Re: [RDA-L] Some more examples of qualified conventional collective titles
Adam, We're so old-fashioned we still have cataloguing staff looking at the LC records. We find adequate reasons to do so. Along with catching various infelicities, we add our local practice at this point. On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.eduwrote: Who does the removing? In our workflow, LC copy goes through a quick cataloging process in Acquisitions Rapic Cataloging Division, and never sees the eyes of complex copy or original cataloger. That is, most of these records are processed either by machine or by student workers. Do you go back and find them later and delete them? In any case, that would not work for us because our catalog records are based on the master record in OCLC and whatever is there is the data that comes into our shared consortial catalog. Any changes made by anyone in OCLC to a record we have holdings on will be propagated into our consortial catalog, so to get rid of CCTs we'd have to delete them in the OCLC master record, and should someone put them back in, we'd get them right back. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries On Fri, 20 Dec 2013, Adger Williams wrote: Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 08:37:18 -0500 From: Adger Williams awilli...@colgate.edu Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some more examples of qualified conventional collective titles Aren't conventional collective titles really Form/Genre headings? (Poems. Selections, vs. Essays Selections, vs. Works Selections) Would they not serve their function less confusingly if we treated them that way? FWIW, my institution has been removed CCTs from LC records ever since the abandonment of the AACR2 rule about distinctive titles. Very seldom does it require more than a moment's thought. On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Bernhard Eversberg e...@biblio.tu-bs.de wrote: Am 20.12.2013 13:37, schrieb Heidrun Wiesenm?ller: I think the interesting point to note is that not everything which consists of several works by the same person is in fact a compilation of works. Rather, in the case of... This is the sort of casuistry we've never envied AACR users for. Let's get serious about the A aspect in RDA and treat titles as such, as titles, always, because end-users will always search for those titles because they find them cited as such, and noch concocted and perturbed in ways they'd never imagine. Add conventional collected titles at leisure (if you find any), or rather use machine-actionable codes wherever possible, but leave the titles alone. If we can't get away from the old spirit of cataloging that was based on unit descriptions on 3x5 cards and on filing rules that were not even part of AACR, then RDA is really a waste of time and will create more nuisance than usefulness. B.Eversberg To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the address you are subscribed under to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca In the body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the address you are subscribed under to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca In the body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L ^^ 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 ~~ To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the address you are subscribed under to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca In the body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the address you are subscribed under to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca In the body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L
Re: [RDA-L] Some more examples of qualified conventional collective titles
Aren't conventional collective titles really Form/Genre headings? (Poems. Selections, vs. Essays Selections, vs. Works Selections) Would they not serve their function less confusingly if we treated them that way? FWIW, my institution has been removed CCTs from LC records ever since the abandonment of the AACR2 rule about distinctive titles. Very seldom does it require more than a moment's thought. On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Bernhard Eversberg e...@biblio.tu-bs.dewrote: Am 20.12.2013 13:37, schrieb Heidrun Wiesenmüller: I think the interesting point to note is that not everything which consists of several works by the same person is in fact a compilation of works. Rather, in the case of... This is the sort of casuistry we've never envied AACR users for. Let's get serious about the A aspect in RDA and treat titles as such, as titles, always, because end-users will always search for those titles because they find them cited as such, and noch concocted and perturbed in ways they'd never imagine. Add conventional collected titles at leisure (if you find any), or rather use machine-actionable codes wherever possible, but leave the titles alone. If we can't get away from the old spirit of cataloging that was based on unit descriptions on 3x5 cards and on filing rules that were not even part of AACR, then RDA is really a waste of time and will create more nuisance than usefulness. B.Eversberg To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the address you are subscribed under to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca In the body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the address you are subscribed under to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca In the body of the message: SIGNOFF RDA-L
[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] RDA 6.2.2.10
snip For collocation purposes, there should eventually be other methods than text strings anyway. Namely, and ideally, a link to a work record. Then, it would become immaterial what kind of verbal designation we add to it to become intelligible for the human reader. Only just don't display that in a space where anyone expects a title. snip Actually, since these are collective titles for collections of works, I am not quite sure to what kind of entity Bernard's link would point. It wouldn't be to a single work record; it could be to some kind of collective entity or to a position in a genre/form index or to something else probably. On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Bernhard Eversberg e...@biblio.tu-bs.dewrote: Am 08.10.2013 08:27, schrieb Heidrun Wiesenmüller: Could we perhaps solve these problems by clearly distinguishing between the title of the work on the one hand and the mechanism for collocation on the other? There should be no excuse to record in a title field something that is not a title. This is a most important A aspect, not just some D aspect, like most of the topics raised and ruminated here. For collocation purposes, there should eventually be other methods than text strings anyway. Namely, and ideally, a link to a work record. Then, it would become immaterial what kind of verbal designation we add to it to become intelligible for the human reader. Only just don't display that in a space where anyone expects a title. B.Eversberg -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Uniqueness of titles proper
impossible to have a unique title for every work.
This demonstrates why we we the MRIs as opposed to the Toolkit.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Adger Williams
Colgate University Library
315-228-7310
awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Fictitious characters as authors
Or perhaps, Beedle|c(Bard: Fictitious Character)? On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 12:33 PM, rball...@frontier.com rball...@frontier.com wrote: I know that RDA now allows fictitious characters to serve as authorized access points. The book The tales of Beedle the Bard was originally entered under the author J.K. Rowling. The cover shows Rowling's name alone. The title page, however, reads: The tales of Beedle the Bard / translated from the ancient runes by Hermoine Granger ; commentary by Albus Dumbledore ; introduction, notes and illustrations by J.K. Rowling. Should the AAP now be under Granger rather than Rowling, with additional access points for Dumbledore and Rowling? Thanks in advance. Kevin Roe Supervisor, Media Processing Fort Wayne Community Schools 1511 Catalpa St. Fort Wayne IN 46802 -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] WEMI and Bibframe
Surely, the difference between an original and its translation is a
difference that is a useful to everyone, and the difference between formats
of presentation is clearly a useful difference also, but it doesn't seem to
me that they are the same kind of difference or, at least, not always so.
I'm not sure where the boundary line between performances/recordings
that are mere expressions of a work, and performances/recordings that are
so cooperative as to merit being new works lies. (I'm told that a film and
is screenplay are separate works.) Surely, different performances of a
jazz standard may be so different as to be unrecognizably the same work to
the un-initiated.
There are whole groups of things: (mythology, folk-tales, fairy tales,
plots of Shakespeare plays (many of which come out of his Holinshead
anyway)) that get constantly recycled and re-used and we don't consider
each re-use to be an expression of the original work.
I think the categories of Work and Expression are quite stable in
their central parts, but they start to lose coherence the further away one
gets from the prototypical examples. (That's the nature of categories, of
course.) For those of us who get to work with the good examples of a
particular category, they make perfectly good sense; for those of us who
are doing more fringey things, they don't necessarily work too well.
Personally, I think the category Expression is too amorphous to stick
around, so I'm delighted to see if absent from Bibframe, but I still want
to be able to group like things together (Works) and then sort them by the
attributes that are ascribed to Expressions. I just don't think their
relations to a work are similar enough to each to make Expression a useable
category.
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Robert Maxwell robert_maxw...@byu.eduwrote:
I personally find the expression level extremely useful for distinguishing
between, e.g., different translations, different formats, etc. It's not a
relationship between works. A translation isn't a different work from the
original. A recording of a work isn't a different work from the text.
Bob
Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568
We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves
to the course which has been heretofore pursued--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 1:59 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] WEMI and Bibframe
Benjamin said:
I don't see what the category of Expressions give us that couldn't be
recorded and expressed through relationships among Works.
