Re: [RDA-L] Proposal to RDA 5.1.4 by EURIG
Wouldn't these discussions be on the JSC website?
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Jack Wu wrote:
> While unrelated to this particular inquiry, I'm ashamed to admit,
> while up to date on other messages on this list, I can't say the same for
> the JSC working documents.They frequently got left behind, not because of
> their lack of importance, but most got left behind for another day which
> never comes, on account of more mundane, but immediate cataloging matters.
> So my general question is. Is there another way to keep up with the
> changes? RDA Toolkit seems little help unless you read the entire kit every
> so often, clearly not practical. Discussions on this list seem to be the
> next best alternative. Is there a summary every so often of changes of any
> consequence that one should be aware of?
>
> Jack
>
> Jack Wu
> Franciscan University of Steubenville
> j...@franciscan.edu
>
>
> >>> "Danskin, Alan" 10/21/2013 5:08 AM >>>
>
> Dear Yan,
>
> ** **
>
> I will take the liberty of stepping in and responding to this, as Judy may
> not be aware of the background to your enquiry.
>
> ** **
>
> The issue you refer to was one of several identified by the Technical
> Group on the adoption of RDA in France. Many of the issues identified by
> this group were discussed by EURIG (the European RDA Interest Group) at the
> EURIG Technical Meeting, hosted by BNF, in Paris on 27 January 2012.
>
> ** **
>
> There was a consensus at the meeting that it would be desirable for RDA to
> provide alternative instructions that would not mandate any particular
> order of elements when constructing an access point. However, EURIG has
> not prioritised this work and no proposal has been put to JSC and none is
> currently planned.
>
> ** **
>
> Kind regards,
>
> ** **
>
> Alan
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Alan Danskin
>
> Vice-Chair EURIG
>
> British Library Representative to JSC
>
> British Library
>
> Boston Spa
>
> Wetherby
>
> West Yorkshire
>
> LS23 7BY
>
> ** **
>
> Tel: +44(0)1937 546669
>
> mobile: 07833401117
>
> ** **
>
>
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Yan Lee
> *Sent:* 21 October 2013 05:20
> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> *Subject:* [RDA-L] Proposal to RDA 5.1.4 by EURIG
>
> ** **
>
> Dear Judy Kuhagen,
>
> May I know what's going on about the proposal to RDA 5.1.4 by EURIG? Is
> there any discussion paper on this?
>
> Proposal: No fixed order should be imposed upon the combination of an
> author’s name and the title of a Work. (RDA issues for discussion by EURIG,
> January 16, 2012)
>
> Thanks.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Yan
>
> ** **
>
> On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 8:19 PM, JSC Secretary <
> jscsecret...@rdatoolkit.org> wrote:
>
> The discussion paper listed below for the November 2013 JSC meeting is
> available on the public website (http://www.rda-jsc.org/workingnew.html);
> written responses are not required.
>
> 6JSC/Chair/9 [Element Set Discussion ("Notes on", "Details of", Source
> Consulted", etc.)]
>
>
>
> Regards, Judy Kuhagen
>
> JSC Secretary
>
>
>
>
> --
> Yan Yi Lee
> Systems Librarian
> Wagner College Library
> (718) 420-4219
>
> --
> Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance
>
>
--
Gene Fieg
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Welcome back to LC
Me too, considering how much I bug them. On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 4:25 AM, Moore, Richard wrote: > I’d like to welcome back our colleagues at the Library of Congress. > > ** ** > > Regards > > Richard > > > > Richard Moore > > Authority Control Team Manager > > The British Library > > > > Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 > > E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk > > > > ** ** > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Uniform titles and Selections
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 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.
Re: [RDA-L] recording on unnumbered plates
Just a question here. Why did RDA get rid of the use brackets. The use of brackets made the statement of physicality clear: those pages or plates were not explicitly numbered. Why not continue using brackets for the same purpose in RDA? On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 7:03 PM, M. E. wrote: > Sian Woolcock wrote: > > >> We are currently having a discussion about recording the number of >> unnumbered plates in the extent field (MARC 300). The RDA toolkit has us >> confused on this. >> >> >> ** >> >> ** ** >> >> Previously under AACR2 rules, if we had a book with unnumbered plates we >> would transcribe it like this: >> >> ** ** >> >> *300 - - ‡a 202 p., [16] p. of plates : ‡b ill. ; ‡c 21 cm.* >> >> ** ** >> >> Under RDA rules we have now been transcribing books with unnumbered >> plates like this >> >> ** ** >> >> *300 - - ‡a 202 pages, 16 pages of plates : ‡b ill. ; ‡c 21 cm.* >> >> ** ** >> >> We thought this was the right thing to do but upon closer inspection of >> the RDA toolkit at rule 3.4.5.9 we are not sure if this is correct. >> >> ** ** >> >> At the beginning of the rule it states: >> >> ** ** >> >> *“**If the leaves or pages of plates in a resource are not included in >> the numbering for a sequence or sequences of pages or leaves of text, etc., >> record the number of leaves or pages of plates at the end of the sequence >> or sequences of pagination, etc. Record the number of leaves or pages of >> plates after the pagination, etc., whether the plates are found together or >> distributed throughout the resource.* >> >> * * >> >> * EXAMPLE* >> >> *246 pages, 32 pages of plates”* >> >> ** ** >> >> However once you get to the end of the chapter it states >> >> * * >> >> *“**Exception* >> >> *Early printed resources. For early printed resources, if the leaves and >> pages of plates are numbered, or if there are both numbered and unnumbered >> plates, record each sequence of leaves and pages of plates in the >> appropriate terms.* >> >> * * >> >> *EXAMPLE* >> >> *246 pages, 38 leaves of plates, 24 pages of plates* >> >> * * >> >> *Disregard unnumbered sequences of plates**,*” >> >> ** >> > > > As Thomas mentioned, that's a continuation of the general instruction, not > the early book instruction. There's the prescribed "unnumbered" instead of > brackets as well. > > I'll take this opportunity to point to a cock-up between the first half of > 3.4.5.9 and the last half if comparing practices between RDA and AACR2 (and > earlier). The first half says to give a mention to plates found in the > piece. Good enough. The back half, however, after the early printed > resources section, tells us to only give unnumbered leaves/pages of plates > when they are a substantial part of the piece or are mentioned in a > note--just like for text (RDA 3.4.5.3.1). So in a 300 page book we're not > supposed to give "8 unnumbered leaves of plates"? Or give it and add a > note? > > I figure this stems from someone taking AACR2 2.5B3 and applying it under > RDA both to texted pages/leaves and to plates, when I and I believe a > majority of catalogers only applied that AACR2 rule to texted pages/leaves. > > If that's the way RDA's intended to be written--which would be a big > change in practice judging from the large number of "plated" books that > contain only a few plates--I'd welcome confirmation. > >> > -- > > Mark K. Ehlert > Minitex > <http://www.minitex.umn.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.
Re: [RDA-L] dtst and dates
you wouldn't use "s"? d = dead serial
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 3:08 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
> Gary Oliver asked:
> >I have an item that has a copyright statement, which includes
> >the copyright date (1984)
>
> Use 264 1 $c[1984]
>
> We add 264 4 $c only if the year differs from that in 264 1 $c;
> having the same year twice would look strange to patrons it seems to
> me.
