From: May, Laura [laura@lac-bac.gc.ca]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 3:54 PM
To: Technical Services Interest Group
Subject: [tsig-l] US National Libraries RDA Test and report June 2011 /
/ Essai et rapport RDA des bibliotheques nationales des - Juin 20
The result of the US national librarie
http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/alcts/confevents/past/ala/annual/04/Tillett.pdf
In the fourth slide of this FRBR presentation, materials listed to be
catalogued include:
What Are We Cataloging?
Library collections
- Books
- Serials
- Maps, globes, etc
- Manuscripts.
Steven Arakawa said:
>library cataloging focuses on the content as modeled by the FRBR
>WEMI. You catalog the e-book, not the Kindle reader.
This is as far from patron needs and expectations as considering a
work with added features (introduction, notes, index) as containing
two works: the origin
[Crossposted]
The MRIs: an inexpensive antidote to RDAJuly 1 2011
The Rules for description and access (RDA) have been constructed over
many years and at considerable expense. We believe that large
expenditure of money (derived from the large profits made by AACR2
that could ha
Steven Arakawa said:
>In basing the catalog record on the manifestation, the carrier
>elements must be included, but in the library model, the
>work/expression is primary.
You are forgetting the electronic readers circulated for patrons to
load what they wish, from library resources, from the pub
Mark Ehlert said of the experimental RDA record for the MRIs:
>The 300 $a in the MARC record for the MRIs doesn't match the
>instructions under MRI 9.5B1, unless I'm reading it wrong. "Digital
>file(s)" is used for direct access (local physical) resources, but the
>record is built for a remote-ac
[As posted to Autocat]
The SLC cheat sheets have undergone extensive revision, and new ones
have been added. Any who have downloaded them, or received copies
from me, should replace them.
Unlike the MRIs, the cheat sheets do not require a user account. You
may tick the ones you wish to have e-m
[Cross posted]
Several have asked about MARC coding of MRI records.
AARR2 does not address MARC coding, so neither do the MRIs.
Since the MRIs follow most of the major provisions of RDA, including
choice and form of entry, and spelled out abbreviations, we suggest
MARC coding LDR/18 = i, inclus
>Nowhere does it say what "MRI" means not here nor on the site.
>Assuming this isn't a medical procedure, can someone provide the
>translation?
"MRI" is a pun on Michael's part; the "M" represents Michael/Mac.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Li
Bernhard said:
>Your MRI business with Michael Gorman is a stroke of genius ...
There is no one whose comments I would value more.
>However, and I'm not sure how big an 'however' this is, your approach
>is an updating of AACR2 whereas RDA is a new approach with more
>theoretical potential than A
Thanks for the offlist suggestions.
AACR2 does not address MARC coding, so neither do the MRIs. Since the
MRIs follow most of the major provisions of RDA, including choice and
form of entry, and spelled out abbreviations, we suggest MARC coding
LDR/18 = i, inclusion of 040$beng (or other language
Mark said:
>What about 040 $e rda $e local, with a 588 note (reading the latter's
>scope and definition broadly)?
Yes, 040$e is repeating; 040$erda$emri? No need for 588?
But I would favour keeping it simple for the sake of those of us
writing programs to import, display, and export RDA records.
Mark helpfully pointed out:
>Differentiating qualifiers for personal names in the MRIs are preceded
>by a comma (22.19), whereas in RDA--at least within the context laid
>out in its own appendices--they are enclosed in parentheses (9.19;
>Appendix E.1). And the MRIs retain "pages of music" (5.5B1
Autocators and RDA-Listers:
If you notice any differences between provisions of RDA and the MRIs,
which are not noted at the bottom of the MRI, please let me know.
The MRI will be edited to conform with RDA, or a note added.
Some qualitative differences will remain, e.g., justification of added
Any word concerning progress on the tasks assigned by the US national
libraries before RDA would be implemented?
Among those tasks, has Michael Gorman or any other *single* word
crafter been assigned to rewrite directions in "simple" English?
What body is charged with making "progress" on a r
Hal Cain said:
>In her invention of MARC, I don't recall that Henriette Avram paused
>to consult stakeholders...
She did in fact invite cataloguers down from the National Library of
Canada (as it was then called), and they rejected whole thing as pie
in the sky. The University of Toronto then p
Karen Coyle said:
>
> Hamlet. French
>
>Hamlet. French
>
>or even
>
>Shakespeare...etc. Hamlet. French
In MARC, the language would be subfield coded, so I suspect at least
as much granularity would be needed in an HTLM schema.