I agree. And RDA should be reshuffled in arrangement to reflect
Bibframe's W/I, even if we can't get ISBD arrangement.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Adger Williams
Colgate University Library
315-228-7310
awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Uniform titles and Selections
Yes On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Gene Fieg gf...@cst.edu wrote: I cannot find that the current authority file. I assume it is a title entry under 130 On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 4:53 AM, Adger Williams awilli...@colgate.eduwrote: I found Zhen'gao |K Selections |l English, as the uniform title/preferred access point for a work that is a translation of the first four fascicles of the Zhen gao. I would much rather have Zhen gao |n1-4 |l English. Selections could be absolutely anything except the whole Zhen gao. 1-4 is very specific and of considerably greater use to any patron. When the selections that are present constitute a logical whole (the first four chapters of a work, for instance), it seems well worth it to make the access point unique and provide superior description at the same time. Is there some over-riding interest that I'm missing here? -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu -- 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. -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Uniform titles and Selections
Sorry. The AR in question is n 2013008942. On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Gene Fieg gf...@cst.edu wrote: I cannot find that the current authority file. I assume it is a title entry under 130 On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 4:53 AM, Adger Williams awilli...@colgate.eduwrote: I found Zhen'gao |K Selections |l English, as the uniform title/preferred access point for a work that is a translation of the first four fascicles of the Zhen gao. I would much rather have Zhen gao |n1-4 |l English. Selections could be absolutely anything except the whole Zhen gao. 1-4 is very specific and of considerably greater use to any patron. When the selections that are present constitute a logical whole (the first four chapters of a work, for instance), it seems well worth it to make the access point unique and provide superior description at the same time. Is there some over-riding interest that I'm missing here? -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu -- 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. -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Uniform titles and Selections
Sorry, my fingers slipped. The access point I am interested in is presented by this authority record. On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Hideyuki Morimoto hm2...@columbia.eduwrote: Is that title entry under field 130 different from the one represented by LC NAR entered under field 100: LCCN: n 2013008942 100 1_ Tao, Hongjing, |d 452-536. |t Zhen gao. |k Selections. |l English then? ==**==**=== Hideyuki Morimoto Japanese Cataloger C.V. Starr East Asian Library 300 Kent Hall, mail code 3901 Columbia University Voice: +1-212-854-1510 1140 Amsterdam Ave. Fax:+1-212-662-6286 New York, NY 10027 U.S.A.Electronic Mail: hm2...@columbia.edu ==**==**=== On Fri, 27 Sep 2013, Adger Williams wrote: Yes On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Gene Fieg gf...@cst.edu wrote: I cannot find that the current authority file. I assume it is a title entry under 130 On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 4:53 AM, Adger Williams awilli...@colgate.edu wrote: I found Zhen'gao |K Selections |l English, as the uniform title/preferred access point for a work that is a translation of the first four fascicles of the Zhen gao. I would much rather have Zhen gao |n1-4 |l English. Selections could be absolutely anything except the whole Zhen gao. 1-4 is very specific and of considerably greater use to any patron. When the selections that are present constitute a logical whole (the first four chapters of a work, for instance), it seems well worth it to make the access point unique and provide superior description at the same time. Is there some over-riding interest that I'm missing here? -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu -- 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. -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
[RDA-L] English Hebrew -- English.. a taste of things to come?
n 79084797. Haggadah English has a see-reference from Haggadah English Hebrew. When this record hit our database, it turned all the entries for Haggadah English Hebrew into entries for Haggadah English. I then went through and added the extra entry for Haggadah Hebrew. (hm... that may require some more thought) Does anyone know if this is the way NACO will be handling the RDA insistence on only one language in subfield l of title authority records? -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Retrospective conversion of data
Chris, We are a small to medium academic library. (4.5 FTE in cataloguing with monthly receipts of around 1,000 items.) We will have a hybrid catalog, accepting RDA input and copy-cataloguing it according to RDA rules or AACR2 input and cataloguing it according to AACR2 rules, but continuing to do original cataloguing (about 1% of our work) according to AACR2 rules. We are continuing to dig out from the Phase 2 avalanche, (I finished Bible N.T./O.T. yesterday) despite automated heading flipping in our ILS as new authority records hit. (It only works if the original data is very clean, and it wasn't.) All our headings will conform to the national authority file standards, when we have finished. We don't plan a retrospective introduction of spelled out abbreviations or introduction of 33x fields or any other RDA-ification at this point. On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Fox, Chris c...@byui.edu wrote: Gary, I’m just curious about many staff you have, both copy catalogers and original catalogers, to accomplish this. I don’t think there is enough of me to attempt something like this to any degree. ** ** What are others doing, especially you smaller libraries? Are you planning some degree of retrospective conversion, or are you settling for living with a hybrid catalog? ** ** Thanks, Chris ** ** Chris Fox Catalog Librarian McKay Library Brigham Young Univ.-Idaho c...@byui.edu ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Gary L Strawn *Sent:* Thursday, April 11, 2013 9:25 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Retrospective conversion of data ** ** We did the headings business (bibliographic and authority) last month. ** ** Any record that comes to the attention of our cataloger's toolkit can have the following happen to it (depending on options selected): ** ** **· **Add $e author to 100 (preferred value for this option: don't) **· **Expand abbreviations (those in square brackets) in 245 (preferred value: do) **· **Expand abbreviations in 255 (preferred value: do) **· **Expand abbreviations in 260 (preferred value: do) **· **Expand abbreviations in 300 (preferred value: do) **· **Supply 336-338 fields (preferred value for original catalogers: do; for copy catalogers: don't at this time) **· **Expand abbreviations in 5XX fields (preferred value: do) **· **Re-cast the 502 field, using new subfields (preferred value: do) ** ** (The reason that we have asked copy catalogers not to add the 33X fields at this time is that this code is still considered experimental, and the results need to be examined carefully for correctness, and problems reported.) ** ** All this of course is just making the records more RDA-like, but there's no pretense that the result is an RDA record; Leader/18 is not changed.*** * ** ** As a project, we have already dealt with square brackets in 245 $a beginning i.e.. ([sic] is another thing that is begging to be dealt with.) In an ongoing project, we're dealing with bi-lingual and Polyglot subfield $l. As another project, we're looking at records for librettos, to flip the headings around. (Both the $l and libretto project are done one record at a time, but we have automated assistance—the operator clicks to indicate decisions, and the program does the mechanics. Many of the librettos are multi-lingual, which only adds to the fun.) No doubt, the need for yet other projects will become clear as time goes on; and no doubt, the things that we do automatically will continue to grow. We rather expect to make an RDA-ization sweep through the bibliographic database (adding 33X fields, removing 245 $h, expanding abbreviations and no doubt other stuff) in the next year or two. ** ** Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc. Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300 e-mail: mrsm...@northwestern.edu voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306 Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. BatchCat version: 2007.22.416 ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Tony Whitehurst *Sent:* Thursday, April 11, 2013 8:56 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* [RDA-L] Retrospective conversion of data ** ** Are any libraries converting their existing data to RDA format and how are they doing this? Thanks, Tony -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Bib records with uniform titles for the Bible
We had a bunch without any subfield codes. They have to be tended by hand. On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Joan Milligan jmillig...@udayton.eduwrote: It usually takes overnight for ours to flip. Did you check again this morning? Joan On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Gene Fieg gf...@cst.edu wrote: I just checked ours. The authority records for Bible have been loaded, but none of the entries were changed, either subject or title (130 and 730) On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Adger Williams awilli...@colgate.eduwrote: How delightful. I find we have a little puddle also... All of the bib records that I have checked so far have a previous entry for Bible.|p Acts. that was properly flipped. I wonder if they weren't busied still when the time came to flip the headings that didn't get flipped. (We have good 130s and 630s with bad 730s). Not sure what order III's AACP works on the records, but this might be what happened. If this is right, just open the authority record for Bible N.T. Acts. Suppress it. Close the record. Open it and again and unsuppress it. This will force a re-index for the record that will make it run through the AACP process again. Check tomorrow morning and see if your truants are still there. If they are, I'ld suggest using the Global update module. If this is right; there will be a lot of us in this same boat. On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Joan Milligan jmillig...@udayton.eduwrote: Dear RDA-Lers, On Friday my colleague loaded the new authority records for all of the New Testament headings. When we looked at our Millennium catalog this morning, all the headings had flipped. However bib records with 730s such as Bible. N.T. Acts. English aren't affected by the new authority records. Can anyone offer advice on what to do about this? Do we need to go in and change these Uniform Titles one by one? Thank you! Joan -- Joan Milligan Catalog and Metadata Specialist University of Dayton Libraries 300 College Park Dayton, Ohio 45469-1360 937-229-4075 jmillig...@udayton.edu -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu -- 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. -- Joan Milligan Catalog and Metadata Specialist University of Dayton Libraries 300 College Park Dayton, Ohio 45469-1360 937-229-4075 jmillig...@udayton.edu -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
[RDA-L] Matter of possible concern
I notice with the flood of Phase 2 authority records that there are a number of preferred access points (used to be uniform titles) of the form Works. Selections. English. date, where the date does not conform to the date in my catalog for the particular item (embodying a work). I have been wondering how to handle these. 1. 240 Works Selections English 1993 245 Antonio Gramsci : pre-prison writings 260 |c1994 where the 240 matches the authority record or 2. 240 Works. Selections. English. 1994 245 Antonio Gramsci : pre-prison writings 260 |c1994 where I have to create a new authority record (yuck) or edit the one sent from LC/NACO (yucker) or just leave the mismatch as it is (yuckest) I have seen enough dates in authority records that came from CIP or eCIP and are not accurate when compared to the piece in hand to have very little doubt where the root of the problem is. The long term solution is to change over to unchanging numeric identifiers with varying forms of display (as we all know), but before we reach Nirvana, what do we do? Any thoughts? -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Bib records with uniform titles for the Bible
