Re: [RDA-L] Uniquesss of entry
But there is another problem connected with AAPs in the form text
strings: An AAP which is unique with respect to authority file A does
not necessarily have to be unique with respect to authority file B as well.
AAPs may work reasonably well as long as data stays within the bounds of
one community. But if we want to have data exchange on a global level,
between several cataloging communities which have authority files of
their own, then I doubt it is still a valid strategy.
Heidrun
On 17.10.2013 23:05, Diane Hillmann wrote:
In a world where we need to disambiguate text strings, uniqueness is a
valid strategy. In a world where a unique identifier represents a
non-unique string in data, uniqueness at the string level becomes
irrelevant. We are [still] in the first world, but I hope not forever.
Diane
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 3:21 PM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca
mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
The marvelous Mary said:
It has been suggested that the 100$a does not need to be unique
because other data/fields supply the disambiguation information.
IMNSHO that should even more be the case for 245, even with
the loss
of the GMD. There is other disambiguation information.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca
mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing
HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__
\__
--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Uniqueness of name access points
Mac said: Benjamin said: While I agree that the access point should not serve as a unique identifier for systems, there is still the need for users to distinguish easily between identically-named entities in an index. It seems to me Benjamin is *very* right about this. Too much of our discussion ignores the end result of what we do, and its purpose. I agree that Ben has a very valid point here, but I'd like to make two comments: Firstly, I think that a prefabricated, static text string is not the only means of achieving that goal. Admittedly, it may be the easiest way for most current systems to display the content of one field only. But it's equally possible to combine information from several fields for display. Secondly, the current rules for AAPs for persons rely very heavily on dates, although in the majority of cases this information will not be of much help to our users. Granted, there are cases, where persons with the same name lived in different centuries, and then the dates should suffice. But for contemporary authors, the dates are certainly not a good criterion in helping me to decide which is the person I want. In LC Authorities, I find the following AAPs: Miller, Peter, 1934- Miller, Peter, 1936- Miller, Peter, 1937- Miller, Peter, 1940- Miller, Peter, 1940 August 2- Miller, Peter, 1943- Miller, Peter, 1943-1999 I can't say I find this particularly helpful. Giving information like profession, field of science, or country would serve much better. Compare the way Wikipedia handles disambiguation of persons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Miller In my opinion, even displaying one or two random titles connected with the person would be more help than giving just the dates. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Access points vs. cross references
Thomas posted:
100 1# $a Cunningham, E. V., $d 1914-2003.
245 10 $a Sylvia / $c by Howard Fast
700 1# $a Fast, Howard, $d 1914-2003
In earlier practice, we would have [pseud.] after Fast in the
statement of responsibility to explain why the SOR differs from the
main entry, and a cross reference from Fast to Cunningham. That makes
sense. The above just looks like a mistake.
If Fast is established as an author, and earlier editions were not
under Cunninham, why is not Fast the main entry? (I tried to check
this in the LC catalogue, but got an unexpected system error
message.) Didn't Kevin say both names would need to be on the item,
to have both in the bibliographic record. as in A wrting as B?
The above is what I thought you originally advocated. But then I
understood both you and Kevin to say that is not what was intended.
Colour be confused.