>
> >How would the relevant 008 fixed length data elements be coded?
>
> 008/06 = d, 008/07-10 = 1984.
>
> Having 008/06 as t, and the *same* year as dates one and two is just
> silly.
>
> We should not clutter up our records with unhelpful bits like that.
>
>
>__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
> ___} |__ \__
>
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] 264 with only a copyright date
I wasn't talking about the copyright of theses.
In terms of theses: author cites New York : Harper, c1961
Catalog record reads 264 New York : Harper, [1961]
264 c1961
Thesis advisor checks citation and notes the [1961].
Calls in author. Our catalog says it was published in 1961, are you sure
you want to keep c1961.
That is what says in the book, says author.
Hmm, says advisor, I wonder why we have [1961] and where did it come from?
AACR2: New York : Harper, c1961
Which one is clearer and not liable to misinterpretation by users
(non-catalogers)?
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:28 AM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
> Amy Mercer posted:
>
> >264 #4 $a London; $a Toronto : $b Schott, $c (c)2011
>
> No. Field 264 4 has only $c date. The publisher may or may not be
> the copright holder.
>
> You do not record a copyright date in 264 1; in the absence of an
> imprint date, you record an inferred imprint date in brackets, i.e.,
> the copyright date in brackets without the copyright symbol. We do not
> record a 264 4 date if the same as 264 1, even if in brackets in 264
> 1. I agree that the two 264s with the same date looks redundant. You
> are right to seek a more sensible solution.
>
> We would do this imprint as:
>
> 264 1 $aLondon [England] ;$aToronto [Ontario] : $bSchott,$c[2011]
>
> We always transcribe or supply jurisdiction; since there is a London in
> both Ontario and England that seems particularly important in this
> case.
>
>
>__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
> ___} |__ \__
>
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] 264 with only a copyright date
And how is the user supposed to make sense of this? How are thesis advisors supposed to make sense of this when checking bibliographical citations? How will it display On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Stewart, Richard < rstew...@indiantrailslibrary.org> wrote: > I would just add that the publication date element is core in RDA, and > that my reading of the instruction indicates a preference to supply or > approximate the date unless it "cannot reasonably be determined." We also > follow the LCPS. My own preference in such a case is to add the copyright > date as well (in 264 _4), so the user of the record can see the information > that was actually in the resource. > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 9:46 AM, rball...@frontier.com < > rball...@frontier.com> wrote: > >> Amy, the 264 $4 contains ONLY the copyright date, with no other >> information. The example you showed seems to be a case where the >> publication date was inferred from the copyright date, thus the bracketed >> date in the first 264 field. Strictly according to RDA, the first 264 >> should contain "[publication date not supplied]" which results in the need >> for the second 264. The LC policy statement for this instruction >> however,allows for the inference of the publication date from the copyright >> date. >> In our libraries, we would use the first 264 only, and eliminate the second. >> >> Hope this helps. >> >> Kevin Roe >> Media Processing Dept. >> Fort Wayne Community Schools >> Fort Wayne IN >> >> *From:* Amy Mercer >> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA >> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 21, 2013 9:06 AM >> *Subject:* [RDA-L] 264 with only a copyright date >> >> I have seen many examples like the one below, in which there is both a >> publication date and a copyright date. >> >> 264 #1 $a London ; $a Toronto : $b Schott, $c [2011] >> 264 #4 $c ©2011 >> >> >> But I cannot find a rule or example in which there is only a copyright >> date. How is that handled? Would it be correct to do it this way? >> >> 264 #4 $a London; $a Toronto : $b Schott, $c ©2011 >> >> If not…help. >> >> If so, what is the rule? >> >> Thanks, >> >> *Amy Mercer* >> Technical Services / Serials Librarian >> Wm. G. Squires Library >> Lee University >> 260 11th St. NE >> Cleveland, TN 37311 >> 423.614.8564 >> amer...@leeuniversity.edu >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Richard A. Stewart > Cataloging Supervisor > Indian Trails Library District > 355 Schoenbeck Road > Wheeling, Illinois 60090-4499 > USA > > Tel: 847-279-2214 > Fax: 847-459-4760 > rstew...@indiantrailslibrary.org > http://www.indiantrailslibrary.org/ > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Question re: 776 for Custom Editions, which are excerpts/adapted from full textbooks
Just a note: And they wonder why we can't get things through faster. Only because, we want quality cataloging--bless you-- and not automatic hit that button cataloging. On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 7:37 AM, MCCUTCHEON, SEVIM wrote: > I have many books to rush catalog, all of which are custom editions for > classes taught at Kent State University. I’m taking the record for the > full textbook and deriving an original record for the custom edition. I’d > like to add a 776 to link the full textbook to the custom edition. I’m not > sure of what to put in the subfield I of the 776 to explain the > relationship. I think that in most cases, the custom editions are > excerpts, but the first one I’ve looked at closely appears to have the same > pagination as the texbook, with the addition of a course syllabus. > > ** ** > > I really like my coworkers suggestion, > > ** ** > > 776 08 ǂi Excerpts from (work): ǂa Hamilton, Cheryl. ǂt Communicating for > success. ǂd Boston : Allyn & Bacon, c2011 ǂz 0205524753 ǂw (DLC) > 2009045254 ǂw (OCoLC)316017345 > > ** ** > > But wonder if it’s safe to assume these are all excerpts versus > modifications. > > ** ** > > Thus I’d just like to check with the collective wisdom before I take final > action. Since these are rush cataloging requests, the sooner I can hear > from you all the better! > > ** ** > > Thanks in advance for your help. > > ** ** > > Sevim McCutcheon > > Catalog Librarian, Assoc. Prof. > > Kent State University Libraries > > 330-672-1703 > > lmccu...@kent.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.
Re: [RDA-L] 300 $b for still images in volume format
Just to be a carmudgeon about this. Those 3XX fields are very structured
and may not immediately understandable to the patron.
So I would include "illustration" in the 360, since this written in much
more straightforward English.
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:02 PM, L'Écuyer-Coelho Marie-Chantal <
mc.coe...@banq.qc.ca> wrote:
> Hi again!
>
> I don't think I would write up a content note in 520 since in 336 the
> content type is clearly defined as still image. Now, for « normal » still
> images (i.e. pictures on a sheet of paper or other 2D carrier), we never
> include terms like « ill. » or « images » since it would be redundant to
> say an image is illustrated! We simply recorded « colour », "b&w", « some
> colour », or even « colour and b&w » (if using ISBN (NB))
> Where I get a little confused, however, is when we're talking about still
> images gathered as a volume. I took for granted that, like still images in
> 2D format, we would not be allowed to repeat « images » or « illustration »
> since we already had the 336 specifying the book only contains images.
> Perhaps if I count the pages, I could then record:
> 65 unnumbered pages : some color ; 28 cm
>
> Would that be better???
>
> Have a great weekend everyone!