How delightful. I find we have a little puddle also... All of the bib records that I have checked so far have a previous entry for Bible.|p Acts. that was properly flipped. I wonder if they weren't busied still when the time came to flip the headings that didn't get flipped. (We have good 130s and 630s with bad 730s). Not sure what order III's AACP works on the records, but this might be what happened. If this is right, just open the authority record for Bible N.T. Acts. Suppress it. Close the record. Open it and again and unsuppress it. This will force a re-index for the record that will make it run through the AACP process again. Check tomorrow morning and see if your truants are still there. If they are, I'ld suggest using the Global update module. If this is right; there will be a lot of us in this same boat. On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Joan Milligan jmillig...@udayton.eduwrote: Dear RDA-Lers, On Friday my colleague loaded the new authority records for all of the New Testament headings. When we looked at our Millennium catalog this morning, all the headings had flipped. However bib records with 730s such as Bible. N.T. Acts. English aren't affected by the new authority records. Can anyone offer advice on what to do about this? Do we need to go in and change these Uniform Titles one by one? Thank you! Joan -- Joan Milligan Catalog and Metadata Specialist University of Dayton Libraries 300 College Park Dayton, Ohio 45469-1360 937-229-4075 jmillig...@udayton.edu -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
[RDA-L] Question about conventional collective titles (6.2.2.10.3)
I think this angle didn't come up in the previous thread. If so, I apologize in advance. Under AACR2, we were not to apply a conventional collective title to a collection of works like poems or short stories that had a distinctive title proper. I'm wondering if people will continue to observe this rule (as a rule of thumb, perhaps?). Piece in hand. Title proper: There once lived a girl who seduced her sister's husband and he hanged himself Conventional Collective Title: Short Stories. English. Selections. 2013 The title proper is certainly distinctive, and there is no name-title authority record that records the relationship of the conventional collective title to the work (the collection), but I find the conventional collective title in the bibliographic record. RDA 6.2.2.10.3 doesn't seem to speak to this issue, and the LC PCC PS is about whether to give authorized access points for the subordinate parts, not for what to do with the preferred title of the collection as far as I can tell. Thanks -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Question about conventional collective titles (6.2.2.10.3)
Hm. If something has to be known by its title to avoid getting a conventional collective title, doesn't that imply a certain amount of exposure to the public before the time of cataloguing in order for people to become familiar with the resource (get to know it)? (Certainly, there aren't going to be citations in reference sources to a new publication). (This was where the distinctive title notion from AACR2 made sense. You could guess that There once was a girl who... would be remembered, whereas, new and collected poems might not.) So, is this provision just a grandfather clause to keep us from having to go back and change thousands of records? On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Casey A Mullin cmul...@stanford.eduwrote: Adger, It is still possible to identify such a collection (compilation) by a distinctive title. The justification is found in the 1st sentence at 6.2.2.10: If a compilation of works is known by a title that is used in resources embodying that compilation or in reference sources, apply the instructions at 6.2.2.4 http://document.php?id=rdachp6target=rda6-2060#rda6-2060– 6.2.2.5 http://document.php?id=rdachp6target=rda6-2146#rda6-2146. The best practice for when to apply this condition has not really been established. Certainly, Leaves of grass by Whitman would qualify for most catalogers, but new collections published for the first time probably wouldn't. Cheers, Casey On 3/21/2013 5:15 AM, Adger Williams wrote: I think this angle didn't come up in the previous thread. If so, I apologize in advance. Under AACR2, we were not to apply a conventional collective title to a collection of works like poems or short stories that had a distinctive title proper. I'm wondering if people will continue to observe this rule (as a rule of thumb, perhaps?). Piece in hand. Title proper: There once lived a girl who seduced her sister's husband and he hanged himself Conventional Collective Title: Short Stories. English. Selections. 2013 The title proper is certainly distinctive, and there is no name-title authority record that records the relationship of the conventional collective title to the work (the collection), but I find the conventional collective title in the bibliographic record. RDA 6.2.2.10.3 doesn't seem to speak to this issue, and the LC PCC PS is about whether to give authorized access points for the subordinate parts, not for what to do with the preferred title of the collection as far as I can tell. Thanks -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu -- Casey A. Mullin Head, Data Control Unit Metadata Department Stanford University Libraries650-736-0849 cmullin@stanford.eduhttp://www.caseymullin.com -- Those who need structured and granular data and the precise retrieval that results from it to carry out research and scholarship may constitute an elite minority rather than most of the people of the world (sadly), but that talented and intelligent minority is an important one for the cultural and technological advancement of humanity. It is even possible that if we did a better job of providing access to such data, we might enable the enlargement of that minority. -Martha Yee -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] GMD revisited
Julie,
We have been doing Mac's option 1 (don't display 33x fields, do
generate an icon, based on fixed field values), and it seems quite
satisfactory. We're an Innovative library. The icons appear on browse
summary screens to the side of the record, and, on full-display in the top
right corner, after the title. It seems to work.
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:57 PM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
Julie Moore asked:
Has anyone come up with any other options or solutions as the RDA cutover
date for the national and PCC libraries nears? (2 months to go!)
The best option we have seen are icons based on fixed fields, and
suppressing 33X from display.
Next best, I think, is displaying [338 : 336] at end of title proper
(as per the MRIs), or at head of all other data (as per ISBD Area 0).
If either of these is done, longer phrases should be truncated, e.g.,
just display tactile, cartographic, moving image. You might
consider suppressing [volume : text].
So far, most of our clients are opting to have GMD inserted.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Adger Williams
Colgate University Library
315-228-7310
awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] When will RDA truly arrive? Will it truly arrive?
A number of big research libraries in the US have already made the switch: Chicago, I remember, and certainly some others, though I don't remember who else off the top of my head. My small academic library will not be contributing original RDA records until there is a larger pool of records to consider, when trying to determine what the consensus practice might be. (if there is one.) On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Kelleher, Martin mart...@liverpool.ac.ukwrote: Hi all We're going through a 'library review' here at the University of Liverpool, which will include a substantial change in responsibilities, including a switch from predominantly professional staff cataloguing to nonprofessional staff, at least for copy cataloguing. At the moment, the plan is to train everyone in AACR2, because RDA never really seems to actually arrive. It officially arrived 2-3 years ago, yet the cataloguing world and it's records barely appeared to register it - first there was the lengthy wait for LoC, NLM the BL and all the other big libraries to accept it, then the revision, and then there were proclamations of when they were to be adopted... this year - April, I think? Is this genuinely going to be the case? Are there going to be further delays?? I don't want to push for the implementation of RDA if we're still predominantly going to get AACR2 records for another 3 years! Best wishes Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Plurals in content types
I see the philosophy of that stance, and it works fine, as long as you don't display the terms. We're displaying our 33x fields and our patrons aren't going to be aware that they should be treating these terms as abstractions (how or why should they be?). They are going to assume that still image means an image that isn't moving, and only one of them/it. We display the 33x fields, because they're indexed, and, if a patron searches for one of terms in a 33x field and gets a hit, the patron will want to see that hit highlighted in the display to know why it got selected. On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote: My understanding is that content type refers to an attribute of an expression. It is an abstract term. It means what are included in the content of an expression. It does not refer to a physical item that you can count. This is similar to material type and media type. Although they refer to physical objects, they are not used to refer to a specific item. They just represent a type of material or media. The 300 field actually refers to a specific physical item that you can count. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Jenifer K Marquardt j...@uga.edu wrote: I haven't considered the broader topic, but the plural still images would certainly make more sense in those instances when an art book or exhibition catalog is being described. The singular makes me think of a single image, such as a photograph. Jenifer Jenifer K. Marquardt Asst. Head of Cataloging Authorities Librarian University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602-1641 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [ RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Adger Williams [ awilli...@colgate.edu] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 11:20 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Plurals in content types I notice that the list of content types consists mostly of nouns that refer to an unspecified or multiple number of entities: e.g. music, sounds, text. Image however, does not have this property. If I enter still image in a description, it looks disconcertingly as if I am asserting that there is only one image in the resource I'm describing. I don't see an advisement that still images (with an s) is acceptable, and, if it's to be machine actionable, we need a uniform vocabulary... Short of changing over to codes (not a bad idea, but not what I want to ask about), has anyone thought about this problem? -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edumailto:awilli...@colgate.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 -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] BIBFRAME model document announced