Yes, these are two bibliographic identities. But they are the same
*person*.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] edition statements
You can string them along separating one from the other by a comma 250;__; $a Updated edition, First edition. Sometime after the 2nd qtr OCLC update in 2104 you'll be able to repeat the 250 field. 250:__; $a Updated edition. 250;__; $a First edition. Guy Frost Associate Professor of Library Science Catalog Librarian Odum Library/Valdosta State University Valdosta, Georgia 31698-0150 229.259.5060 gfr...@valdosta.edu FDLP 0125 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA on behalf of Baumgarten, Richard, JCL baumgart...@jocolibrary.org Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 10:24 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] edition statements I cannot find anywhere in 2.5 about a situation where the title page says updated edition and the verso says First edition. The title was previously published. Do I record both statements or only the statement that I know to be true? Richard Baumgarten Cataloger Johnson County Library P.O. Box 2901 Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66201-1301 (913) 826-4494 baumgart...@jocolibrary.org
Re: [RDA-L] edition statements
Thanks. My instinct was to what you suggested, but I wanted to be sure. Richard Baumgarten Cataloger Johnson County Library P.O. Box 2901 Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66201-1301 (913) 495-2454 baumgart...@jocolibrary.org From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Guy Vernon Frost Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 9:49 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] edition statements You can string them along separating one from the other by a comma 250;__; $a Updated edition, First edition. Sometime after the 2nd qtr OCLC update in 2104 you'll be able to repeat the 250 field. 250:__; $a Updated edition. 250;__; $a First edition. Guy Frost Associate Professor of Library Science Catalog Librarian Odum Library/Valdosta State University Valdosta, Georgia 31698-0150 229.259.5060 gfr...@valdosta.edumailto:gfr...@valdosta.edu FDLP 0125 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 Baumgarten, Richard, JCL baumgart...@jocolibrary.orgmailto:baumgart...@jocolibrary.org Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 10:24 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] edition statements I cannot find anywhere in 2.5 about a situation where the title page says updated edition and the verso says First edition. The title was previously published. Do I record both statements or only the statement that I know to be true? Richard Baumgarten Cataloger Johnson County Library P.O. Box 2901 Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66201-1301 (913) 826-4494 baumgart...@jocolibrary.orgmailto:baumgart...@jocolibrary.org
Re: [RDA-L] Welcome back to LC
Me too, considering how much I bug them. On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 4:25 AM, Moore, Richard richard.mo...@bl.uk wrote: I’d like to welcome back our colleagues at the Library of Congress. ** ** Regards Richard Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk ** ** -- 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] edition statements
Isn't that perhaps a case of RDA 2.5.6 Designation of a Named Revision of an Edition, i.e. could it be the updated edition of the first edition? If so, then I think the solution would be First edition, updated edition, because 2.5.6 comes after 2.5.2 according to D.1.1. As far as I know, 2.5.6 isn't capitalized. The example Roads revised in 2.5.6.3 seems to be a mistake. Heidrun On 18.10.2013 16:48, Guy Vernon Frost wrote: You can string them along separating one from the other by a comma 250;__; $a Updated edition, First edition. Sometime after the 2nd qtr OCLC update in 2104 you'll be able to repeat the 250 field. 250:__; $a Updated edition. 250;__; $a First edition. Guy Frost Associate Professor of Library Science Catalog Librarian Odum Library/Valdosta State University Valdosta, Georgia 31698-0150 229.259.5060 gfr...@valdosta.edu FDLP 0125 *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA on behalf of Baumgarten, Richard, JCL baumgart...@jocolibrary.org *Sent:* Friday, October 18, 2013 10:24 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* [RDA-L] edition statements I cannot find anywhere in 2.5 about a situation where the title page says updated edition and the verso says First edition. The title was previously published. Do I record both statements or only the statement that I know to be true? Richard Baumgarten Cataloger Johnson County Library P.O. Box 2901 Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66201-1301 (913) 826-4494 baumgart...@jocolibrary.org -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Welcome back to LC
I heartily add my welcome back to everyone else's on AUTOCAT and RDA-L. As Diane Raines said, we know you are essential, and we've missed you. On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Gene Fieg gf...@cst.edu wrote: Me too, considering how much I bug them. On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 4:25 AM, Moore, Richard richard.mo...@bl.ukwrote: I’d like to welcome back our colleagues at the Library of Congress. ** ** Regards Richard Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk ** ** -- 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. -- Richard A. Stewart Cataloging Supervisor Indian Trails Library District 355 Schoenbeck Road Wheeling, Illinois 60090-4499 USA Tel: 847-279-2214 Fax: 847-459-4760 rstew...@indiantrailslibrary.org http://www.indiantrailslibrary.org/
[RDA-L] Sorry, yet more on Fictional authors