>
> Marie-Chantal L'Ecuyer-Coelho
> Bibliothécaire
> Direction du traitement documentaire des collections patrimoniales
> Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec
> 2275, rue Holt
> Montréal (Québec) H2G 3H1
> Téléphone : 514-873-1101 poste 3730
> mc.coe...@banq.qc.ca
> www.banq.qc.ca
>
> Avis de confidentialité Ce courriel est une communication confidentielle
> et l'information qu'il contient est réservée à l'usage exclusif du
> destinataire. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire visé, vous n'avez aucun
> droit d'utiliser cette information, de la copier, de la distribuer ou de la
> diffuser. Si cette communication vous a été transmise par erreur, veuillez
> la détruire et nous en aviser immédiatement par courriel.
>
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] De la part de J. McRee Elrod
> Envoyé : 16 août 2013 12:50
> À : RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
> Objet : Re: [RDA-L] Illustration terms in 7.15.1.3
>
> Heidrun said:
>
> >I think we'll have to discuss that for the German application. Judging
> >from the discussion here and some examples I've seen, I'm not so sure
> >this rule has been universally followed (although I see your point).
>
> Even the AACR2 glossary does not have a definition of "photograph".
> But in the Autocat archives (a decade of so ago I think) you will find
> the definition discussed.
>
> Has any rule ever been universally followed? Yes, cataloguers often
> mistakenly call reproduced pictures "photographs".
>
> For hugh inconsistency consider the misinterpretation of the AACR2
> rule on place of publication jurisdiction. The rule has the *same* if
> needed provision for transcribing or supplying jurisdiction, yet I have
> seen:
>
> Boston
> Boston, MA
> Boston, MA USA
> Boston, Mass.
> Boston, Mass. USA
> Boston [Mass.]
> and even Boston [MA]
>
> Just transcribe or supply the !@#$%^ jurisdiction! A city known in
> the Beltway may not be known in Tokyo. It's faster to just give it
> than to ponder, or consult a list as do the Australians. Since "WA"
> can be Washington State or Western Australia, I don't think postal
> codes should be transcribed or supplied, unless part of the
> publisher's address in parentheses following the jurisdiction.
>
> At least we gained the option to supply jurisdiction added to RDA, as
> opposed to putting it in a note.
>
> We need a fuller RDA glossary, and one which does not include the word
> being defined in the definition, and doesn't misdefine "computer".
>
> In another post:
>
> >"1 volume (non paginé) :$b en partie en couleur ;$c28 cm"
>
> How would the patron know it's pictures? I suppose you could say so
> in a 520, but I would like something in 300.
>
> How about:
>
> 1 volume (non pagine) :$bimages en partie en couleur ;$c28 cm
>
> You are saying that the images are some in colour. It seems
> appropriate me me to say to *what* "couleur" applies. We are not
> talking about the volume's dust cover or binding.
>
>
>__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing
> HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/<http://www.slc.bc.ca/>
> ___} |__ \__
>
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Discussion lacuna
I agree. And that is why we don't follow pcc rules altogether. For
instance, we will add the "Translation of" note, include pagination of
bibliographies if appropriate. We do think that entries should be
justified in the description. Why? Because we have to realize that
cataloging uses very truncated, coded language for some of the entries.
Put the justifications in straightforward English informs the patron/user
more adequately, sometimes, than the formal language of our entries.
That is why I wish we could go back to the GMD; the 33X fields could be a
bit mystifying to users: text unmediated volume. Maybe we have to have a
séance to get the to "mediated" ones
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 2:13 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
> It bothers me in our discussions concerning RDA usage, that most parse
> the rules without reference to patron service.
>
> No set of rules can every cover all eventualities. In the absence of
> a rule, e.g., how to record "'61" as a date of production, the most
> important consideration it seems to me should be what produces the
> most helpful record?
>
> How anyone would think 264 0 $c'61 is better for patrons than $c1761,
> $c1861, or $c1961, with or without brackets, is beyond me.
>
> In particular situations, for particular material, the rules may even
> need bending a bit.
>
>
>__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
> ___} |__ \__
>
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Names of conferences as title proper, other title information or statement of responsiblity
I meant area of responsibility. The 245 line would read [title] / |c [name of conference] On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller < wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote: > Gene, > > > Without seeing the actual item, I would place it in the area of resp. >> > > Sorry, that was too much shorthand for a non-native speaker: > Does "resp" here mean the same as "depends"? If so, on what - the layout? > > If you want to have a closer look, here's a scan of the title page: > https://docs.google.com/file/**d/**0B2aFdx26Qi9sMDhIb1lZMFE2SlU/**edit<https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2aFdx26Qi9sMDhIb1lZMFE2SlU/edit> > > It's a typical case of conference proceedings, a collection of papers > given at the so-called "Bibliothekartag" (the German equivalent to the ALA > conference, with about 4.000 participants). My reading is that such > proceedings originate with the conference, and therefore that the > conference is seen as the creator. > > I apologize for being so insistent. But it's an example from my teaching > collection, and I would very much like to get a sound RDA solution for it > (or perhaps several acceptable solutions, if that's how it is). > > Thanks again, > > Heidrun > > > -- > - > Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. > Stuttgart Media University > Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany > www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Names of conferences as title proper, other title information or statement of responsiblity
Without seeing the actual item, I would place it in the area of resp. On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller < wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote: > Gene, > > Thanks, but perhaps I didn't explain my problem clearly enough. It's not > about the main entry - I had indeed assumed that the conference would be > creator according to 19.2.1.1.1 d). My problem is about the bibliographical > description of such an item. Where does the name of the conference go - > main title, other title information or s-o-r? > > Heidrun > > > > > On 05.08.2013 17:25, Gene Fieg wrote: > > I am not speaking for every American cataloger here, but we would have the > m.e as the conference since it is a named conference. A parallel to this > would be if you had the title followed by statement of responsibility with > a personal name and did not make the personal name the main entry or > preferred entry. > > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller < > wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote: > >> I'm rather unsure about what the title and statement of responsibility >> area should look like if there is both a formal name of the conference and >> a specific title of a conference on the preferred source of information. >> >> Let's consider the following example (which I've translated from German >> to English; in German it reads "100. Deutscher Bibliothekartag in Berlin >> 2011" and "Bibliotheken für die Zukunft - Zukunft für die Bibliotheken"). >> The t.p. looks like this: >> >> --- >> >> 100th CONFERENCE OF GERMAN LIBRARIANS >> IN BERLIN 2011 >> >> LIBRARIES FOR THE FUTURE - >> FUTURE FOR THE LIBRARIES >> [this is printed slightly smaller than the name of the conference above, >> but still in capitals] >> >> edited by >> Ulrich Hohoff and Daniela Luelfing >> >> -- >> >> According to the German cataloging rules RAK, the name of the conference >> here would be given as a statement of responsibility, i.e. (in ISBD): >> >> Libraries for the future - future for the libraries / 100th Conference of >> German Librarians ; edited by Ulrich Hohoff and Daniela Lülfing >> >> Note that for RAK, it doesn't matter which of the statements is most >> prominent and in which order the statements are presented on the t.p. - you >> would always take the specific title of the conference as title proper and >> the name of the conference as s-o-r. >> >> How would this case be treated according to the Anglo-American tradition? >> In WorldCat, I've found my example with the name of the conference as other >> title information, like this (again, I'm using the translated version): >> >> Libraries for the future - future for the libraries : 100th Conference of >> German Librarians / edited by Ulrich Hohoff and Daniela Lülfing >> >> Looking at LC's catalog, I've found no less than three