and maintaining the data in library systems including the online catalog and OCLC. Under general supervision, reporting to the Director, Information Resources Archives this position contributes to the fulfillment of collection management services, as well as contributing to the overall services and programs of Information Resources and the Library. Primary activities of this position include supporting collection development and management activities; supervising the acquisitions, description and management of acquired and licensed resources; assisting subject librarians in collection analysis; overseeing collections projects; planning and implementing workflows for metadata needs across library units and assisting in the collection development budget process. The Library Services Specialist IV level performs the most complex paraprofessional and/or specialized library functions to support library operations and programs. Incumbents often are responsible for overseeing daily operations of (a) large or significant library unit(s), which may include directly or indirectly providing lead work direction to other library and clerical staff, as well as student workers, assigned to the unit(s). Incumbents often are involved in supporting the unit’s budgetary and/or other administration functions. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: The following examples illustrate typical work activities and are not meant to be all inclusive or restrictive: ESSENTIAL JOB FUNCTIONS Daily 90% • Develop and oversee collections projects related to the acquisition, description, processing and management of information resources in all formats. • Provide lead work direction to staff in acquisitions, cataloging and bindery operations; including assisting in employee selection, training employees in new work procedures, assigning work, organizing work flow and establishing priorities, reviewing work and providing feedback, and promoting teamwork to optimize effectiveness. • Ensure that ongoing assignments and unit projects are planned, performed and completed successfully. • Perform more complex cataloging and metadata applications and database management operations. • Create bibliographic and item records in the Library ILS using standard library utilities. • Interpret bibliographic records and resolve problems in the catalog or for staff. • Coordinate and oversee authority work in the ILS. • Coordinate and oversee bibliographic data record loads from multiple sources (Serials Solutions e-books, Marcive, etc.). • Liaise with other library units as appropriate to conduct daily operations or special projects. • Serve as the representative of the unit in project planning or other meetings or activities as assigned. • Liaise with faculty librarians as needed to conduct collections analysis and provide reports as appropriate. • Provide reports, plans and produce documentation for collections activities, procedures and policies. • Coordinate unit operating budget. • Support Director with information resource budget allocations and expenditures, reports and analytics. OTHER JOB FUNCTIONS As Needed 10% • Perform other job-related duties and special projects as assigned. • Attend training and maintain skill currency as appropriate to effectively complete assignments. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE: High School or equivalent certification plus two to three years of related library and/or clerical experience or an equivalent combination of experience and education. LICENSES, CERTIFICATES, DEGREES, CREDENTIALS: None REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS (SKAs): • Comprehensive and in-depth knowledge of library technical services operations including acquisitions, metadata and cataloging standards and practices and their relation to overall library operations. • Comprehensive and in-depth knowledge of acquisitions and cataloging department principles, policies, practices and procedures and their relationship to overall library functions and other units, and the ability to apply this expertise and judgment to address unique problems. • Thorough knowledge of the library collection itself, its organization, and classification schemes. Demonstrated expertise in creating and correcting bibliographic records. • Comprehensive knowledge of external on-line databases, systems and
[RDA-L] Manufacture statement
Hi, all I have a question about manufacture statement. Generally manufacture statement is only required if neither publication nor distribution statement is identified. Does that mean I should have two 264 fields (with like [publisher not identified] and [distributor not identified]) before the third 264 field? Or, just need a publication statement? Now I have some old books. These books only have printing information. So there could be two options. For example: 1) 264 1 $a [Illinois?] : $b [publisher not identified], $c [1860] 264 2 $a [Illinois?] : $b [distributor not identified], $c [1860?] 264 3 $a Belleville, Illinois : $b Rupp und Grimm, $c 1860. Or 2) 264 1 $a [Illinois?] : $b [publisher not identified], $c [1860] 264 3 $a Belleville, Illinois : $b Rupp und Grimm, $c 1860. I am not sure if these old books (early printed books?) would have a distributor. But I feel that I may have to take option 1. Isn't it too much work? Many thanks for your help in advance. Joan Wang -- 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] Manufacture statement