One difficulty with the term "access point"
>From Karen Coyle's http://kcoyle.net/rda/RDAinXML.html
>LC control no.: 87211501
>Type of material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.)
In RDA, this would be: text, unmediated, volume
Personal name: Omescu, Ion.
Uniform title: Hamlet. French
This would be the uniform titl
>LC control no.: 87211501
[snip]
ISBN: 2130401309
Sorry, I should have remaked that in an international environment,
if both LCCN and ISBN can not be displayed at the top, ISSN is more
important.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Specia
James said:
>In the best scenario, it seems this should be something like:
>
>
>
>Shakespeare
Shakespeare did not write the critique. His play is the subject.
>Hamlet
this is not the original title of the critique, unless you mean the
title minus the alternate title.
>Also, there could be dif
Karen Coyle said:
>I haven't figured out what to do with the LCCN -- it's a related
>metadata record ...
Yes, the LCCN identifies the bibliographic record, not the
manifestation. We have great difficulty getting clients to understand
the differenence between a manifesation identifier (ISBN, IS
Peter Rolla said:
>CC:DA does currently have a task force that is looking at RDA chapter
>3 ("Describing Carriers") and trying to formulate new ways to make
>the physical description data more machine-actionable.
Wouldn't the simplest solution be to handle it in MARC (or its
replacement) in the s
Gernhard Eversberg posted to RDA-L:
> http://www.allegro-c.de/db/a30/bl.htm
Thank you. Your skill in making resources available is remarkable.
Am I correct that there is no MARC display available?
I'm copying to Autocat, so that the resource will be more widely known.
__ __ J. M
In article <4e38ebe3.5090...@biblio.tu-bs.de>, you wrote:
>OK, for what it's worth and for good measure, I've added that in;
>no big deal since we've got what it takes.
Bless your sweet heart.
Did you notice the not for "commercial purposes" in the BL posting? We
are not even going to ask. No m
http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/home/891482-264/cataloging_community_galvanized_as_u.s..csp
>
It says:
"However, the JSC will no longer update AACR2. So continuing to use these
rules does not remain a viable long term option."
This does not preclude others doing so. The most widely used rule
> http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/home/891482-264/cataloging_community_galvanized_as_u.s..csp
Bernhard did an excellent job pointing out lacuna in the LJ article,
but he did not mention the statement I found most irritating.
The author maintains (as have many) that RDA is better than AACR2 for
n
Bernhard said:
>But seriously, XML is certainly inadequate as a medium for data input
>and editing. A software interface will have to shield the raw XML
>entirely from the view of catalogers.
Exactly. MARC is a shorthand - so much easier to say 130 and 240 than
to give them verbal names.
XML
RDA "2.1.2.2 --> Overview
"Resource Issued as a Single Unit
"When preparing a comprehensive description for a resource issued as a
single unit (e.g., a textbook in one volume), choose a source of
information identifying the resource as a whole*. If there is no
source of informat
Bernhard said:
>One more reason, one might think, to get rid of MARC ASAP.
>Not really, though. Firstly, because it is utterly unrealistic,
>and second. because MARC is flexible enough to be used in
>new software applications that do new tricks with the old
>stuff AND are able to deal with some ne
Thomas said:
>Kits come up as an example again in 2.1.2.3, since kits would tend to
>be characterized as multipart resources not single unit resources.
You've put your finger on why we had such difficulty doing an
intelligible record for a kit using RDA. A kit is a single item,
often the only m
Karen said:
>It is easy to find records for translations that do not have a uniform
>title for the original.
Our smaller clients strongly object to a 240 for translations,
particularly if the foreign language text is not on the title page;
they say it confuses patrons. We change the 240 to to
I said:
>Our smaller clients strongly object to a 240 for translations ...
I should have added they are not very fond of 130s either,
particularly when the 130 says "(motion picture)" and the 245 says
"[videorecording]". They say patrons see it as a contradiction.
They will accept 130s for Bi
James said:
>The simple fact is: it is very difficult to claim on the one hand that
>the tasks users need to be able to do are defined by FRBR, i.e. find,
>identify, etc. *works, expressions, manifestation, and items* and they
>say that the uniform titles are not needed. FRBR is absolutely base
Since one of the conditions set by the US national libraries for
implementation of RDA was rewording in simple English, why are
constituent cataloguing committees still working on rule wording
revisions, revisions which are often not amplifications?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc
Karen said:
>We have a lot of information, collectively, that shouldn't have to be
>re-done by every cataloger.