different ways of >> handling similar cases - with the name of the conference either given as >> title proper, as other title information, or as a statement of >> responsibility. Examples: >> >> In http://lccn.loc.gov/98209348 (where the t.p. should look quite >> similar to the one in my example), the name of the conference has been >> given as the title proper, and the specific title of the conference (From >> Gutenberg to the internet) is given as other title information. >> >> In http://lccn.loc.gov/97152273, the specific title of the conference is >> given as title proper and first part of other title information (The new >> library : claim and reality), and the the name of the conference (31st >> Conference of Austrian Librarians Innsbruck 2011) has been treated as a >> second bit of other title information. I imagine this is due to the layout >> of the t.p., which gives prominence to the specific title. Have a look at >> the cover here: >> >> http://www.univie.ac.at/voeb/publikationen/schriften-der-voeb/band-11-die-neue-bibliothek/ >> >> But I've also come across examples where the name of the conference is >> treated as a statement of responsibility, e.g. in another of the Austrian >> Librarians' conferences: >> http://lccn.loc.gov/99185606 >> >> So I wonder: Is this a matter of cataloger's judgment, triggered mainly >> by the presentation and layout of the preferred source of information? Or >> is there some deeper rule which I haven't worked out yet? >> >> Personally, I think that it would make
Re: [RDA-L] Names of conferences as title proper, other title information or statement of responsiblity
I am not speaking for every American cataloger here, but we would have the m.e as the conference since it is a named conference. A parallel to this would be if you had the title followed by statement of responsibility with a personal name and did not make the personal name the main entry or preferred entry. On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller < wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote: > I'm rather unsure about what the title and statement of responsibility > area should look like if there is both a formal name of the conference and > a specific title of a conference on the preferred source of information. > > Let's consider the following example (which I've translated from German to > English; in German it reads "100. Deutscher Bibliothekartag in Berlin 2011" > and "Bibliotheken für die Zukunft - Zukunft für die Bibliotheken"). The > t.p. looks like this: > > --- > > 100th CONFERENCE OF GERMAN LIBRARIANS > IN BERLIN 2011 > > LIBRARIES FOR THE FUTURE - > FUTURE FOR THE LIBRARIES > [this is printed slightly smaller than the name of the conference above, > but still in capitals] > > edited by > Ulrich Hohoff and Daniela Luelfing > > -- > > According to the German cataloging rules RAK, the name of the conference > here would be given as a statement of responsibility, i.e. (in ISBD): > > Libraries for the future - future for the libraries / 100th Conference of > German Librarians ; edited by Ulrich Hohoff and Daniela Lülfing > > Note that for RAK, it doesn't matter which of the statements is most > prominent and in which order the statements are presented on the t.p. - you > would always take the specific title of the conference as title proper and > the name of the conference as s-o-r. > > How would this case be treated according to the Anglo-American tradition? > In WorldCat, I've found my example with the name of the conference as other > title information, like this (again, I'm using the translated version): > > Libraries for the future - future for the libraries : 100th Conference of > German Librarians / edited by Ulrich Hohoff and Daniela Lülfing > > Looking at LC's catalog, I've found no less than three different ways of > handling similar cases - with the name of the conference either given as > title proper, as other title information, or as a statement of > responsibility. Examples: > > In http://lccn.loc.gov/98209348 (where the t.p. should look quite similar > to the one in my example), the name of the conference has been given as the > title proper, and the specific title of the conference (From Gutenberg to > the internet) is given as other title information. > > In http://lccn.loc.gov/97152273, the specific title of the conference is > given as title proper and first part of other title information (The new > library : claim and reality), and the the name of the conference (31st > Conference of Austrian Librarians Innsbruck 2011) has been treated as a > second bit of other title information. I imagine this is due to the layout > of the t.p., which gives prominence to the specific title. Have a look at > the cover here: > http://www.univie.ac.at/voeb/**publikationen/schriften-der-** > voeb/band-11-die-neue-**bibliothek/<http://www.univie.ac.at/voeb/publikationen/schriften-der-voeb/band-11-die-neue-bibliothek/> > > But I've also come across examples where the name of the conference is > treated as a statement of responsibility, e.g. in another of the Austrian > Librarians' conferences: > http://lccn.loc.gov/99185606 > > So I wonder: Is this a matter of cataloger's judgment, triggered mainly by > the presentation and layout of the preferred source of information? Or is > there some deeper rule which I haven't worked out yet? > > Personally, I think that it would make sense to give the name of the > conference as a statement of responsibility: The congress is seen as the > creator of the work according to RDA 19.2.1.1.1, and a statement of > responsibility is defined as "a statement relating to the identification > and/or function of any persons, families, or corporate bodies responsible > for the creation of, or contributing to the realization of, the > intellectual or artistic content of a resource". > > As always: Many thanks for your help! > > Heidrun > > > -- > - > Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. > Stuttgart Media University > Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany > www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Good news re RDA guidance
I'm with Lynn. How do we order?
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 5:28 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
> Autocatters and RDA-Lers,
>
> Help is on the way.
>
> Excellent author Jean Riddle Weihs and another capable cataloguer are
> working on an RDA/MARC21 manual for school libraries. Like Deborah
> Fritz' helpful binder, it will combine the two not very harmonious
> cataloguing and coding standards.
>
> Although it is aimed at the school library, I suspect it will be
> helpful to public libraries, college libraries, and even copy
> cataloguers in academic libraries.
>
>
>__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
> ___} |__ \______
>
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] $i relators
Just a question. After looking at MARC 21 site, I see the definition of
subfield the subfield, but no examples
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 11:01 AM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
> Adam Schiff posted:
>
> >700 1_ $i Contains (work): $a Estes, David. $t Anna's story.
> > should be
> >700 12 $i Contains (work): $a Estes, David. $t Anna's story.
>
> I agree that the 2nd indicator "2" should be there.
>
> Our clients who have responded all reject the the $i. They fear it
> will mess up indexing. They (and they assume their patrons) have no
> idea what it means. How can a resource contain a work or an
> expression they ask; doesn't it have to be a manifestation?
>
> I've no idea how to answer that question.
>
> On the original question, we would not do a note concerning the short
> story; we would do a 505 listing all the contents, even if we did not
> do a 7XX for all.
>
>__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
> ___} |__ \__
>
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.
[RDA-L] RDA--How dynamic is it?
With all these discussions and proposals about RDA being submitted, how dynamic is RDA? Is it still a code in process of becoming? How can we call it a cataloging code, when the code keeps changing, almost daily? -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Content notes
rd chapter headings as part of a 505 note. (Cataloguers want/demand > specific rule numbers) We are certain it does not fall under Chapters 25, > 26 and 27. We are to presume it comes under rule 7.10. but, this rule seems > to address notes code in the 520 tag. > > Thank you > > Don Charuk > Cataloguer > Toronto Public Library > > > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] ] The "A" in RDA
And how does WorldShare's idea of continual updating of our catalogs fit
into this picture?
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Gene Fieg wrote:
> Yay, team!
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 8:58 AM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
>
>> James said:
>>
>> >... we have seen >lots and lots of discussion among catalogers about
>> >the "D" (Description) but relatively little about "A" (Access).
>>
>> Perhaps because RDA says nothing about indexing and display, both
>> vital for access?