A wrinkle on languages: For the sake of non-argument, let's suppose that all animals speak the same language as the books they appear to have written are written in. (though I can imagine this is not invariably the case.) However, suppose we have a fictional author (or even a real one) who writes allegedly in a fictional language that is translated by the actual author into the language the work (ahem, expression) is manifested in. I see a piece of a subfield c this morning: Translated from the original Bombastic Should the AP for this work/expression include notation that it was originally in Bombastic? -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] edition statements
From a patron's point of view, but probably not according to the rules, would be Revised first edition, or First edition, revised. kathie Kathleen Goldfarb Technical Services Librarian College of the Mainland Texas City, TX 77539 409 933 8202 P Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Guy Vernon Frost Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 9:49 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] edition statements You can string them along separating one from the other by a comma 250;__; $a Updated edition, First edition. Sometime after the 2nd qtr OCLC update in 2104 you'll be able to repeat the 250 field. 250:__; $a Updated edition. 250;__; $a First edition. Guy Frost Associate Professor of Library Science Catalog Librarian Odum Library/Valdosta State University Valdosta, Georgia 31698-0150 229.259.5060 gfr...@valdosta.edu FDLP 0125 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA on behalf of Baumgarten, Richard, JCL baumgart...@jocolibrary.org Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 10:24 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] edition statements I cannot find anywhere in 2.5 about a situation where the title page says updated edition and the verso says First edition. The title was previously published. Do I record both statements or only the statement that I know to be true? Richard Baumgarten Cataloger Johnson County Library P.O. Box 2901 Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66201-1301 (913) 826-4494 baumgart...@jocolibrary.org
Re: [RDA-L] edition statements
That makes the most sense to me. I guess if you want to stick with the language of the subject you’d put “updated first edition” or “first edition, updated”. If you’re going to put in edition twice, it only makes sense to me to put “first edition, updated edition” as is updated edition of the first edition. “Updated edition, First edition” sounds like the 1st edition of the updated edition (of possibly another edition?) to me. Martin Kelleher Metadata Manager University of Liverpool From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Goldfarb, Kathie Sent: 18 October 2013 16:36 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] edition statements From a patron’s point of view, but probably not according to the rules, would be Revised first edition, or First edition, revised. kathie Kathleen Goldfarb Technical Services Librarian College of the Mainland Texas City, TX 77539 409 933 8202 P Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Guy Vernon Frost Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 9:49 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] edition statements You can string them along separating one from the other by a comma 250;__; $a Updated edition, First edition. Sometime after the 2nd qtr OCLC update in 2104 you'll be able to repeat the 250 field. 250:__; $a Updated edition. 250;__; $a First edition. Guy Frost Associate Professor of Library Science Catalog Librarian Odum Library/Valdosta State University Valdosta, Georgia 31698-0150 229.259.5060 gfr...@valdosta.edumailto:gfr...@valdosta.edu FDLP 0125 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 Baumgarten, Richard, JCL baumgart...@jocolibrary.orgmailto:baumgart...@jocolibrary.org Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 10:24 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] edition statements I cannot find anywhere in 2.5 about a situation where the title page says updated edition and the verso says First edition. The title was previously published. Do I record both statements or only the statement that I know to be true? Richard Baumgarten Cataloger Johnson County Library P.O. Box 2901 Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66201-1301 (913) 826-4494 baumgart...@jocolibrary.orgmailto:baumgart...@jocolibrary.org
Re: [RDA-L] edition statements
But since first edition often means first printing, only updated edition is relevant. Peter Van: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] namens Kelleher, Martin [mart...@liverpool.ac.uk] Verzonden: vrijdag 18 oktober 2013 17:51 Aan: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Onderwerp: Re: [RDA-L] edition statements That makes the most sense to me. I guess if you want to stick with the language of the subject you’d put “updated first edition” or “first edition, updated”. If you’re going to put in edition twice, it only makes sense to me to put “first edition, updated edition” as is updated edition of the first edition. “Updated edition, First edition” sounds like the 1st edition of the updated edition (of possibly another edition?) to me. Martin Kelleher Metadata Manager University of Liverpool From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Goldfarb, Kathie Sent: 18 October 2013 16:36 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] edition statements From a patron’s point of view, but probably not according to the rules, would be Revised first edition, or First edition, revised. kathie Kathleen Goldfarb Technical Services Librarian College of the Mainland Texas City, TX 77539 409 933 8202 P Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Guy Vernon Frost Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 9:49 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] edition statements You can string them along separating one from the other by a comma 250;__; $a Updated edition, First edition. Sometime after the 2nd qtr OCLC update in 2104 you'll be able to repeat the 250 field. 