snip Anyway, I really don't like this speculating around in this list with no input from those who should know more and might easily resolve errors in our wild guesses. Can this be called a discussion list? It is rather another Speakers' Corner, inconsequential at the end of the day. Not the first time though that I encounter this phenomenon. snip How soon we get some input from Zephira (those who should know more...) will show us how much value they place on RDA. In the absence of any response, a certain amount of discussion seems entirely appropriate. On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Bernhard Eversberg e...@biblio.tu-bs.dewrote: 26.11.2012 12:17, James Weinheimer: Let's face it: the FRBR structure is bizarre and difficult even for trained catalogers to grasp. ... and to apply consistently end efficiently. The FRBR user tasks are from an earlier time, and in any case, the public hasn't been able to do them since keyword searching was introduced--even in our library catalogs. That has been quite awhile now and I have never seen or heard of anyone complaining. Those original tasks have been long forgotten and have now been superceded in a multitude of ways. You are turning more and more radical. Honest analysis - once it were done - might well confirm you, however. Besides, if somebody wants to navigate WEMI, it can be done now with the right catalog software. Once it were proved necessary. LT and GBS have both found some demand for it, and come up with their own solutions, not exactly along our lines of thinking and not exactly with much success (in the case of GBS at least). The first steps in the new format should be to make it in the simplest ways possible so that web creators can use our records as soon as possible. Wasn't that part of the motivation behind Dublin Core? I think it failed miserably because it did not create a format but left that to implementers. Foreseeably, each and every one of them came up with their own schemes and their own idiosyncratic syntaxes. The schema.org people are doing a somewhat better job in that they do not leave much to implementers. But then, their approach is very different from the idea of records as self-contained entities, and so it is difficult to see how to apply it in a library catalog context. Anyway, I really don't like this speculating around in this list with no input from those who should know more and might easily resolve errors in our wild guesses. Can this be called a discussion list? It is rather another Speakers' Corner, inconsequential at the end of the day. Not the first time though that I encounter this phenomenon. B.Eversberg -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Exhibition catalog relationships
I won't speak to issues a, b, or c, as they aren't common for us. But the addendum about including entries for artists in exhibition catalogs is of considerable interest to our institution. We have found that RDA records for exhibition catalogs tend to include no entry (except as a subject) for the artist. (no 100 or 700 entry). Since this is the equivalent of declining to make a link between the artist and the main body of work that the artist is likely to have in our library, (we collect more exhibition catalogs than we do individual works of art) this strikes us as an oversight of some significance. We therefore have a policy of adding an entry for the artist in a 700 field. We are less sure about whether it should be: 7001_ Smith, Jane or 70012 Smith, Jane.|tWorks.|kSelections The analytic is rather funny-looking to the AACR2-trained eye, but is logical and reasonably transparent. What are other people thinking? On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Arakawa, Steven steven.arak...@yale.eduwrote: On the topic of linking in the earlier thread, what would be the relationship for the Group 1 category for exhibition catalogs in these situations? ** ** **a. **An exhibition catalog and a commercial publication of the catalog. 775 $i Related (manifestation): citation?? **b. **A travelling exhibition where the catalog stays pretty much the same but the imprint changes to match the various institutions where the exhibition “visits”: Also a manifestation relationship? **c. **And, based on an actual cataloging situation I was working on a few days ago: a travelling exhibition where the catalog content changes significantly (the exhibition at the Yale School of Architecture was about 80 pages and the original catalog was considerably over a 100 pages). Related (expression)? Related (work)? ** ** Also, if the author of the catalog essay is presented as the primary creator, but the catalog has numerous reproductions of an artist’s works, I would normally choose to make an additional access point for the artist, but what kind of relationship designator would be appropriate? I would like to use $e artist, but would this imply that the artist relationship to the catalog is as a co-creator? “Illustrator” would also seem misleading. What I really want to show is the relationship of the artist to her own works in reproduction. Come to think of it, should the 700 be tagged as an analytic: 700 12 Smith, Susan, $e artist. $t Works. $k Selections? Would that solve the problem? ** ** Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu ** ** -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Comparison table of extent terms
snip The alternative I've suggested would have: Content type: still image Media type: projected Carrier type: slide Extent of carrier type: 100 slides and with entirely new element... Content extent: 100 photographs This would capture the information of 100 photographs converted to slides, which would be lost in this use of extent for carrier over content whenever the media type switches from unmediated. snip I like this alternative much better. It would be very much simpler to have two distinct lists of extent terms. I would be tempted to display like this: (collection of 100 slides) Content type: still image (100 images) Media type: projected Carrier type: slide (100 slides) (3 vol. atlas) Content type: cartographic (1 atlas) Media type: unmediated Carrier type: volume (3 volumes) (1 book containing 13 short stories) Content type: text (13 short stories) Media type: unmediated Carrier type: volume (1 volume) If one wanted physical dimensions of the carrier, one could add that: Content type: cartographic (1 atlas) Media type: unmediated Carrier type: volume (3 volumes) (54 x 28 cm) I offer the description of the short story collection as an indication of possibilities, (desirable or un-). Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Locally converting the LC/NACO authority file to RDA
Vince, If I'm reading the document right, some of those records will be issued twice as well. (some in Phase 1 and then again in Phase 3) And, no library, other than one actually working on the project, needs any of the Phase 1 re-issues, I think. Perhaps avoiding all of the Phase I re-issues might be possible, if your authority vendor is willing to do a little coding (search by 670 field and do not distribute the ones with the special RDA project 670 fields). That way, one could still get the new records (few as they may be) coming through during Phase 1. I know this pales in comparison to Phase 3, but it would give us on the receiving end a bit longer to get ready Phases 2 and 3. On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Lasater, Mary Charles mary.c.lasa...@vanderbilt.edu wrote: Vince, Thanks so much for raising this issue. I will only have to 'deal with' our 1 1/2 million authority records but it will be a big project, with very little result for such an effort. We've been told that 95% of the existing name records will be 'ok' as is so I may contact my vendor and ask if there is some way to identify these and only supply changes that affect the 1xx field. Is there something I'm not considering? I don't see any reason for replacing local authority records just to put $e RDA in the 040 field. Mary Charles Lasater Vanderbilt University -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Vince Jenkins Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 4:35 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Locally converting the LC/NACO authority file to RDA The PCC document entitled *The phased conversion of the LC/NACO authority file to RDA* is available here: http://files.library.northwestern.edu/public/pccahitg/RDA_conversion. Phases.doc The second paragraph of the document begins: The work of this project is divided into phases because the preparation of the LC/NACO authority file for use under RDA involves the re-issuance of nearly every record in the file. Our campus is a Voyager site with a catalog of over 6 million bibliographic records. We subscribe to and load monthly updates to the LC authority file. We are limited to 5000 records per load. After discussing the above document, we're wondering how we will be able to process the nearly 8.2 million LC name authority records that will be re-issued. If we were to load 5000 per day, 7 days a week, it would take, by one estimate, 4.5 years. Alternatively, if we completely unload our current authority file, then load a complete new RDA-compliant file, conflicts in our catalog won't get reported out. Has anyone else begun planning for this? Any insights on a procedure that could work for an institution our size? Thanks for any help. Vince Jenkins Technical Services Librarian MERIT Library, School of Education University of Wisconsin-Madison vjenkins at education.wisc.edu 608 262 7301 (ph) 608 262 6050 (fx) -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] FaBIO - another view of FRBR
Interesting that they seem to have decided to subordinate the part-whole distinction to the work-expression distinction. Grant applications are works, but Grant application documents are expressions. A work collection is a work, but an article is an expression. On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Brenndorfer, Thomas tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca wrote: There are some interesting quirks and aspects in this model. Book is defined as an expression, which can be manifested in different physical forms or as an e-book. But by assigning ISBN to this level a problem arises because the ISBN is an identifier for the manifestations on the next level down. Searching for ISBN suggests that the search result will show all possible books and not the exact manifestation that actually has the ISBN. I do like the list of classes, many of which could become values for the Form of Work attribute in RDA. Form/genre is a weak aspect in current library cataloging, as it's not covered by FRSAD, and used in RDA sporadically, such as following up on the AACR2 conventions for qualifying headings for disambiguation purposes. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle Sent: February 22, 2012 10:51 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FaBIO - another view of FRBR On 2/22/12 12:27 AM, James Weinheimer wrote: Such a reaction makes perfect sense to me. It is very difficult to maintain that FRBR is a conceptual model for anyone besides librarians. It's also interesting to see what other folks do with the FRBR concepts. There is a bibliographic data suite called SPAR [1] that has a module called FRBR-aligned Bibliographic Ontology.[2] Here are the things it defines as works, expressions, and manifestations: Work: artistic work, biography, case for support, corrigendum, critical edition, dataset, erratum, essay, examination paper, grant application, image, instructional work, metadata, model, opinion, proposition, questionnaire, reference work, report, research paper, review, sound recording, specification, vocabulary, work collection, work package, working paper Expression: Gantt chart, abstract, article, audio document, book, case for support document, chapter, comment, computer program, conference paper, conference poster, cover, data file, database, demo paper, dust jacket, e- mail, editorial, excerpt, expression collection, figure, grant application document, index, instruction manual, lecture notes, letter, manuscript, metadata document, movie, news item, patent application document, patent document, periodical issue, periodical volume, personal communication, presentation, project plan, proof, quotation, report document, repository, spreadsheet, supplementary information file, table, vocabulary document, vocabulary mapping document, web content, workshop paper Manifestation:analog manifestation, digital manifestation, manifestation collection That's quite different from the library interpretation of the meaning of those entities, I believe. But it obviously is what makes sense to this community, which is primarily interested in academic publication. Actually, if someone has the energy to unpack this and compare it to how you think libraries would 'frbr-ize' these resource types, I'd be really interested in seeing that. kc [1] http://purl.org/spar/ [2] http://purl.org/spar/fabio/ -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Showing birth and death dates
Note that this is not peculiar to French. (Spanish, German, Russian,
Italian,... all share this feature)
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 7:51 PM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
Friend Hal from down under has pointed out yet another problem with
RDA words rather than hyphens, when only one of birth or death date is
known. The words in French would differ with gender:
... the need to distinguish gender in French: né masc., née fem. for
'born', mort/morte for 'died'.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Adger Williams
Colgate University Library
315-228-7310
awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Use of ISBN to determine publishing patterns
There was a while (may still be going on), when Nebraska U. Pr. used to have
nbdocs numbers in 086 fields fairly routinely.