>>
>> >... what about new methods of access *using the data we already
>> >have*?
>>
>> Yes, what we most need is development of ILS/OPACs, as opposed to new
>> rules or a new coding scheme.
>>
>> I seem to recall a story of two medieval stone masons being asked what
>> they were doing. One replied that he was chipping at a stone. The
>> other replied that he was building a cathedral. As cataloguers, we
>> need to stop just chippping stones, and return to cathedral building,
>> a task we abandoned to the automation folk when we moved from card
>> catalogues. Our task should be to build catalogues, not just create
>> bibliographic records.
>>
>>
>>__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
>> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
>> ___} |__ \__
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Gene Fieg
> Cataloger/Serials Librarian
> Claremont School of Theology
> gf...@cst.edu
>
> Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
> represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
> or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that
> of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
> of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a
> courtesy for information only.
>
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] ] The "A" in RDA
Yay, team!
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 8:58 AM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
> James said:
>
> >... we have seen >lots and lots of discussion among catalogers about
> >the "D" (Description) but relatively little about "A" (Access).
>
> Perhaps because RDA says nothing about indexing and display, both
> vital for access?
>
> >... what about new methods of access *using the data we already
> >have*?
>
> Yes, what we most need is development of ILS/OPACs, as opposed to new
> rules or a new coding scheme.
>
> I seem to recall a story of two medieval stone masons being asked what
> they were doing. One replied that he was chipping at a stone. The
> other replied that he was building a cathedral. As cataloguers, we
> need to stop just chippping stones, and return to cathedral building,
> a task we abandoned to the automation folk when we moved from card
> catalogues. Our task should be to build catalogues, not just create
> bibliographic records.
>
>
>__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
> ___} |__ \__
>
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Leaf (new RDA glossary term and definition)
It's confusing because the writer(s) of RDA had to write not just in librarianese, but philosophical librarianese. I find an awful lot of this kind of writing as an editor for a journal. When I have to read some of these articles, I go absolutely mad. Mad, I tell you. MAD. On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Lisa Hatt wrote: > On 7/15/2013 8:57 AM, Gene Fieg wrote: > > > Who is writing this definitions. > > > > A page has printing on both sides A leaf has printing or > > representations of data on one side. Period. > > I had that thought too, that the definitions seemed backwards. Not how I > learned "leaf" and "page". Rather confusing... > > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Kathie Coblentz > > wrote: > > > >> Among the July 2013 changes to RDA we have a new term in the > >> glossary, "Leaf," with the following definition: > >> > >> "A unit of extent of text consisting of a single bound or fastened > >> sheet of paper as a subunit of a volume; each leaf consists of two > >> pages, one on each side, either or both of which may be blank." > >> > >> Then we have "Page": "A unit of extent of text consisting of a > >> single side of a leaf." > > -- > Lisa Hatt > Cataloging > DeAnza College Library > 408-864-8459 -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Leaf (new RDA glossary term and definition)
Who is writing this definitions. A page has printing on both sides A leaf has printing or representations of data on one side. Period. On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Kathie Coblentz wrote: > Among the July 2013 changes to RDA we have a new term in the glossary, > "Leaf," with the following definition: > > "A unit of extent of text consisting of a single bound or fastened sheet > of paper as a subunit of a volume; each leaf consists of two pages, one on > each side, either or both of which may be blank." > > Then we have "Page": "A unit of extent of text consisting of a single side > of a leaf." > > Since a leaf or a page is then by definition "a unit of extent of text," I > ask (again): If you have a volume containing only images, such as > reproductions of photographs or drawings, what do you call the things they > are printed on? And how do you reckon the extent of the resources > containing them? > > By the way, most traditionally bound volumes contain sheets of paper that > have been folded after printing, and thus each "single bound or fastened > sheet of paper" comprises at least two of the subunits historically called > leaves (four pages). > > Also, this definition limits leaves (and by extension, pages) to paper. > What do you call a "subunit of a volume" made up of text and/or images > printed on sheets of vellum, or nontraditional substances such as cork, > aluminum, steel, Mylar, acrylic, or fabric--all of which I have encountered > in my cataloging career? > > Thanks for your thoughts. > > Kathie Coblentz, Rare Materials Cataloger > Collections Strategy/Special Formats Processing > The New York Public Library, Stephen A. Schwarzman Building > 5th Avenue and 42nd Street, Room 313 > New York, NY 10018 > kathiecoble...@nypl.org > > My opinions, not NYPL's > -- 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.
[RDA-L] cross ref in AACR2 : abbreviations
In the AACR2 as presented in RDA there are colored xrefs. Where do I find what those colors mean and especially what the abbreviations mean. I assume that CM = Cartographic materials. Also, what ever happened to the promise to include the index to AACR2. It was promised. No there yet (Used to be found in AACR2 when AACR2 was in CatDesktop.) -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] BL Guide to RDA Name Authority Records - July 2013 changes
What is the *BL *in the guide? And will this be in the toolkit On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Moore, Richard wrote: > Dear colleagues > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Changes to RDA were published this week, to implement the decisions of JSC > last November. The* BL Guide to RDA Name Authority Records* has been > updated to reflect these changes. It can be found here: > > ** ** > > RDA Toolkit > > -Tools > > --Workflows > > ---Global workflows > > BL Guide to RDA Name Authority Records > > ** ** > > The updated Guide has been reviewed by colleagues at LC/PCC, who were > kind enough to take the time to plough through it and suggest additions and > amendments, which have all been incorporated. The Guide is consistent with > the LC-PCC-PS, DCM:Z1 and the Post-RDA Test Guidelines. > > ** ** > > Sections of the Guide are not numbered (to avoid confusion with RDA > instruction numbers), but navigation is by hyperlinks starting at the > Contents page. Links are provided throughout the Guide to the relevant RDA > instructions, to the LC-PCC-PS, and to MARC 21. > > ** ** > > At the end of the Contents page is a section called *2013 Changes to RDA*, > that summarises the changes affecting name authority records, with links to > the more detailed information within the Guide. > > ** ** > > From our perspective I would like to draw attention to some of the changes > that we first proposed (6JSC/BL/3 and 6JSC/BL/4): > > ** ** > > Title of the Person has a new sub-element “Other Term of Rank, Honour or > Office” (9.4.1.9, 9.19.1.6), which includes terms indicating academic > office, terms of respect for clergy, military ranks, and other terms of > honour. It can be used to distinguish an authorised access point if dates > of birth/death, periods of activity and occupations are not available. * > *** > > ** ** > > Other Designation Associated with the Person (9.6, 9.19.1.2) now includes > terms for Persons Named in Sacred Scriptures or Apocryphal Books (9.6.1.6), > the terms Fictitious character, Legendary character, etc. (9.6.1.7), and > terms for the type, species or breed of Real Non-human Entities (9.6.1.8). > > > ** ** > > Other Designation Associated with the Person also has a new sub-element > “Other Designation” (9.6.1.9, 9.19.1.7). This element is intentionally > broad, and is designed to help remove the few remaining cases where an > authorised access point can not be made unique. It therefore encompasses > almost any sensible designation, that does not fall within the scope of > another element that can be used in an access point. It can be used to > distinguish an authorised access point if dates of birth/death, periods of > activity, occupations and other terms of rank, honour or office are not > available. > > ** ** > > Other significant changes are covered in the Guide, notably the > combination of the two lists of corporate and government bodies entered > subordinately, which have been combined into a single set of instructions > at 11.2.2.13-11.2.2.28 (6JSC/ALA/18). > > ** ** > > This revision of the Guide also contains a section on our practice for > relationship designators in name authority records, which follows the “FAQ > – LC/PCC RDA and AACR2 practice for creating NARs for persons who use > pseudonyms” [1], and recommendations by the Task Group to Formulate or > Recommend PCC/NACO RDA Policy on Authority Issues [2]. > > ** ** > > I hope this is useful. > > ** ** > > Regards > > Richard > > ** ** > > ** ** > > _ > > Richard Moore > > Authority Control Team Manager > > The British Library > > > > Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 > > E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk > > ** ** > > [1] http:// <http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/pseud.pdf> > www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/pseud.pdf > > [2] > http://rwww.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/RDA%20Task%20groups%20and%20charges/TG%20to%20Formulate%20PCC%20NACO%20Policy_Medium%20Priority%20Issues.docx > > > > > > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Photocopy of a thesis in RDA?