250:__; $a Updated edition. 250;__; $a First edition. Guy Frost Associate Professor of Library Science Catalog Librarian Odum Library/Valdosta State University Valdosta, Georgia 31698-0150 229.259.5060 gfr...@valdosta.edumailto:gfr...@valdosta.edu FDLP 0125 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 Baumgarten, Richard, JCL baumgart...@jocolibrary.orgmailto:baumgart...@jocolibrary.org Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 10:24 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] edition statements I cannot find anywhere in 2.5 about a situation where the title page says updated edition and the verso says First edition. The title was previously published. Do I record both statements or only the statement that I know to be true? Richard Baumgarten Cataloger Johnson County Library P.O. Box 2901 Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66201-1301 (913) 826-4494 baumgart...@jocolibrary.orgmailto:baumgart...@jocolibrary.org
Re: [RDA-L] edition statements
My choice in Updated edition is from 2.5.2.2 Take designations of edition from the following sources (in order of preference): a) the same source as the title proper The last part of 2.5.2.3 If more than one designation of edition is being recorded, record the statements in the order indicated by the sequence, layout, or typography of the statements on the source of information. because these are located in two places, I would keep them separate. Remember the New Paris Principle Principle of Representation. It's represented differently in two places and should be transcribed as such. Guy Frost Associate Professor of Library Science Catalog Librarian Odum Library/Valdosta State University Valdosta, Georgia 31698-0150 229.259.5060 gfr...@valdosta.edu FDLP 0125 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA on behalf of Kelleher, Martin mart...@liverpool.ac.uk Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 11:51 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] edition statements That makes the most sense to me. I guess if you want to stick with the language of the subject you'd put updated first edition or first edition, updated. If you're going to put in edition twice, it only makes sense to me to put first edition, updated edition as is updated edition of the first edition. Updated edition, First edition sounds like the 1st edition of the updated edition (of possibly another edition?) to me. Martin Kelleher Metadata Manager University of Liverpool From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Goldfarb, Kathie Sent: 18 October 2013 16:36 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] edition statements From a patron's point of view, but probably not according to the rules, would be Revised first edition, or First edition, revised. kathie Kathleen Goldfarb Technical Services Librarian College of the Mainland Texas City, TX 77539 409 933 8202 P Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Guy Vernon Frost Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 9:49 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] edition statements You can string them along separating one from the other by a comma 250;__; $a Updated edition, First edition. Sometime after the 2nd qtr OCLC update in 2104 you'll be able to repeat the 250 field. 250:__; $a Updated edition. 250;__; $a First edition. Guy Frost Associate Professor of Library Science Catalog Librarian Odum Library/Valdosta State University Valdosta, Georgia 31698-0150 229.259.5060 gfr...@valdosta.edumailto:gfr...@valdosta.edu FDLP 0125 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 Baumgarten, Richard, JCL baumgart...@jocolibrary.orgmailto:baumgart...@jocolibrary.org Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 10:24 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] edition statements I cannot find anywhere in 2.5 about a situation where the title page says updated edition and the verso says First edition. The title was previously published. Do I record both statements or only the statement that I know to be true? Richard Baumgarten Cataloger Johnson County Library P.O. Box 2901 Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66201-1301 (913) 826-4494 baumgart...@jocolibrary.orgmailto:baumgart...@jocolibrary.org
Re: [RDA-L] Access points vs. cross references - Jessica Fletcher and Donald Bain
An example which shows where the gap in AACR2/MARC is comes from a new RDA
record where Jessica Fletcher is the Creator:
Based on LCCN 2011045099:
100 1_ $a Fletcher, Jessica
245 10 $a Trouble at high tide / $c by Jessica Fletcher Donald Bain.
700 1_ $a Bain, Donald, $d 1935-
In AACR2 records, only Bain would be an access point, in the 100 field. Now
both are access points because fictitious characters are bibliographic
identities covered under the Person entity.
In identifying the main RDA entities and relationships we have:
Work: Fletcher, Jessica. Trouble at high tide
Creator: Fletcher, Jessica
Designator: author
Creator: Bain, Donald, 1935-
Designator: author
But if the resources were split the following way, with some mentioning only
Fletcher and others only mentioning Bain, then the problem is what to do with
the extra Creator relationship if a 700 field is not used.