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 4:21 PM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
Karen Coyle reported:
You can do that study without the hyphens. In fact, someone working on
the Open Library did a quick'n dirty study on ISBNs and 260 $b's which
was interesting, using ISBNs from the MARC record. In particular it
was interesting how many of the top 20 publishers were university
presses ...
Publications of US state university presses are, according to MARBI,
to be coded as state government documents. Silly beyond belief. I
wonder how many actually do that? We certainly do not. It would make
the fixed field useless for finding state government documents.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Adger Williams
Colgate University Library
315-228-7310
awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] RDA media terms
I have to offer a few reservations about icons and communication. They're great until, they are incomprehensible. How many of us can tell what ALL the icons next to the input jacks on the back of the computer signify? My ILS (Innovative) has different icons for different modules and they completely non-communicative. How is someone to tell the difference between CD, DVD, and Blue-Ray in an icon? Is a child of the cell-phone era likely to decode the old icon for a modem port (a handheld phone receiver with cord)? This points out the possibility for quick obsolescence of icons. .02$ AW Also, since responsible persons will have verbal tags linked to their icons for screen readers, we still have to come up with nomenclature for the tags. On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Brenndorfer, Thomas tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca wrote: -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod Sent: September 11, 2011 9:15 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA media terms ... This reminds me of a question I have about many of RDA's media terms; would patrons understand them? Would Braille be assumed from tactile text, if that is what the resource might be? Like the LDR/06 or 007/00 values, these terms are for groupings of related attributes. In many cases, these broader terms are already presented to the user (we have the enigmatic non-musical sound recording for example). I assume volume would be the carrier, and pages or volumes the unit name. It could be a range of carriers, including objects or cards. Content values and carrier values don't intermingle, although certainly some content will be highly associated with certain carriers. Some have told me that icons will be substituted. It is difficult to imagine the number of icons required to match the number of RDA media terms. E-book services like OverDrive present a row of icons. For the plays on field, there are 6 icons that can be highlighted. This looks very user-friendly compared to reading blurbs of text. Polaris icons for types of material already reflect the underlying tension and complexity of mixing content and carrier. The Audio-ebook icon is a PC with headphones (content=spoken word; media type=computer). The music CD has musical notes superimposed on a shiny disc (content=performed music; carrier type=audio disc). Large print has two large letters on the cover of a book (carrier=volume; font size=large print). It's clear that each icon is an amalgamation of codes from various places-- not just the broader content type values. One can have very specific values (large print, Blu-Ray disc) or very general values (non-musical sound recording). But underlying the icons is a hierarchical matrix. A large print is also a book-- only one icon is presented, but both values can be searched on or used in facets or limits. Braille is also an icon. With RDA, it would be subordinate to a broader category tactile text. Both values would be present. The system can be programmed to highlight or emphasize any value deemed important, so there is no reason to believe that multiple overlapping icons or just the top-level icons need to be presented. What might be useful is a dual presentation of content and carrier. In RDA, tactile text as an expression value can be co-ordinated with the expression element Form of tactile notation (RDA 7.13.4). RDA keeps the expression elements together, and effectively moves from general to specific. So Braille could be one icon. The second icon would be the carrier, which could be volume. Which RDA media terms are included and excluded astounds me. Wouldn't large print text be more common in most collections than a tactile three-dimensional form, whatever that is? Large print is a manifestation-level term. It's an attribute of the carrier and not the content type. From http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr_current3.htm#3.2 The boundaries of the entity expression are defined, however, so as to exclude aspects of physical form, such as typeface and page layout, that are not integral to the intellectual or artistic realization of the work as such. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Suspend Rule of 3: was This Week on RDA Toolkit
Just in the interests of clarity... AACR2 mandates at least 3 entries, allowing for more RDA mandates at least 1 entry, allowing for more On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Sanchez, Elaine R e...@txstate.edu wrote: Hi – I put this request to modify AACR2 rule of 3 on the RDA-L because over the past year it has been one of the often-repeated mantras of those in favor of RDA: We should not have to be enslaved by the limitations of AACR2 rule of 3!! RDA is so great because it allows us the freedom of adding more than 3!! I am tired of hearing this, as it is a fake issue. I know we all have added more than 3, and no cataloging police will come and give us a ticket if we add more than 3. However, if we made it an official, optional LCRI, then this particular oft-repeated deficit of AACR2 would no longer be able to be brought up as a plus of RDA. It is a fake issue, which we could lay completely and forever to rest simply by making it an official AACR2 option. As for the SMD – just keep it simple – use well-known, standard industry terms we all know and use, make them official. Thanks, elaine Texas State University-San Marcos *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Pat Sayre McCoy *Sent:* Thursday, June 16, 2011 12:59 PM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Suspend Rule of 3: was This Week on RDA Toolkit I have to chime in here—it’s a CATALOGING rule, not the law of the land. If you need more than three to describe and improve access to your material, do it. The Cataloging Police are not going to arrest you. I’ve been breaking rules like this for years and no one ever complained there were more than three authors, editors, etc. named. Most of the requests to update records have asked for more access points, not fewer. I’ll also confess to making title added entries that weren’t in the rules (such as citation titles) long before they were allowed. You catalog for your own catalog and user base as well as for the national databases. Pat Patricia Sayre-McCoy Head of Law Cataloging and Serials D'Angelo Law Library 1121 E. 60th Street Chicago, IL 60637 p-mc...@uchicago.edu 773-702-9620 (office) 773-702-2885 (fax) *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Wayne Richter *Sent:* Thursday, June 16, 2011 11:58 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* [RDA-L] Suspend Rule of 3: was This Week on RDA Toolkit Elaine Sanchez asked, Hi. With the news that RDA will be further improved, and won’t be implemented sooner than 1/13/2013, could we, and how could I, request new AACR2 LCRI’s to allow the option to: · Suspend the limitation of the rule of 3 so we can all feel empowered to add more than 3 – I think everyone wants this right away! I agree wholeheartedly with this suggestion. I, for one, would begin immediately to add additional access points for certain kinds of materials if this were the case. If it was allowed but optional, not mandatory, it would certainly benefit our patrons because, like Elaine, I believe there are many who would provide them. We are already able to do this but only locally. What do others think? Wayne Richter Asian Materials Specialist/PCC Liaison The Libraries Western Washington University Bellingham, WA 98225-9103 ALCTS CC:AAM -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
[RDA-L] What do I tell the others?