Would like to hear more about this. We catalog theses here. Archival copies and circulating copies (which are photocopies). In the past I have coded the first as archival in the fixed field and country of publication as xx or xxu. For the photocopies I have used "a" for type of material (monographic item) and used 533 and 539 as outlined in OCLC standards. I take it that 533 and 539 are no longer permitted, then, in OCLC? On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Jack Wu wrote: > Mark, > Thank you for the clarification. May I ask a follow up question. If a > thesis is produced but unpublished, we would have only a 264 0 and no 264 > 1. Would the 264 0 have $a Place $b [Producer not identified] $c Date, or > could the 264 0 have only $c but missing $b since only the date is now core? > > Jack > > Jack Wu > Franciscan University of Steubenville > j...@franciscan.edu > > >>> "M. E." 7/9/2013 12:11 PM >>> > Jack Wu wrote: > >> I interpret this to mean there would be no place in fixed country code >> if in 264 1 Publication field there's no $a, no $b but only $c; >> > A publication statement would always include a $a and $b and $c, > following RDA's core instruction. Question is what you use to fill in those > blank lines; "[Place of publication not identified]" would yield a Ctry: > xxb. > >> but a place is entered in fixed field if 264 0 is used and has $a >> with a place. >> > By my reading, yes. > >> A thesis can be considered produced (even if only by the student) but >> not published, right? >> > I'm waiting for a higher power to make a blanket statement about that. > (Less wrestling with the cataloging theory gods and more getting the stuff > on the shelf.) > For now, I'm treating print theses as old-fashioned manuscripts and > employing 264 -0 $c (since the date of production is the only core element > necessary in a production statement, unlike that for publication, etc.). > For place of production, there's no guarantee where the thesis was > produced. For all I know, a University of Minnesota Ph. D. candidate > produced it overseas in Germany, Brazil, or Japan. I consider the student > to be the producer of the thing: they type it up, they print it out (for > print versions, of course), they probably shell out cash to get the thing > handsomely bound too. That falls under the RDA definition of "production." > But I don't consider that fact important enough to post in the 264; in > fact, it could be considered one of those "obvious" facts about a thesis > that doesn't have to be written down. > As far as the degree granting institution goes, they're just passing out > grades, not making the thesis. They can live in the 502 field. > As for the 264 -0 more broadly, I would generally employ all three $a, > $b, and $c when I'm cataloging a one-off thing that is more clearly made by > someone from somewhere, like a work of art or a photograph. Or a building. > In that respect, I'm moving beyond AACR2's prohibition against giving > places and names in the publication area of records for unpublished graphic > materials, artefacts, and some realia. > > -- > Mark K. Ehlert > Minitex > <http://www.minitex.umn.edu/> > > -- > Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance > > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] "approzimately" in access points
And meanwhile the patron is wandering in the desert supplicating the deity for meaning. On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 11:25 AM, James Weinheimer < weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 04/07/2013 18:07, Elizabeth O'Keefe wrote: > > > On a somewhat related issue (it was raised in Mac's post), is anyone > else bothered by the display when only a death date is known? > > Smith, John, -1932 > > > > I have experienced the same thing. I recently cataloged an item with the > subject heading: > Agatha, Saint, -approximately 250. > > I copied and pasted it unthinkingly but when I was editing my record, I > couldn't understand what this meant, and it was only when I realized that > the earlier heading was: > **Agatha,* *Saint,* *d. ca. 250 > > and the "d." was changed to a hyphen, and the "ca." was changed to > "approximately", did I understand what the heading was supposed to say. But > that was only because I know the AACR2 heading. > > The new heading is incoherent. > > -- > *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com > *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ > *First Thus Facebook Page* https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus > *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* > http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ > *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* > http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] "Translated from" notes and code for original language
Ya, know. Sometimes I can get finicky, but sometimes can we just forget about the rules and just make sure that the patron knows what he/she is looking at when he reads cataloging record. In plain English: "Translation of:__. And code the 041 appropriately. On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller < wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote: > Bob, > > > "Translated from the French" is an unstructured description of the > relationship of the resource to another expression (though it's not a very > specific description) and is covered by RDA 24.4.3. See also the example at > 26.1.1.3 "The English edition of a Spanish publication, which is also > issued in French, German, and Arabic editions", which like the "Translated > from the French" note describes in a very general way the relationship of > the resource to four other expressions. > > > Thanks. You're probably right, it could count as an (albeit very general) > unstructured description. > > I'd say the codes in 041 are non-RDA (at least they don't fall under the > definition of either structured or unstructured description in 24.4.3), but > that doesn't mean that they can't be recorded in a MARC record (they aren't > AACR2 either). > > > Good point. Actually, they also aren't mentioned in the German RAK rules, > and it never bothered me before ;-) > > But there is one more general point which comes to mind: If you think > about it, the code in 041 $h gives exactly the same information as the > "Translated from" note - only in coded form instead of natural language. > But we've come to the conclusion that the note can be seen as an RDA > element, but the code cannot (if we take the wording of 24.4.3 seriously). > > I feel that RDA needs to become more aware of the existence of coded > information. 6.11.1.3 (Recording language of expression) is a good example > for this. If I understand the rule correctly, it only provides for > recording the language of the expression in natural language, but not as a > code. I accept that using natural language terms makes sense e.g. as part > of an authorized access point (although, of course, you could still record > a code, but show it to the users as natural language). But isn't it also a > way of recording "language of the expression", whenever a language code is > used in MARC 008 35-37? > > So, why not have a more general rule in the first place and say, e.g. > "Record the language or languages of the expression using appropriate > means, e.g. an appropriate term in the language preferred by the agency > creating the data"? Then the natural language terms could be used where > appropriate, but the use of codes would also be covered by the wording of > the instruction. > > But perhaps I'm on the wrong track here altogether and have simply > misunderstood the application of 6.11.1.3. > > Heidrun > > > -- > - > Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. > Stuttgart Media University > Faculty of Information and Communication > Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germanywww.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi > > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] SOR from copyright statement
And one does miss the LCRI about a t.p. extending from one page to the next.