Some resources hypothetically might have:
245 10 $a Trouble high tide / $c by Jessica Fletcher
And others might have:
245 10 $a Trouble at high tide / $c by Donald Bain
The solution from AACR2, carried forward into RDA, is the name-title reference
(variant access point in RDA) as captured in an authority record for the work:
Authority:
100 1_ $a Fletcher, Jessica. $t Trouble at high tide
400 1_ $a Bain, Donald, $d 1935- $t Trouble at high tide
But there is a gap here, since the two Creators relationships shouldn't just be
valid if the names appears in the same resource, but not valid if the names
appear alone in separate resources, with Jessica Fletcher winning the spot for
the 100 field in all records as the only access point for a Creator.
This all relates to the cumbersome burden presented by the structure of
bibliographic records and authority records. These worked well for card
catalogs, but the bibliographic record in particular is overburdened with
carrying not only manifestations data (and sometimes item data), but also much
if not all of the work or expression data, with some of that burden being
offloaded to authority records on occasion.
AACR2 covers its bases through the name-title reference from Bain, and so a 700
field for just the person Donald Bain would not be needed in a card catalog for
records when only one of the two names appears alone in the statement of
responsibility.
Carrying that forward with RDA in MARC is a problem because one can't make
Person-to-Work relationships outside of a bibliographic record. Authority
records make Person-to-Person relationships and Work-to-Work relationships
(with some flexibility, such as person-to-corporate body, for example musical
group members, etc.).
So to get the logic of RDA to work in MARC means either going without (and just
relying on ongoing conventions from AACR2 such as the variant access point for
a work), or using a kludge, such as populating bibliographic records with extra
700 fields for the other identities that have been shown to be responsible for
the work.
Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library
From: J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: October-18-13 3:03 AM
To: Brenndorfer, Thomas
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Access points vs. cross references
Thomas posted:
100 1# $a Cunningham, E. V., $d 1914-2003.
245 10 $a Sylvia / $c by Howard Fast
700 1# $a Fast, Howard, $d 1914-2003
In earlier practice, we would have [pseud.] after Fast in the
statement of responsibility to explain why the SOR differs from the
main entry, and a cross reference from Fast to Cunningham. That makes
sense. The above just looks like a mistake.
If Fast is established as an author, and earlier editions were not
under Cunninham, why is not Fast the main entry? (I tried to check
this in the LC catalogue, but got an unexpected system error
message.) Didn't Kevin say both names would need to be on the item,
to have both in the bibliographic record. as in A wrting as B?
The above is what I thought you originally advocated. But then I
understood both you and Kevin to say that is not what was intended.
Colour be confused.
Yes, these are two bibliographic identities. But they are the same
*person*.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Sorry, yet more on Fictional authors
Adger Williams asked:
Should the AP for this work/expression include notation that it was
originally in Bombastic?
Since we know this not to be true, I would limit recording it to a
quoted noted.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] edition statements
... the title page says updated edition and the verso says First
edition. The title was previously= published. Do I record both
statements or only the statement that I know = to be true?
I side with the minority on this one.
In 250 I would give the one s on the title page recto as peing the
prime source for the description. The verso statement may be a
forgotten carry over from the first printing. You could give it in a
quoted note I suppose, 500 $aFirst edition--Title page verso.
I say this even though 250 is now repeating. Having the First
edition in a 250 would be misleading I suspect.
While you might like 250 $a[First edition updated], it does not *say*
that. It will be interesting to see what the next edition, if any, is
called.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Access points vs. cross references - Jessica Fletcher and Donald Bain
Hi All, in such a situation, I'd probably chose But if the resources were split the following way, with some mentioning only Fletcher and others only mentioning Bain, then the problem is what to do with the extra Creator relationship if a 700 field is not used. Some resources hypothetically might have: 245 10 $a Trouble high tide / $c by Jessica Fletcher And others might have: 245 10 $a Trouble at high tide / $c by Donald Bain Authority: 100 1_ $a Fletcher, Jessica. $t Trouble at high tide 400 1_ $a Bain, Donald, $d 1935- $t Trouble at high tide But there is a gap here, since the two Creators relationships shouldn't just be valid if the names appears in the same resource, but not valid if the names appear alone in separate resources, with Jessica Fletcher winning the spot for the 100 field in all records as the only access point for a Creator. Fletcher for the author and make a note in the bib records that she's a pseudonym of Donald Bain. If needed (under whatever perspective I was experiencing) I might enhance the note to something such as First published in with Jessica Fletcher (a pseudonym of Donald Bain) listed as the author. Daniel -- Daniel CannCasciato Head of Cataloging Central Washington University Brooks Library Ellensburg, WA 98926 Wearing the sensible shoes proudly since 1977!