This was one of the objectives of the UK PRECIS. It was a disaster.
The mismatches some put down to the ambiguities of language, others to
the complexity of the bibliographic unive
Karen said:
>It *may* be possible to shoe-horn those activities into the FRBR-4,
>but I think that would be artificial.
*Very* well put. Thank you.
>The catalog should be part of a whole range of services outside of a
?catalog search. That requirement *could* require changes to
>*catalogin
Kevin said:
>But a tool can only use what is there for it to use. Data that
>aren't sufficiently atomized are not going to be able to work as well
...
Our present tools don't *begin* to use the atomization our present
date contains. Perhaps it is the tools which need our attention?
__
As posted to Autocat:
http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ACOC-2.pdf
Please contact your own country's cataloguing committee to urge strong
support of this proposed RDA option to add jurisdiction to city of
publication, if lacking from item.
This would remove one of the major differences between RD
As posted to Autocat:
NCSU's written RDA text directions are clear and in most cases wise, but:
https://staff.lib.ncsu.edu/confluence/display/MNC/RDA+Test#RDATest-NCSURDATrainingDocumentation
We would disagree with the absence of a unit name in collation for
an incomplete resource. We think the
https://staff.lib.ncsu.edu/confluence/display/MNC/Kindle+eBook+Cataloging+for+the+RDA+Test
NCSU during the RDA test used RDA provider neutral records for Kindle
e-books.
This would usually work for individual e-books loaded to patrons'
Kindles, but how would this work for preloaded Kindles circul
James said:
>This is to let people know that the Cooperative Cataloging Rules Wiki
>has been updated to include links to all of the MRIs written by Michael
>Gorman and J. McRee Elrod, who has made them available through SLC.
The MRIs are currently being edited to correct some numberi
Erin of NCSU said in resonse to my comments about their documentation:
>Our support staff consult AACR2 directly much less frequently than
>any of us would like to admit ...
Same here. Our 20 catalogues tend to use the cheat sheets on our
website (available to all), and Procedures unique to each
Thomas said:
>To make justification of added entries a requirement one could make
>RDA 18.6 a core element. RDA 18.6 is the instruction for adding
>explanations regarding attribution.
It would also be needed, I think, to restore a relationship between
transcription of authors, and tracing. At pr
Casey Mullin posted:
>24510 $c ... ; [commentary by Joe Smith].
>or
>500 __Commentary by Joe Smith.
>plus >7001_Smith, Joe, $e writer of added commentary.
>
>..is completely redundant to the user
But according to the LCPS, that $e was not to be supplied during the
test, and was not by most te
>J. McRee Elrod wrote:
>> But according to the LCPS, that $e was not to be supplied during the
>> test...
>
>There is no such LCPS.
It was in the LC documentation for the test. whatever initials with which
you are most comfortable.
We have seen few $e relator terms apart f
Adam Schiff said:
>These LCPSs simply tell LC catalogers that they MUST use a
>relationship designator for illustrators contributing to children's
>resources. They don't forbid the catalogers from using other relationship
>designators. There were no LCPSs that disallowed the use of other
>de
Karen, you asked:
>Mac, can you give more info on difficulties caused ...
Go to various OPACs and search by any prolific author. In some you
will see the person's names displayed once, with titles alphabetically
following. The name displayed is from the 100 or 700 of the first
title listed. I
Thomas said:
>The Preferred Name for the Person element is not a static element,
YES. Seymour Lubetsky's omission of 245 /$c when the same as 1XX came
back to bite us in the a$$ when those 1XX's changed their corporate
names, got married. or changed their gender. Ditto "The Office" and
such in
James said:
> I just wish someone would actually demonstrate what would be the impact
>on the public of adding the relator codes ...
One subject I see little addressed is the inconsistency between legacy
and new records, not to mention the inconsistency is adding relator codes
in the absence of
Casey Mullin said:
>The example I cited in my original post was intended to
>show a straightforward example of redundant entry.
But if the form of name in the entry changes, having transcribed the
form on the item is no longer redundant.
SLC made quite a bit of money in early days of automating
Casey Mullin said:
>Jim, you raise an interesting point with regards to the different
>functions of the 245c and the 700.