I feel that the answer should be option 1. A similar case is for copyright date. A copyright date is only required if neither date of publication nor date of distribution is identified. So far I only have seen records with two dates: a probable publication date, and a copyright date. I haven't gotten a chance to see records with three dates: a probable publication date, a probable distribution date, and a copyright date. So I assume there is no such requirement. Is that right? On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote: Hi, all I have a question about manufacture statement. Generally manufacture statement is only required if neither publication nor distribution statement is identified. Does that mean I should have two 264 fields (with like [publisher not identified] and [distributor not identified]) before the third 264 field? Or, just need a publication statement? Now I have some old books. These books only have printing information. So there could be two options. For example: 1) 264 1 $a [Illinois?] : $b [publisher not identified], $c [1860] 264 2 $a [Illinois?] : $b [distributor not identified], $c [1860?] 264 3 $a Belleville, Illinois : $b Rupp und Grimm, $c 1860. Or 2) 264 1 $a [Illinois?] : $b [publisher not identified], $c [1860] 264 3 $a Belleville, Illinois : $b Rupp und Grimm, $c 1860. I am not sure if these old books (early printed books?) would have a distributor. But I feel that I may have to take option 1. Isn't it too much work? Many thanks for your help in advance. Joan Wang -- 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] Manufacture statement
Sorry. Should be option 2. On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote: I feel that the answer should be option 1. A similar case is for copyright date. A copyright date is only required if neither date of publication nor date of distribution is identified. So far I only have seen records with two dates: a probable publication date, and a copyright date. I haven't gotten a chance to see records with three dates: a probable publication date, a probable distribution date, and a copyright date. So I assume there is no such requirement. Is that right? On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote: Hi, all I have a question about manufacture statement. Generally manufacture statement is only required if neither publication nor distribution statement is identified. Does that mean I should have two 264 fields (with like [publisher not identified] and [distributor not identified]) before the third 264 field? Or, just need a publication statement? Now I have some old books. These books only have printing information. So there could be two options. For example: 1) 264 1 $a [Illinois?] : $b [publisher not identified], $c [1860] 264 2 $a [Illinois?] : $b [distributor not identified], $c [1860?] 264 3 $a Belleville, Illinois : $b Rupp und Grimm, $c 1860. Or 2) 264 1 $a [Illinois?] : $b [publisher not identified], $c [1860] 264 3 $a Belleville, Illinois : $b Rupp und Grimm, $c 1860. I am not sure if these old books (early printed books?) would have a distributor. But I feel that I may have to take option 1. Isn't it too much work? Many thanks for your help in advance. Joan Wang -- 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 -- 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] Reconciliation of RDA and MARC relators
I saw 'degree supervisor' in RDA appendix I.2.2. 'Degree supervisor is A person overseeing a higher-level academic degree. 'Thesis advisor [ths]' is A person under whose supervision a degree candidate develops and presents a thesis, mémoire, or text of a dissertation. Are they same? On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Bernadette Mary O'Reilly bernadette.orei...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk wrote: Hello ** ** I’ve just come across NDMSO’s “MARC and RDA Relators Reconciled”, http://www.loc.gov/marc/annmarcrdarelators.html, dated May. This offers a single list of relators, with MARC/RDA overlaps resolved. ** ** But I’m not clear about the status of this list. Does it mean that LC now approves the use of all the relators in it, including the ones which do not occur in Appendix I? The LC-PCC PS on I.1 still recommends the PCC guidelines, and they still require the use of terms from Appendix I. Or does it mean that the non-RDA terms will be fast-tracked into Appendix I? Or neither? ** ** I’m particularly interested in whether or when we can use ‘thesis advisor’. ** ** Please can anyone elucidate? ** ** Best wishes, Bernadette ** ** *** Bernadette O'Reilly Catalogue Support Librarian Bodleian Libraries, Osney One Building Osney Mead Oxford OX2 0EW. bernadette.orei...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk 01865 2-77134 *** ** ** -- 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] Manufacture statement
Joan Wang posted:
264 1 $a [Illinois?] : $b [publisher not identified], $c [1860]
264 3 $a Belleville, Illinois : $b Rupp und Grimm, $c 1860.
IMNSHO this is more than enough; the 264 2 is not needed. (The
indicators are in the wrong order; a resource has to be manufactured
before it is distribution. But wrong RDA MARC order is not unique to
this; the 33X are not in general to specific order as was the original
proposal.)
We would provide 264 2 OR 264 3 if the publisher is not known; not
both. But I suspect in this case we would consider the printer to be
the publisher, and have the data you have in 264 3 as 264 1.
As you asked earlier, what makes a better display? That's a question
we too often ignor.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