I venture to ask a rather different sort of question, which, perhaps, should really be addressed elsewhere, but here goes. We suppose that cataloguing is important, but that only cataloguers actually care enough about the nuts and bolts to fuss about it. But rule changes affect (and effect) the catalog in ways that are not always obvious. What should we be telling the reference staff about the RDA changes? Here's a stripped down list that I think I could get people to listen to without falling asleep: 1. GMD replaced by 33x. 2. 2nd and 3rd authors may not be traced 3. watch out for Durham [NC] or London [Ontario] (not supplying higher level geographical jurisdiction in 260) Does anyone think of other changes that will trip the unwary in the brave new world of AACR2 and RDA records together? This was prompted by a question about cohabitation of rule-sets from someone on a general list, and I came up with only these for my answer, but I feel sure there are other quirks that merit attention. thanks -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] [ACAT] Upper case in records
My speed of reading is decreased by enough that I can observe myself reading instead of just knowing what the words are without thought. It took several attempts to recognize the word TURBERVILLE. HANKINS was hard too. JOHN was easy; it's short and it has all that space around the O. All-capital print greatly retards speed of reading in comparison with lower-case type. Also, most readers judge all capitals to be less legible. Faster reading of the lower-case print is due to the characteristic word forms furnished by this type. This permits reading by word units, while all capitals tend to be read letter by letter. Furthermore, since all-capital printing takes at least one-third more space than lower case, more fixation pauses are required for reading the same amount of material. The use of all capitals should be dispensed with in every printing situation from: Tinker, Miles A. (1963). *Legibility of Print*. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press. p. 65. ISBNhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number 6316674 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/6316674. If you wish to investigate further, check out the Wikkipedia entry on All-caps, the section on readability, (from which the above quote was taken) for further discussion. For further corroboration, it might be worthwhile to look at literature on fonts or studies of the mechanisms of reading. On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Beacom, Matthew matthew.bea...@yale.eduwrote: To read the full text of a 2 or 3 hundred page monograph printed in all caps would be tiresome. However, a line or two in a bibliographic record is not much trouble to read or access. On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being “I can see that some text is in mixed case and other text is in all caps, but there’s no effect on my ability to read it or otherwise have access to the information” and 10 being “I can’t read the all cap text at all, so my ability to read it is zero and as a result I am denied access to this resource” what is the difference in readability or accessibility in the following display? I’d give this a 1. Matthew Beacom *Author:* HANKINS, JOHN ERSKINE.http://traindb.library.yale.edu/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?SC=AuthorSEQ=20110517150630PID=Ty5Sl6Vcndib-jw55hW71MesffEA9hSA=HANKINS,+JOHN+ERSKINE. *Title:* THE POEMS OF GEORGE TURBERVILE [electronic resource] / EDITED WITH CRITICAL NOTES AND A STUDY OF HIS LIFE AND WORKS. *Published:* 1929 *Description:* 1 online resource (712 p.) *Available Online:* Online thesishttp://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertationres_dat=xri:pqdissrft_dat=xri:pqdiss:0003706 *Dissertation:* Thesis (Ph.D.)--Yale University, 1929. *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Adger Williams *Sent:* Tuesday, May 17, 2011 1:28 PM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] [ACAT] Upper case in records To all who think case doesn't matter... Let me explain why I care about all upper case text. The Latin alphabet has letters that go above the line (t, d, l, b, f, h, k) (also called ascenders), letters that go below the line (descenders) (e.g. g, j, p, q), and letters that do neither. With this mix of letter types, words have a distinctive shape that makes them easy to recognize quickly while reading. (The literature on the exact mechanism of reading is large, but image recognition figures in the process at an early stage according to many.) (The word many has a different shape if you will than the word more, which makes them easy to distinguish.) Those of us with poor vision find all-caps difficult to read because in all-caps, there are no more differences between ascenders, descenders, and regular letters. This wipes out differences in word shape, and makes the process of reading more arduous than necessary. For me, it's an annoyance. If I turn my head sideways, I can read whatever I need to with some time and a good magnifying glass. But there are people who are worse off than me, who would appreciate, I feel sure, having no extra difficulties put in their way. In short, it's not just a matter of aesthetics for everyone. Apologies for the extended explanation, but it keeps coming up as a matter of taste instead of as a matter of access. On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Beacom, Matthew matthew.bea...@yale.edu wrote: Thank you. I’ve tested both thesentencecase and Microsoft Word. They do the same thing. I find the substitutions by these programs unsuccessful. They just exchange one set of errors in capitalization for another. I’m left thinking the difficulty with all caps (or all lower case, or title case, or etc.) is a matter of taste. (These records are not coded as AACR2 .) None of the case variations affect access, they just look unattractive. And I
Re: [RDA-L] [ACAT] Upper case in records
Cataloger Center for Research Libraries 6050 S. Kenwood Chicago, IL 60637 773-955-4545 sea...@crl.edu CRL website: www.crl.edu *Two examples showing what http://thesentencecase.org/ is capable of with no prior editing: =245 10$ai. The heterogeneity of rabbit anti-bovine serum albumin antibody. Ii. Kinetic studies of antibody-hapten interactions$h[electronic resource] =245 10$asubstituted tropylium ions$h[electronic resource] -- *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Beacom, Matthew *Sent:* Monday, May 16, 2011 1:19 PM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] [ACAT] Upper case in records Can anyone suggest how to effectively edit titles such as these to remove the upper case and appropriately capitalize words in the title? A manual title-by-title edit is a non-starter since the above are the first 10 titles in a set of about 15,000 records (only a few thousand in the set have this problem.) The records do not include non-roman scripts. Thank you. Matthew Beacom** =245 14$aTHE POEMS OF GEORGE TURBERVILE $h[electronic resource] /$c EDITED WITH CRITICAL NOTES AND A STUDY OFHIS LIFE AND WORKS. =245 10$aMICHELET ET L'HISTOIRE ALLEMANDE. (PARTS 1 AND 2)$h[electronic resource] =245 14$aTHE MOTET IN THIRTEENTH CENTURY FRANCE. (VOLUMES FIRST AND SECOND)$h[electronic resource] =245 14$aTHE TRAGIC HERO IN POLITICS $h[electronic resource] : $bTHEODORE ROOSEVELT, DAVID LLOYD GEORGE, AND FIORELLO LA GUARDIA (PARTS I AND II). =245 10$aINTERRELATIONS OF STRESS AND ANXIETY IN DETERMINING PROBLEM-SOLVING PERFORMANCE$h[electronic resource] =245 10$aSUBSTITUTED TROPYLIUM IONS$h[electronic resource] =245 10$a1,3-DIMETHYLBICYCLO(1.1.0)BUTANE$h[electronic resource] =245 13$aAN EVALUATION OF TILLICH'S INTUITIVE-ONTOLOGICAL APPROACH TO PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION IN CONTRAST WITH TENNANT'S EMPIRICAL-COSMOLOGICAL APPROACH$h[electronic resource] =245 10$aI. THE HETEROGENEITY OF RABBIT ANTI-BOVINE SERUM ALBUMIN ANTIBODY. II. KINETIC STUDIES OF ANTIBODY-HAPTEN INTERACTIONS$h[electronic resource] -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Dr. Snoopy
Stephen wrote snip And let's not forget spirits, who can also be authors under AACR2 (e.g., Seth (Spirit)). snip While we're thinking about oddities. What do we want to do with Kilgore Trout? Kilgore Trout is a fictitious author in a number of Kurt Vonnegut's works. In 1975, a book appeared called Venus on the half-shell by Kilgore Trout. The author picture was Kurt Vonnegut wearing a mop for a wig, but he had not written the book. That honor went to Philip Jose Farmer. Is Kilgore Trout to be established as Kilgore Trout (Fictitious character), or as a persona of P.J. Famer (or something to do with Vonnegut?) Is the preferred access point for the work Trout, Kilgore ... Venus on the half shell, or is the author part Farmer?
Re: [RDA-L] Where to Direct Questions about RDA Examples?
I think we've missed something important in this discussion. Deborah brought up other works by Snoopy, and, as Adam quotes, we are to look for preferred access points in resources associated with the person. There is a work called The wit and wisdom of Snoopy. (OCLC #6910980). I assume this might count as a resource associated with the person. That said, it seems fair to consider her concerns that Snoopy is not always presented as a doctor, and should not be entered as such. snip 9.2.2.2 Determine the preferred name for a person from the following sources (in order of preference): a) the preferred sources of information (see 2.2.2 rdalink) in resources associated with the person snip It was very instructive to have Adam's careful walk-through of the process of preferred access point choice with all its delightful wrinkles. This is where understanding comes from. -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Linked files
I don't think I understand. We've got identifiers. We all do our authority updates by authority record numbers, which (by and large) don't change. We do change 1xx forms, which one should perhaps think of as preferred display forms, and I think it would be unwise to think the desire to change preferred display forms will go away. So, I'm not sure what the new part of the new world of linked data would be here. On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.eduwrote: On 4/22/2011 1:13 PM, James Weinheimer wrote: There is another way of looking at our headings than solely as textual strings, which is not entirely correct, but rather as identifying something *unambiguously*. This is exactly what our headings are designed to do. An identifier does not have to be composed only of numbers, but any string. This is why I have suggested reconsidering our headings *as* identifiers, since catalogers have worked very, very hard for a long time to keep them unique, or unambiguous. I agree entirely, controlled headings from authority files ARE a sort of archaic version of identifiers and should be considered as such. The thing is, that they aren't all that succesful as identifiers in the modern environment. For instance, just as the most obvious example, you NEVER want to _change_ an identifier. Yet, our authority file headings sometimes get changed (from a rename of an LCSH heading, to adding a death date to an author). Violates pretty much the first most basic rule of modern identifiers. It's no surprise that an identifier system our community invented nearly a hundred years ago before computers really existed do not perform very well as identifiers in the present environment. But it's still the truth. I think you're absolutely right that we should understand these legacy controlled headings as a sort of identifier -- that will help us understand better how to use them and convert them in the modern environment. But important to remember they are a sort of ancient identifier system, which is ill-suited in several ways for the contemporary environment. Jonathan -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Linked files