Somehow the freedom to create ("cataloger's judgment") is getting lost. In
the past we would have put the illustrator in brackets (it came from one of
the preliminaries) and make an added entry. That seemed so simple--then.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Arthur Liu wrote:
> The optional omission in RDA 2.4.1.4 says "Do not use a mark of omission
> (…) to indicate" the abridging of an SoR. Not sure if anything else in RDA
> supercedes this?
>
>
>
> Arthur Liu
> Librarian Technician
> Volpe National Transportation Systems Center
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 1:20 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
>
>> Kevin posted:
>>
>> >"Interior illustrations copyright c2012 by Sebastian Ciaffaglione"
>>
>> The simplest solution might be to use this as a quoted note with "--
>> Title page verso" to justify an added entry.
>>
>> >I would like to use "interior illustrations ... by Sebastian
>> >Ciaffaglione" in the 245 $c ...
>>
>> Fine by me, following a semicolon, since RDA allows use of data
>> without brackets from anywhere in the item. Some might wonder about
>> the use of ellipses in the statement of responsibility, since they are
>> omitted before "[and # others]".
>>
>> You could use ellipses in the quoted note.
>>
>> Whether you do statement of responsibility or the note, I would prefer
>> transcribed data to supplied information such as 'illustrations by],
>>
>>
>>__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
>> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing
>> HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/<http://www.slc.bc.ca/>
>> ___} |__ \__
>>
>
>
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Edition statements
I agree. Whatever happened to "cataloger's judgment" in this case? On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Michael Borries < michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu> wrote: > I have in hand the “Second print” of a title. The first printing had 77 > pages (according to the bib record; 78 according to Amazon, 81 according to > Barnes & Noble). The “Second print” has 124 pages, and apparently the same > dimensions (at least, the height is the same). I would like to add an > explanatory word to the edition statement, something like “Second print > [expanded],” but this doesn’t seem to be allowed. 2.5.2.3 allows for > adding a word such as “edition” or “version” if needed to make the edition > statement clear, but nothing else. Apparently only a 500 note can be used > in my situation. This would seem to be less helpful, since it does not put > this information in as prominent a position, which would be more helpful to > the user (including copy catalogers). I wonder if there shouldn’t be some > re-writing here. > > ** ** > > Michael S. Borries > > Cataloger, City University of New York > > 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor > > New York, NY 10010 > > Phone: (646) 312-1687 > > Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.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.
Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing
I sort agree. If that is the only date and it says "printing", I will use that as the publication date. Maybe with a "?", but not likely. On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Greta de Groat wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "JOHN C ATTIG" > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 8:02:42 AM > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing > > > Example 1: It depends on how you interpret "First printing, August 2012". > While this might be the date of manufacture, it might also be the date of > publication of the first printing -- and I was taught that an edition was > described from a copy of the first printing of that edition. So I would > probably give "2012" without brackets as the date of publication. > ... > > John > > - Original Message - > > > If you interpret it as the date of publication, wouldn't you put: August > 2012 ? > > I only got a couple of replies to my previous question about when to > interpret fuller dates as publication dates and when to interpret them as > dates of transmittal, which only indicated that the two are sometimes > different but not when to know that a date is one or the other without > additional evidence like a different copyright date or a later date > recorded in a GPO number or bibliography or something. RDA seems to want us > to record the date as given, though, and i'm assuming that that was the > JSC's intent when they included the "May 2000" example at 2.8.6.3. It's > understandable that we are reluctant to record full dates given that under > AACR2 we were just to record the year, and that made it easier to deal with > questions like this one about the manufacture date. But given our > inhibition as well as the mysterious LC-PCC-PS that i cited in my earlier > question, it seems like we're not really settled on when we record full > dates as dates of publication. > > To rephrase my question, if i've got August 21, 2012 on my title page and > no other date on the piece and no reason to assume that that date is > inaccurate (or a date of an HTML document saying "Posted June 3, 2013"), > why would i assume that that date is *not* the publication date? Any more > than i would assume that "First printing, August 2012" is not a publication > date? > > > Greta de Groat > Stanford University Libraries > -- 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.
[RDA-L] Versions of other scriptures than the Bible
AACR2 25.18 deals with versions of the Bible and one thing that was allowed was to use the translator as a name for the version. In RDA, has that idea been broadened to include non-biblical religious texts of other religions. For instance could we have Quran. English. Abdel Haleem ? -- 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.
[RDA-L] Index to AACR2
I know this has come up before. The index is missing for AACR2. It was there when AACR2 was in CatDesktop. It is very convenient to have and it actually serves as in index to RDA in some cases. Please include it as soon as possible. -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Title proper choice (multiple parallel titles)
I would go with AACR1 or 2. Use the first title listed, especially if the fixed field for Lang in MARC is the same language as the first title listed on the t.p. On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Adam L. Schiff wrote: > I am trying to figure out what RDA says to do when the preferred source > has parallel titles and the content is equally divided among different > languages. > > 2.3.2.4 says: > > Title in More Than One Language or Script > > If: > > the content of the resource is written, spoken, or sung > > and > > the source of information for the title proper has a title in more than > one language or script > > then: > > choose as the title proper the title in the language or script of the main > content of the resource. > > If the content is not written, spoken, or sung, choose the title proper on > the basis of the sequence, layout, or typography of the titles on the > source of information. > > This instruction does not address what to do if there is no "main content" > of the resource. I am wondering if something got left out of the final > paragraph or if there should be another paragraph that says what to do when > the content is multiple languages/scripts with no main content? My > presumption is that you should choose the title proper on the basis of the > sequence, layout, or typography of the titles on the source of information, > but nothing tells us to do this. > > Here's a specific real example: > > Title page has titles in this order: > > Arabic title > Chinese title > English title > French title > Russian title > Spanish title > > (Yes, you guessed, it's a UN document). The same content is present in > all of these language, but curiously the order of the content as you page > through the book is English text, French text, Spanish text, Chinese text, > Russian text, Arabic text. > > AACR2 1.1B8 did say what to do: If the chief source of information bears > titles in two or more languages or scripts, transcribe as the title proper > the one in the language or script of the main written, spoken, or sung > content of the item. If this criterion is not applicable, choose the title > proper by reference to the order of titles on, or the layout of, the chief > source of information. Record the other titles as parallel titles. > > It seems to me that RDA as rewritten from AACR2 gets the criterion wrong. > It shouldn't be that the content is not written, spoken, or sung, it should > be that there is no main content in a single language. > > In any case, there is nothing in RDA at present that tells me what title > proper to choose in the example I've given above. Is a rule revision or > LC-PCC policy statement needed for this? > > 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<http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff> > ~~** > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points