Sometimes the form in the 245/$c will differ from the form in 7XX.
Sometimes the difference arises after the record is created, and can
not be anticipated.
Transcribing a
Kevin Randall said:
>Do you actually have any kind of an idea of what solutions are the correct
>ones, then? Continually saying that every solution being offered is the
>wrong one, but never hinting at the right one, isn't really helping.
Kevin, I know you were addressing James, but justifyin
When SLC began cataloguing for small special libraries in January,
1979, we very quickly began to receive complaints about serial
records.
"If we keep only the current issue/year/volume, why should be care who
published the first issue in the middle of the last century?"
"What use is this record
>Could anybody spare a moment to give >me the executive summary of
>what's going on with RDA since February?
The three US national libraries (LC, NLM, NAL), have announced that
RDA will not be implemented before January 2013. Prior to
implementation, conditions must be met. The most demanding o
Thanks to recent Autocat and RDA-L posts, the MRIs concerning
music collation have been revised.
The SMDs (unit names) "manuscript score" and particular instrument
scores, e.g., "organ score" have been suggested even though not
explicitly allowed by RDA.
The RDA "1 score (xx, 55 p.)" is less exac
I've just been told that the expansion of the meaning of "score" was
approved by JSC for AACR2, but never distributed.
Has anything been done about expanding the AACR2 meaning of "kit"?
Increasingly in education there are kits with bits and pieces to put
together or manipulted to demonstrate th
Julie said:
>So what would we call these things that have many pieces to put together ...
>In AACR2, I'm going to use the GMD [model].
To me "model" implies a static three dimensional form, although some
anatomy models have organ which can be removed. But once you have
pieces which can be used
Julie said:
>In RDA, I am not sure what I would do with it!
Julie raises a very valid concern. The loss of GMD is serious. Also,
the word "object" no more conveys the nature of a kit resource than
"realia".
For those clients who wish to have something in the GMD position, we
plan to export [33
Julia said:
>Not all unmediated media would be a kit ...
Certainly not. Unmediated media includes, in addition to "kit"
and "large print" which we have added:
Unmediated carriers
card
equipment
flipchart
[kit]
[large print]
object
roll
sheet
volume
Until overtaken by e-books, it was the mo
Julie proposed:
>*"(3)* *:* a set of parts to be assembled or worked up ...
Which seems to describe what you have been calling [realia]. Seems
you would be better advised to follow the Webster as opposed to the
too limited AACR2 definition.
>To make it more cataloger-friendly, I'd suggest verbi
Mark asked:
>Here's the first question that comes to my sleep-deprived mind: is a
>kit a kind of *carrier*?
Why not? The resources usually come in a container after all.
But then I was born and raised in a culture in which one "carried" a
date to a dance.
It seems to me a kit is a physical for
Thomas Brenndorfer said:
>Terms like "kit" or "multimedia" as blanket terms seem like the term
>"polyglot" which was removed in RDA ...
Granted "kits" is a collective term, but a kit is more than the sum
of its parts, and describing the parts individually does not meet
patron needs, nor reflect
Thomas Brenndorder quoted Julie:
>I am about to catalog a Weight Box, which consists of a wooden box
>with 6 pairs of wooden cylinders ...
This kit fits the AACR2 definition of "realia" no more than it does
the one for "kit". It is a real what? It's not a rock, telephone, or
what have you. The
Karen said:
>As a non-cataloger, the term "kit" is not very meaningful to me.
When you purchase a box with bits and pieces for a child to make a
model airplane, boat, or car, what do you call it? What do you call
that thing with tools in it in the boot of your car? What do you call
the thing w
Karen said:
>I think the user probably wants a single expression that gives her an
>idea of what the resource is.
Absolutely true, and also true if the user is a man :-{)}. The Jean
Riddle Weish GMD survey established that, but the writers of RDA
ignored this important finding.
A difficulty s
Hal said:
>As for kits per se, I'm too far from the scene of the action to have
>any clear view. But I'm quite sure the technology (and the data
>structure) needs to make it simple and straightforward to move between
>component and containing resource ...
UK MARC's field 248 does that beau
Thomas said:
>For the purposes of describing and labeling the object, other fields
>can be used-- the title being the most obvious place.