data/database/metadata designer. This is probably my last post in this thread, this is getting frustrating to me. Perhaps it's my fault in not being able to explain this concept adequately, in which case I don't think I can personally do any better then I've done. Otherwise, I am not sure why you are insisting on arguing with a basic principle accepted by everyone else doing computer-era data/database/metadata design -- which has been proven in practice to be a really good prinicple. It's not a controversial principle. At all. Anywhere except among library catalogers, apparently. Jonathan On 4/25/2011 12:12 PM, James Weinheimer wrote: On 04/25/2011 05:56 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: snip If you maintain the preferred display form as your _identifier_, then whenever the preferred display form changes, all those links will need to be changed. This is why contemporary computer-era identifier practice does NOT use preferred display form as an identifier. Because preferred display forms change, but identifiers ought not to. The identifier should be a _persistent_ link into your database for the identified record. /snip So long as the link from your database links unambiguously to the resource you want to link to, that is all that matters. There are different ways of allowing that. This function is most efficiently handled by the database you are linking into, instead of the single database expecting everybody in the world to change their own databases to add their URIs. For example, I could add a link for the NAF form of Leo Tolstoy to dbpedia to interoperate with it. If they had a special search for exact NAF form, like in the VIAF, it would definitely be unambiguous. My point is: this is something that is achievable. Probably through a relatively simple API, it could be implemented in every catalog pretty easily. There is just no hope that each catalog will add URIs within any reasonable amount of time. Certainly, if we were creating things from scratch, we could redo everything that would be better for us (there is no doubt in my mind that future information specialists/catalogers 80 years from now will be complaining about whatever we make), but you must play the cards you are dealt and be creative with what you have. Perhaps it wouldn't be perfect, or maybe it would, I don't know, but in any case, it would be vastly better than what we have now and people could start discovering and using our records in new ways. -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Linked files
Let me see if I get this straight. Ideal linked data architecture has links, based on some unique code of some kind. The links connect to a server for an authoritative national level database. They also connect to a local image of the part of the national database that the local OPAC needs. (The image gets updated periodically from the national database.) The local image drives the display for the OPAC. Is the local image where one might choose to make display choices like choice of alphabet, et cetera? This might also be where the choice of how much of the information from name authority records (addresses or other personal information) would get displayed. Are there other functions that the local image of the national database would serve? On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Mark Ehlert ehler...@umn.edu wrote: J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote: Certainly not. There is a great difference between a link to an offsite resource, which may occasionally not be available, and being dependent on an offsite link to display an authors name or subject heading. The OPAC functions whether a particular resource URL is active or not. Once again, where do you get the idea that these links are switches permanently set to the on position and the linked information not locally cached in some manner? -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex CoordinatorUniversity of Minnesota Bibliographic Technical 15 Andersen Library Services (BATS) Unit222 21st Avenue South Phone: 612-624-0805Minneapolis, MN 55455-0439 http://www.minitex.umn.edu/ -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Business case for RDA changes
snip The correct answer (a non-simple answer) is that there are in fact authority records for those headings-- the original bibliographic records, which contain the additional data about the specified work as well as about the manifestation. That's the answer one has to give, and RDA requires that understanding when RDA elements for the work entity are mapped to both bibliographic and authority records. RDA is about the data and isn't tied to traditional bibliographic and authority records at all. snip This argument confuses me. Bibligraphic records, at least for music, and sometimes, for other kinds of works, quite often do not contain enough information to make statements about relationships to other works/expressions. That's why all those music name/title ARs cite Grove. Extra knowledge is often necessary. What am I missing here? -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] RDA Records and changings
Just for a sense of proportion: Of the 4200 (4194) bib records we have acquired since Jan 1, 2011, 26 are coded rda in 040. Our OPAC is configured to be happy with them. We have been resisting split files in authorized headings, modifying by hand. In the event of RDA's being adopted, we'll have to change over the names in the (now-not-) split files anyway. HTH On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.eduwrote: RDA records are intended to be compatible with existing records. We are accepting them as is in our catalog and have made the changes to our system to be able to load them and not lose fields. We also decided which new MARC fields we wanted to display and what they should be labeled in the display. It seems a large waste of time and effort to back-convert RDA records to AACR2. I really don't see how users would be confused by them. There will for a short time be some splits in access points between AACR2 form of headings and RDA forms, but those can be cleaned up later once LC and PCC decide which AACR2 forms of headings will be left alone and not changed to a pure RDA form. Since we have an authority vendor, we think this can all be worked out. On March 7, we had 157 RDA bib. records in our catalog, a pittance compared to all of the records we load every day. I just don't think this small number is likely to stand out. Also, since we use WorldCat Local as our public catalog, we could not change the OCLC record anyway, as OCLC does not want libraries changing the master record back and forth from RDA to AACR2. 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 http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, Jeff Peckosh wrote: I am not sure what to do when an RDA record is the only choice for a book. Do you usually make the records back to AACR2 or is your system the way to accept RDA records already? I just feel like if I don't change the records back to AACR2, our customers may get confused about the look of the records, so to keep it consistent I change them all. Would be nice to find out what other people do in this case. Thank you so much, Jeff Peckosh Public Library Cataloging Librarian -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] RDA and music
Thanks Adam and Kathleen for your timely and helpful answers that cleared up some of my confusion, but ... On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.eduwrote: snip Identifier: no 98018594 Creator: Szymanowski, Karol, 1882-1937 Preferred title of work: Symphonies Numeric designation - Serial number: no. 1 Numeric designation - Opus number: op. 15 Key: F minor snip What exactly is the Preferred title of a work? No one really prefers the word symphonies (it's plural) to designate one symphony. Is the phrase preferred title meant to refer to the first element of a string that will uniquely identify the work/e/m; is there some other job it is supposed to do as well? I know it's a bit silly to argue about what to call something if we all know what the something (a preferred title) is, but not all of us know what it is, so we rely on what it's name actually means, and this name isn't very helpful. I had been thinking that the term preferred title referred to the display form for an authorized access point that was a title that a library preferred. (e.g. In Cyrillic or Hebrew script, or possibly with different abbreviation conventions). If this form-to-be-displayed-to-users (that isn't the unique identifier no.) isn't a preferred title, does the form-to-be-displayed-to-users have a non-cumbersome name? -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Bounced messages
I got that message On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Gene Fieg gf...@cst.edu wrote: I just want to make sure I am getting through to the RDA listserv. I get mail, but cannot send it. -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] RDA provisions
Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote: snip Or, to put it another way, as institutions cast an eye on other systems, such as IMDB, that seem to be doing a fantastic job, how can one argue that libraries can't be doing the same level of quality work- - cost-effectively!--, especially in a collaborative environment, where better tools and mechanisms (and standards!) are regularly appearing? /snip iMDB's advantage in the matter of displaying relationships is that they have patron-viewable records for people (entities) as well as for works (manifestations actually, I think), where you can put all relator information instead of trying to put it in your display or collocation routines. In a FRBRized world, I suppose, libraries would too. Then, you could sort the display of information about the person however you wanted--with relator codes for works by the person and subject facets for works about the person. -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Linked data
Interesting point of theory here. We're working on a distinction between a number of things here with an unfortunately small number of names. We want to distinguish transcription vs. controlled vocabulary description vs. access points/entries non-indexed terms vs. indexed entities It's difficult to categorize these terms because they don't co-occur rigidly. Therefore, you need more than one pair of terms to cover the oppositions that all (somewhat fuzzily) tend to live under the notion access points. On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote: I stopped being surprised a LONG time ago when I found places where various interlocking standards and documents (MARC, AACR2, ISBD, and docs including: official documentation, cataloger's desktop, LCRI, OCLC) were inconsistent, contradictory, or just not quite the same. If many catalogers realize that too, I will find it pleasing and reassuring. So I'm hardly surprised that depending on where you look, you get a different answer as to what an 'official' 'access point' is, or if such a category exists at all. Especially because 'access point' in particular is a concept that made perfect sense in the card catalog world, but that meaning doesn't make sense any more in the computer environment. What used to be a simple concept becomes complex when transfered to the computer world -- _some_ aspects of former 'access point' are completely irrelevant (lookup can be done on ANY field of the record, not just 'access points') -- while _other_ aspects (identification and collocation) are still relevant, however the term 'access point' is a confusing one for even those still relevant aspects, and our traditional implementation of 'aspect points' is ill-suited for accomplishing those aspects. So, yeah, we were kind of hoping that RDA would clear some of this up for us, but I have sympathy for those trying, it's an awfully confusing place we found ourselves in. I'm awfully frustrated that, for instance, FRSAD did _not_ try to get away from the concept of 'access point', but instead kept trying to use this unworkable concept (no doubt in a way not entirely consistent with how it's used in other places). Jonathan On 2/3/2011 1:13 PM, Kevin M. Randall wrote: Karen Coyle wrote: Fields 760-787 have strictly speaking never been dual function fields, because they are not defined in the MARC format as access points This got me excited and I popped into the online MARC documentation to look at how it defines access points but I can't find that. I could find a definition of headings, but that only covers X00-X30 (thus no titles). Is there a definition of access points that I missed? Or are you working from other knowledge, Kevin? If so, I'd like to hear more about this distinction, because it is an important one and to me it hasn't been clear in practice (from a systems developer point of view). If it isn't made explicit in our current standards we should try to make it clearer in any future ones. Hmm, strange that they don't define access point in MARC. In Cataloger's Toolkit, searching the phrase access points (plural) in MARC21 Bibliographic brings up four hits, none of which is an explanation of the phrase. However, the phrase access point (singular) seems to be associated with entry in the keyword index, bringing up 147 hits. I don't know if any of those hits is actually access point and not entry--I didn't look through all of these to see if there is a definition of access point or entry (I am inclined to doubt it). In MARC21 Bibliographic, chapter on 76X-78X Linking Entries, under Linking Entry Fields (fields 760-787), it begins: Fields carry descriptive data concerning the related item, the control number for the record of the related item, or both. Under Added Entries (fields 700-730), it says: When an added entry is needed for a title used in a linking field, the added entry is recorded in the appropriate 700-730 field. Linking fields are not intended to take the place of added entries. Likewise, an added entry in field 700-730 does not take the place of a linking field, as it cannot cause a note to be generated or carry a record link. However, I am not sure how correct part of that last sentence is anymore. Is the addition of subfield $i to fields 700-730 intended to record data that are only for machine usage, or to help generate notes in human-readable output, or both? Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Bibliographic Services Dept. Northwestern University Library 1970 Campus Drive Evanston, IL 60208-2300 email: k...@northwestern.edu phone: (847) 491-2939 fax: (847) 491-4345 -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Linked data