Re: [RDA-L] Access points vs. cross references - Jessica Fletcher and Donald Bain
RDA does provide for that in 18.6 when a relationship to a resource requires explanation (this is the closest in RDA to the justify the added entry concept). Of note is that most elements in 18.6 are manifestation elements. In this case that example would likely be mapped to 2.20.3 - Note on statement of responsibility, which covers attributions not named in the statement of responsibility. There is also an option in 18.6 to use 5.9 - Cataloguer's note, which is mapped to authority records for works. The main problem with using manifestation elements is that the same information may need to be repeated over and over again if there are many similar kinds of manifestations embodying that work and requiring that explanation. To avoid repetition the ideal is to record the data once-- as an attribute element for the work. The central problem continues in that bibliographic records may have to repeat information that in a relational database would only need to be recorded once as information or relationships pertaining to the common work entity. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Daniel CannCasciato [daniel.canncasci...@cwu.edu] Sent: October-18-13 2:45 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Access points vs. cross references - Jessica Fletcher and Donald Bain Hi All, in such a situation, I'd probably chose But if the resources were split the following way, with some mentioning only Fletcher and others only mentioning Bain, then the problem is what to do with the extra Creator relationship if a 700 field is not used. Some resources hypothetically might have: 245 10 $a Trouble high tide / $c by Jessica Fletcher And others might have: 245 10 $a Trouble at high tide / $c by Donald Bain Authority: 100 1_ $a Fletcher, Jessica. $t Trouble at high tide 400 1_ $a Bain, Donald, $d 1935- $t Trouble at high tide But there is a gap here, since the two Creators relationships shouldn't just be valid if the names appears in the same resource, but not valid if the names appear alone in separate resources, with Jessica Fletcher winning the spot for the 100 field in all records as the only access point for a Creator. Fletcher for the author and make a note in the bib records that she's a pseudonym of Donald Bain. If needed (under whatever perspective I was experiencing) I might enhance the note to something such as First published in with Jessica Fletcher (a pseudonym of Donald Bain) listed as the author. Daniel -- Daniel CannCasciato Head of Cataloging Central Washington University Brooks Library Ellensburg, WA 98926 Wearing the sensible shoes proudly since 1977!
[RDA-L] Fictional languages was Re: Sorry, yet more on Fictional authors
On 10/18/2013 8:35 AM, Adger Williams awilli...@colgate.edu wrote: However, suppose we have a fictional author (or even a real one) who writes allegedly in a fictional language that is translated by the actual author into the language the work (ahem, expression) is manifested in. I see a piece of a subfield c this morning: Translated from the original Bombastic Should the AP for this work/expression include notation that it was originally in Bombastic? My curiosity is piqued. What is this work? On 10/18/2013 11:37 AM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote: Since we know this not to be true, I would limit recording it to a quoted noted. I am assuming in this case that there is not actually a corpus of Bombastic that a work could be hypothetically written in and then translated from. (Is there?) But I wonder about cases like Klingon, or Quenya or Sindarin, which works have certainly been written in (and translated into). Are constructed languages treated differently than natural ones? -- Lisa Hatt Cataloging DeAnza College Library 408-864-8459
Re: [RDA-L] Access points vs. cross references - Jessica Fletcher and Donald Bain
Thomas posted:
100 1_ $a Fletcher, Jessica
245 10 $a Trouble at high tide / $c by Jessica Fletcher Donald Bain.
700 1_ $a Bain, Donald, $d 1935-
While RDA does not require it, shouldn't we have $c(Fictitious
character) added to Fletcher? The authority says Use for Fletcher,
Jessica (Fictitious character), so more revision is needed than just
adding the qualification. There are see references from her maiden
name (McGill) and with her initials (J.B.).