The unit name (used for counting extent) can be more exact than the
388 carrier term, e.g., kit (if not added as a carrier), DVD, Kobo
electronic reader. Yes,
The MRI has been revised to remove "large print" from carrier, and add
"large print text" to content. This seems to me to be as distinctive
a content as "tactile text".
We still hope for RDA revisions to add this and other needed terms,
e.g., kit and equipment.
Thanks for your comments and advic
Julie said:
>A ... speaking of tactile text, last week, I cataloged a set of
>TouchMath Touch2Learn texture cards.
It's good to know there is textile text other than Braille, a term
more familiar to patrons I suspect.
Your RDA media terms seem right to me: tactile text, unmediated, card.
Bu
Julie asked:
>What's MRI?!
It's a pun created by Michael Gorman: Michael/Mac Rule Interpretations.
The account required to access them is free.
http://special-cataloguing.com/mris
They are rule interpretations of AACR2r (of which Michael was editor)
which allow AACR2's familiar organization
Are you all getting these for messages you post to RDA-L?
Any way of unsubscribing j.ordering?
Hal, do you know what happened to her/him? Australia being so small
afterall :-{)}.
Mac
Forwarded message
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 08:24:34 +1000
From: "Mail Delivery System"
To:
Su
I typoed:
>It's good to know there is *textile* text other than Braille, a term
>more familiar to patrons I suspect.
*tactile* text of course. With some typos, spell check is no help.
But it should have gotten "pring" for "print"!
This reminds me of a question I have about many of RDA's media
Jonathan said:
>There might be 4 366's and only 2 367's ...
If the same 338 carrier term applies to several 336 content terms, or
if two carriers are of the same 337 media type, it seems strange to
repeat the same terms in multiple instances of the same field.
Our programmer prefers repeating $a
Johnathan said:
>I'm not sure -- what is it meant to accomplish? What information does
>'kit' capture or convey that isn't captured by Thomas' suggestion for
>how to record?
It tells the patron what the resource is, in language the patron can
understand. But this seems less and less the goal
Thomas said:
>"Large print" is a manifestation-level term. It's an attribute of the
>carrier and not the content type.
You've lost me. How does large print text differ from tactile text as
content? Either may convey the same work.
>"The boundaries of the entity expression are defined, however
Johathan said:
>Experience shows that you can encode these in an internally
>consistent way, OR you can encode them in a way >that makes sense to
>users, but you can't really do both ...
Isn't this why MARC has fixed fields and variable fields? So that the
fixed fields make sense to the compute
Erin suggested:
>So, I'd be curious if anyone has asked users what they would call these
>things. Can I suggest that someone (Julie?!?) run a small survey or
>focus group and ask their users whether they understand the word "kit"
>in the library context.
Excellent suggestion. While I appre
Jonathan said:
>The basic problem to me is inability to relate the 336-337-338 pair,
>when there are multiples ones in a record.
Yes. Let's ignore the useless 337, which does reduce it to a pair
from a triad.
One rather than three fields with the carrier and content in subfields
would relate
Jonathan said:
>Rather than say 'fixed fields are meant for the computer, variable
>fields for direct display and/or indexing', I think it probably makes
>sense to distinguish between transcribed fields, and fields whose
values >are taken from a finite controlled vocabulary.
Happy to see you exem
Karen said:
>Except that I've been told, off list, that there is not accepted set
>of text that they would be summarized to, nor any crosswalk from GMD
>to 336/7/8.
Retrospective Introduction of 336 Content, 337 Media type, and 338
Carrier, with removal of 245|hGMD
If LDR/07 = a or s; 008/2
Karen quoted Julia:
> I am not wed to "kit" as a term. If people think "set" ...
Too me, "set"in the library context means a multivolume monograph,
as in a set of encyclopedias.
And then asked:
>Would you use the GMD "kit" if the title of the thing already had
>"kit" in it?
Yes. Such redun
Based on discussion here, I've sent this message to the MARC
e-list.
Mac
Forwarded message
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:20:22 -0700
From: m...@slc.bc.ca (J. McRee Elrod)
To: m...@loc.gov
Subject: Media terms for kits
The has been a discussion on the RDA-L which has relevan
Thomas said:
>A carrier could have several content types, and the subfields are repeatable
>(as long as they are all from the same $2 vocabulary)
Which is true (my examples were just examples), adds to the
complexity, and the need for "mixed" and "kit", or coding the three
terms in a single field
Thomas said:
>So this would work for a kit:
>
>336 $a text $a moving image $a spoken word
>337 $a unmediated $a video $a audio
>338 $a volume $a videodisc $a audio disc
This is *vastly* superior to the multiple 336-338 fields suggested
heretofore. The order in the three fields implies a relation
Thomas said:
>People may be disgruntled when being offered a large print
>alternative ...,
>That's totally different from English text vs Braille. Substitute a
>Braille book when someone requests a title, and the response I think
>will be quite different ...