Aren't the FRBR entities supposed to be the beginning of the new data schema/vocabulary/dictionary? On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.eduwrote: On 1/20/2011 4:12 AM, Bernhard Eversberg wrote: And in fact, XML (an SGML incarnation!) was designed as a textual markup system, not as a database syntax. So, using it for bibliographic data, would perpetuate that historic misconception. I think this is mis-leading. XML by itself isn't much of anything, it can be used in a 'textual markup way', or it can be used in a 'data' way. There is no problem with using XML for good data, neither is there a magic solution simply by switching exactly the same data we have to XML. What we need is a data schema (aka data dictionary, aka data vocabulary) that actually semantically captures what we need to capture. That's the hard part, and it neccesarily will not be round-trip backwards compatible with MARC. If we have that, whether we put it in XML or something else doesn't matter. The serialization format itself is, to a large extent, an implementation issue. This is my contention. If you have that, then you can, as Behrnard says 'make it a snap to extract the title of the piece represented, unambiguously and independent of context inside the record that only a human reader can unravel.' And, sure, you can do that from an XML format. Just not AACR2-style MarcXML. Jonathan In the light of this, what we need is a real data format. It may look not all that different from MARC, but it needs to be understood in a markedly different way (and RDA supports this view more than AACR2 in that it clearly leaves textual display (ISBD) outside the rules). What we do not need, however, is an RDB sort of format, consisting of a set of interrelated tables. This seems to be what Thomale understands best. And for many developers, RDB is synonymous with database. And that's the other trap into which we ought not fall. A true format must, for one thing, make it a snap to extract the title of the piece represented, unambiguously and independent of context inside the record that only a human reader can unravel. OTOH, it will never be easy to say and pin down what the title of a thing is, no matter what syntax you use to record it. In MARC, the 245 is the most confounded element - no, textual paragraph. B.Eversberg -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Linked data
I can offer a bit of anecdotal evidence on Google-Books. One of our people was at a conference where one of the guys from Google books was speaking, and he (the Google-Books guy) said, that they love library data, because it's so good, and they are quite capable of doing work with MARC. (or words to that effect). That said, it rather underlines the idea that there is a significant time-investment that separates people who can use library data from those who can't. People who have to use MARC/ISO learn how, and those who don't have to, don't bother, because it's too hard. On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Bernhard Eversberg e...@biblio.tu-bs.dewrote: 19.01.2011 10:18, Weinheimer Jim: By making our records available in MARCXML, we make library records available to everyone in the world, in a format that allows people to do with them as they wish. If we make BibTex and EndNote available, while that's OK, this is only partial information. If you make the entire MARCXML available, people could create their own style sheets for MARCXML and create their own EndNote, BibTex or any other format(s) they want. Or, they could do much more. Someone from Google ought to be lurking in this forum. In GBS, they now have 3 new buttons: Export in BibTeX, EndNote, RefMan. But not, alas, MARCXML. [The substance you get is meager, but maybe all the major part of the audience might want, to whom MARCXML would appear as overkill.] But you are of course right: it is wrong to offer just ISO data, MARCXML must be added as an alternative to that. But even more important are the three GBS is now providing. Who, if not LC, should be expected and able to provide all of those, in their public catalog? BTW, ISO cannot be scrapped altogether as long as VuFind imports nothing but that... B.E. -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Linked data
Is this difference of opinion based on how quickly and conveniently Marc records can be handled? Bernhard says we can use Terry Reese's MarcEdit to handle Marc records, which is certainly true and many of us do, but it doesn't satisfy James's need for on the fly handling. Are we perhaps talking about handling Marc records in real time without programmer intervention? I haven't a clue if MarcEdit will do that for the kinds of tasks James wants accomplished, which may be automated machine operations. On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 6:54 AM, Bernhard Eversberg e...@biblio.tu-bs.dewrote: Am 18.01.2011 12:30, schrieb Weinheimer Jim: Bernhard Eversberg wrote: snip So, please forget about ISO2709... I wish I could forget it, but it's in our faces and we have to deal with it every single day for every single record. This is my entire point. Today, right now, if *anybody* wants to work with library records from any library catalog, e.g. LC's catalog, their *only choice* is ISO2709, With all due respect, this is nonsense. Where and how do you receive ISO records from LC, as a non-librarian? (Routine and automated data transfer between library entities is not the subject here.) Not from catalog.loc.gov, as far as I can see! There's a full record with textual tags and a MARC record that is very similar to MarcEdit's format, both lend themselves easily to Perl and other more elementary languages. But there is no trace of ISO and its dreaded directory and so on. And even the Z39 gateway gives you nicely tagged records: http://www.loc.gov/cgi-bin/zgate by the millions. Jim, this gets us nowhere, your preoccupation with ISO! Rest assured, it is a non-issue for as much as our dealings with the populace are concerned. Where it still exists, it can be nicely circumvented. B.Eversberg -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Browse and search RDA test data
As a visually impaired user, I can report that text in ALL CAPS is considerably more difficult to read than text in lower or mixed case. I could go into the reasons for this, but as Hal Cain states, it's more or less generally understood to be true. As to whether it is faithful to change case when transcribing, I have to ask just how faithful we are in our transcription if we don't use the same font as the chief source of information. I think we would probably all agree that matching fonts is clearly impossible (and insane anyway). So, our transcriptions is, in even the best of circumstances, not an exact rendition (link to .jpg for that). In that case, shouldn't we make our data easy to read by using lower or mixed case. On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 1:00 AM, hec...@dml.vic.edu.au wrote: Quoting J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca: Capitalization as found would be acceptable in 505 contents and 520 summaries, but 245 titles are seen in hitlists with other titles, so uniformity is more important. In the upper case examples I checked, the all caps do not reflect the source, according to Amazon images. There is no rationalization apart from bone laziness in harvesting data. Contents notes rendered all uppercase have attracted hostile comment already (perhaps not here, but certainly on Autocat), when incorporated into (AACR2) LC records from linked data produced or captured elsewhere. It's widely understood that continuous uppercase text is more difficult for most people to read. I fail to understand what reasonable purpose can be served in using uppercase. If it's as a paltry attempt to represent the style of the titlepage (or other source of primary identifying data for a document), that purpose would be better served by attaching a link to a titlepage image -- which is a strategy I'm considering for a forthcoming project with early printed books. In fact, all lowercase would be better for legibility, and just as simple to do. Hal Cain Melbourne, Australia hec...@dml.vic.edu.au This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] FRBRized data available for bulk download
and Work, so I'm a bit confused as to what you're asking, but I'll give it a shot. You're correct that embodiedIn.xml lists relationships between Expression and Manifestation. (Note realized through and embodied in are terms right out of the FRBR report to describe these relationships.) The relationship between Expression and Manifestation is n:n (many to many). A given Expression be embodied in any number of different Manifestations, and a given Manifestation may embody any number of different Expressed Works. In embodiedIn.xml, each element efrbr:embodiedIn describes the relationship between one Expression and one Manifestation. This statement, however, doesn't mean that's the only Manifestation of that Expression, or the only Expression that appears on that Manifestation. Instead, these are just tiny statements of fact. To find all the Expressions on a given Manifestation (which is only one of the many questions one might want to ask of this data), you'd need look for all of the efrbr:embodiedIn statements that have the URI for the Manifestation you care about in the @target attribute. You can see some of these right at the beginning of the file: efrbr:embodiedIn source=http://vfrbr.info/expression/1; target=http://vfrbr.info/manifestation/1/http://vfrbr.info/manifestation/1%22/ efrbr:embodiedIn source=http://vfrbr.info/expression/2; target=http://vfrbr.info/manifestation/1/http://vfrbr.info/manifestation/1%22/ efrbr:embodiedIn source=http://vfrbr.info/expression/3; target=http://vfrbr.info/manifestation/1/http://vfrbr.info/manifestation/1%22/ efrbr:embodiedIn source=http://vfrbr.info/expression/4; target=http://vfrbr.info/manifestation/1/http://vfrbr.info/manifestation/1%22/ To find all the Manifestations a given Expression appears on, you'd look in the data for all the efrbr:embodiedIn statements that have the URI of the Expression you care about in the @source attribute. Basically it's a whole bunch of very atomic data that can be combined in any way to answer all sorts of different questions: What Works are by this Person? What Manifestations were published by publisher X? What Works were performed by Corporate Body X (i.e., which Works have Expressions that have realized by relationships to that Corporate Body)? Ad infinitum... Many thanks, B.Eversberg Hope this helps. Jenn Jenn Riley Metadata Librarian Digital Library Program Indiana University - Bloomington Wells Library W501 (812) 856-5759 www.dlib.indiana.edu http://www.dlib.indiana.edu Inquiring Librarian blog: www.inquiringlibrarian.blogspot.com http://www.inquiringlibrarian.blogspot.com Jenn Riley Metadata Librarian Digital Library Program Indiana University - Bloomington Wells Library W501 (812) 856-5759 www.dlib.indiana.edu Inquiring Librarian blog: www.inquiringlibrarian.blogspot.com -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