Since entering under Fletcher with added entry under Bain reflects the
statement of responsibility, I've to no objection, so long as the
qualification is added. If Bain were not in the SOR, I would want him
as a see also cross reference, not an added entry.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Fictional languages was Re: Sorry, yet more on Fictional authors
For what it's worth: There are already a number of artificial languages which have their own language codes (Esperanto, Interlingua, etc.), and Klingon and Sindarin both have LC class numbers (PM8415 PM8780). Wayne Richter Asian Materials Specialist/PCC Liaison The Libraries Western Washington University Bellingham, WA 98225-9103 ALCTS CC:AAM -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Lisa Hatt Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 12:51 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Fictional languages was Re: Sorry, yet more on Fictional authors On 10/18/2013 8:35 AM, Adger Williams awilli...@colgate.edu wrote: However, suppose we have a fictional author (or even a real one) who writes allegedly in a fictional language that is translated by the actual author into the language the work (ahem, expression) is manifested in. I see a piece of a subfield c this morning: Translated from the original Bombastic Should the AP for this work/expression include notation that it was originally in Bombastic? My curiosity is piqued. What is this work? On 10/18/2013 11:37 AM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote: Since we know this not to be true, I would limit recording it to a quoted noted. I am assuming in this case that there is not actually a corpus of Bombastic that a work could be hypothetically written in and then translated from. (Is there?) But I wonder about cases like Klingon, or Quenya or Sindarin, which works have certainly been written in (and translated into). Are constructed languages treated differently than natural ones? -- Lisa Hatt Cataloging DeAnza College Library 408-864-8459
Re: [RDA-L] Access points vs. cross references - Jessica Fletcher and Donald Bain
Carrying that forward with RDA in MARC is a problem because one can't make Person-to-Work relationships outside of a bibliographic record. Authority records make Person-to-Person relationships and Work-to-Work relationships (with some flexibility, such as person-to-corporate body, for example musical group members, etc.). Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library Thomas, Person to work and person to expression relationships are now regularly being made in authority records. Robert Maxwell has been a big proponent of them, but many NACO libraries are doing this now. See for example these authorities: no2012088804 100 1_ Card, Orson Scott. $t Ender's game. $l Portuguese $s (Angelo) 500 1_ $i Translator: $a Angelo, Carlos $w r no2012084450 100 1_ Tolstoy, Leo, $c graf, $d 1828-1910. $t Anna Karenina. $l English $s (Wiener) 500 1_ $i Translator: $a Wiener, Leo, $d 1862-1939 $w r no2013104854 130 _0 Bananas (Motion picture : 1971) 500 1_ $i Film director: $a Allen, Woody, $d 1935- $w r 500 1_ $i Screenwriter: $a Allen, Woody, $d 1935- $w r 500 1_ $i Screenwriter: $a Rose, Mickey $w r no2013058353 130 _0 Moon pilot (Motion picture) 500 1_ $i Film director: $a Neilson, James, $d 1918-1979 $w r 500 1_ $i Film producer: $a Disney, Walt, $d 1901-1966 $w r 510 2_ $i Production company: $a Walt Disney Productions $w r no2013000111 100 1_ Boismortier, Joseph Bodin de, $d 1689-1755. $t Sonatas, $m flutes (3), continuo, $n op. 34. $n No. 1; $o arranged $s (Dassonville) 500 1_ $i Arranger of music: $a Dassonville, Jean-Christophe $w r no2013063173 100 1_ Lauper, Cyndi, $d 1953- $t Kinky boots 500 1_ $i Composer: $a Lauper, Cyndi, $d 1953- $w r 500 1_ $i Lyricist: $a Lauper, Cyndi, $d 1953- $w r 500 1_ $i Librettist: $a Fierstein, Harvey, $d 1954- $w r In OCLC Connexion, you can do a keyword search of the authority file using the Relationship (rx:) index. If you search on the designator translator you get 1,262 records. This is the most common designator being used in the 5XX fields as best as I can tell. But as can be seen above, others are also being used. Adam Schiff ** * 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 * **
[RDA-L] Friday afternoon humor
Just had to share this record I happened to stumble on this afternoon. Could this be the height of stupidity?: OCLC #851563377 110 2_ Original Broadway Cast. 245 10 Kinky boots $h [sound recording] / $c Original Broadway Cast. 300[United States] : $b Masterworks Broadway, $c 2013. 511 1 Cyndi Lauper. Cyndi Lauper was the composer of this musical; she isn't a performer on the recording. But the 110 has just got to be the most precious and erroneously made up corporate body I've seen in a long time! I've reported it to OCLC to clean up. ^^ 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 ~~