But no different than a vision handi
Some object to providing jurisdiction after city of publication if
lacking in RDA as a step back from representing the item as it is.
I've seen no objection to providing the city in brackets if that is
lacking. Is that not an equal departure from describing the it as it
appears?
__
Cross posted to Autocat and RDA-L
RDA supplying jurisdictional qualification of city in imprint should
have only one condition: absence from the prime source. There should
be no "if considered ...".
Jurisdictional qualification has two functions: to distinguish between
identical place names (e.g
[Cross posted to Autocat and RDA-L]
The arguments against RDA providing jurisdiction after city name if
lacking in the source continue to surprise me.
One is "slipper slope": How is providing jurisdiction only when
lacking, more of a "slipper slope" than proving city and jurisdiction
when both ar
The co-publishers of RDA have issued a statement concerning the
rewriting (sorry, copy editing) of RDA which says in part:
"The CoP has authorized ALA Publishing, on behalf of the Co-Publishers
of RDA, to engage a copy editor. The copy editor will improve the
readability and comprehensibility of t
Was it Karen who asked about RDA media terms relation to AACR2 GMDs?
These are the GMDs we will be offering to insert in RDA records, based
on 338 carrier, for clients who can not change from 336-338 display
between collation and series.
If exporting AACR2 GMDs in RDA records:
If 338 is:
Karen asked:
>Yes, I did ask, and thanks. Given that there are GMDs that are not
>listed here, could they be derived from 336-337 or a combination? Or
>are some simply not covered by the RDA terms?
GMDs not listed, we've never had occasion to use. If they were
needed, we would, as you say, n
Thomas Brendorfer said:
>337 audio -- GMD sound recording
>337 computer -- GMD electronic resource
>337 microform -- GMD microform
>337 video -- GMD videorecording
Yes, but 338 is core and 337 is optional. Can we count on 337 always
being present?
There is also the problem, as you mention, of
Sharron Zuodar said:
>I would rather do an extraction search on "336 $a moving image"
>rather than trying to include multiple subfield $a searches in case
>the data I wanted was in the second, third or fourth subfield $a.
I don't know about your software, but in the SLC OPAC, one simply
selects t
Jeffrey Trimble on the Bibframe e-list made the following proposal for
creating a Super MARC, which would have the advantages of present MARC
(including language neutrality), provide for expanded content, and
allow an easy crosswalk for legacy records.
"1. Record Length. We'll need to adjust the
[Cross posted]
The more I think of Jeffrey's idea of Super MARC, having four digit
field tags, three indicators, and two letter subfield codes, the
better I like it.
It would allow multiple fields for the present 006, 007, and 008, so
that the same byte in the same filed need not have different m
Jonathan Rochkind said:
>If you are changing the MARC format in non-backwards-compatible ways
>anyway why would you choose a 'binary' format relying on byte
>offsets (something few formats invented since the 1980s have done),
>instead of a more modern XML or JSON based format?
Our experie
Karen said:
>I know that you are enthusiastic about retaining MARC as our format,
>but before we can determine what fields and indicators it will need we
>need to know what data elements we will be carrying, and what uses we
>intend to make of them.
At the moment, are we not assuming RDA d
James said:
>Plus, how a specific database/catalog wants to store its information
>internally is a matter of practically no concern to catalogers ...
It very much becomes a concern for cataloguers, if the ILS can not
export a version of the record acceptable to another ILS when system
migration
Ed Jones posted:
>Of course, if "(work)" and "(expression)" are not intrinsic parts of
>the RDA relationship designators, then the problem disappears.
It will be interesting to see "authoritative" insights.
Our assumption is that for those using RDA $i (which we will not), it
replaces the funct
Kevin said:
>HOWEVER, the relationship designators are not necessarily the labels
>that will be used for the relationships in public displays.
This is the same answer I get when I object that some of the RDA
content, media type, and carrier terms are misleading (e.g., computer
for electronic), or
401 - 500 of 1830 matches
Mail list logo