And this is where you need justification--for the added entries. I also have seen records, that have added entries and I say, "Where did that come from?'' When you note "where that came from," you are give information to the patron--TOO. On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Michael Borries < michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu> wrote: > I can see that an argument can be made for using the relationship > designator as the justification for the added entry. One problem in the > past has been that relationship designators have been more unstable (likely > to disappear) than information in the body of the description. Also, there > are those cases when there is no suitable relationship designator. > > ** ** > > I don’t think most patron give any of this a thought. But in my career I > have come across a handful of added entries (most or all of them corporate) > that simply made no sense, and there was no justification anywhere in the > record. Since I didn’t have the piece in hand, I decided not remove these > entries, but it’s quite possible that I left in a false hit. Requiring > justification of some sort makes this situation less likely (although I > would agree that even now it is a rarity). > > ** ** > > Michael S. Borries > > Cataloger, City University of New York > > 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor > > New York, NY 10010 > > Phone: (646) 312-1687 > > Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu > > ** ** > > *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Goldfarb, Kathie > *Sent:* Monday, June 10, 2013 9:22 AM > > *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points > > ** ** > > Very interesting. I have been in favor of continuing to document why a > person has an added entry, but I can see, if there is a relationship > designator, that those notes could become unnecessary. > > ** ** > > In the past, sometimes those notes were needed due to the ‘rule of three’ > which prohibited listing those other authors/editors listed on the title > page, when the cataloger felt the added entry would be useful to the patron. > > > ** ** > > kathie > > ** ** > > Kathleen Goldfarb > > Technical Services Librarian > > College of the Mainland > > Texas City, TX 77539 > > 409 933 8202 > > ** ** > > P Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email. > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA ] *On > Behalf Of *Meehan, Thomas > *Sent:* Monday, June 10, 2013 3:12 AM > *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points > > ** ** > > Is anyone aware of any research into whether patrons want the > justification? E.g., once a cataloguer has put “Smith, John, editor” how > much do most patrons want or need to see “edited by John Smith” in a note. > At the moment I am all in favour of justifying information, especially when > an added entry is hanging otherwise mysteriously without a relationship > designator. Perhaps relationship designators will make us question what is > actually informative to the patron. > > ** ** > > Thanks, > > > Tom > > ** ** > > --- > > ** ** > > Thomas Meehan > > Head of Current Cataloguing > > Library Services > > University College London > > Gower Street > > London WC1E 6BT > > ** ** > > t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk > > ** ** > > *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA ] *On > Behalf Of *Gene Fieg > *Sent:* 07 June 2013 17:12 > *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points > > ** ** > > And not only justify entries, but also justify fixed fields. For > instance, in hand right now, the fixed field for Index has value of one, > but there is no note to that effect. > > Justifying it gives information to the patron, in plain English. > > What is our goal here? Down and dirty? Or cataloging and classification > that is informative the patron? It is not enough to say, "Look at all that > I have catalogued and now the books are on the shelves." Will the > cataloging be *fully* informative to the patron as to what the book/item > is??? > > > > That is the question. It is all about communication. > > ** ** &g
Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points
And not only justify entries, but also justify fixed fields. For instance, in hand right now, the fixed field for Index has value of one, but there is no note to that effect. Justifying it gives information to the patron, in plain English. What is our goal here? Down and dirty? Or cataloging and classification that is informative the patron? It is not enough to say, "Look at all that I have catalogued and now the books are on the shelves." Will the cataloging be *fully* informative to the patron as to what the book/item is??? That is the question. It is all about communication. On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:40 AM, Don Charuk wrote: > Thank you for your responses. We are of split opinion of the > non-requirement of justification. some feel the relationship designators > are sufficient while others still see the need for notes. > > Our opinion is also split on how to deal with compilations. Do we go with > structured notes and make use of the subfields in 505 tag to allow > searching or use authorized access points? We are leaning towards > structured notes since it involves no authority work. > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points
Can I chime in here. I like the idea that the access points have to be
justified by something in the bib record. Why? It makes it clear that we
are not making stuff out of the blue and (2) it is written in plain, clear
English, something for the patron who may not understand our coded,
structured way of entering the elements in our cataloging record.
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Robert Maxwell wrote:
> You are correct, access points do not need to be justified in the "body"
> of the bibliographic record in RDA. There is no equivalent to AACR2 21.29F
> ("If the reason for an added entry is not apparent from the description ...
> provide a note ...") However, neither does RDA forbid making such notes so
> if you think it would be helpful to the user you can continue to record
> them.
>
> There is no specific rule about this in RDA because cataloging codes
> generally don't have rules that say "you don't have to do X any more".
>
> Bob
>
> Robert L. Maxwell
> Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept.
> 6728 Harold B. Lee Library
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> (801)422-5568
>
> "We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves
> to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Don Charuk
> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 2:04 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points
>
> From my readings and the reading other's comments it has been said that
> RDA no longer requires you to justify your additional access points. Is
> this a valid interpretation of people's comments? If, so is there a
> specific rule that states this or is it implied? Thank you.
>
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] English & Hebrew --> English.. a taste of things to come?
Delete what? The authority record(s)? Examples, please On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Gary L Strawn wrote: > Since there's no one-for-one correspondence, I think the best thing is > just to delete 'em. I'd be delighted if they were all deleted in a batch…* > *** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc. Twitter: GaryLStrawn > > > 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: 2007.25.428 > > > ** ** > > *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *John Hostage > *Sent:* Friday, May 31, 2013 2:39 PM > > *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] English & Hebrew --> English.. a taste of things > to come? > > ** ** > > So, Gary, what is the proper behavior with these records in the authority > file? > > ** ** > > -- > > John Hostage > > Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian // > > Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services // > > Langdell Hall 194 // > > Cambridge, MA 02138 > > host...@law.harvard.edu > > +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) > > +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax) > > ** ** > > *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Gary L Strawn > *Sent:* Friday, May 31, 2013 12:10 > *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] English & Hebrew --> English.. a taste of things > to come? > > ** ** > > This very matter has been the subject of more than one e-mail to what I > can only refer to as "offenders." In our current wild-West > everyone-does-what-they-want world I doubt that anything except eternal > vigilance on all of our parts can prevent this kind of improper behavior > from adversely affecting our databases. > > ** ** > > Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc. Twitter: GaryLStrawn > > > 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: 2007.25.428 > > > ** ** > > *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA ] *On > Behalf Of *Adger Williams > *Sent:* Friday, May 31, 2013 10:56 AM > *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > *Subject:* [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 > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] English & Hebrew --> English.. a taste of things to come?
And then we have the following already in the NAF: 010 n 84075772 040 InU ǂb eng ǂc DLC ǂd DLC ǂd UPB ǂd DLC 046 ǂk 1976 ǂl 1977 1000 Origen. ǂt Homilies on Jeremiah. ǂl French & Greek 336 text ǂ2 rdacontent 4000 Origen. ǂt Homélies sur Jérémie 667 THIS 1XX FIELD CANNOT BE USED UNDER RDA UNTIL THIS RECORD HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND/OR UPDATED 670 His Homélies sur Jérémie, 1976-1977: ǂb t.p. (translation by Pierre Husson and Pierre Nautin; edition by Pierre Nautin) 70002Origen, ǂd 184 or 185-253 or 254. ǂt Homilies on Jeremiah. ǂl French ǂs (Husson and Nautin) Are to assume to that the 700 02 will help here. According to MARC 21, the second indicator "2" refers to medical headings. On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Gary L Strawn wrote: > Well, what you need to end up with is indeed two 7XX fields for most > such "&" headings. (I'm going to set aside the matter of bilingual series > such as … $t Works. $l English & Latin.) One of the difficulties one faces > involves the two languages named in the $l: is one of them the original? > Reference to the 041 field can be of use; but of course the 041 may be > missing or incomplete in order records, or may reflect earlier coding > practices. (Meaning that any fully automated solution to the "&" > problem—without review—will not produce satisfactory results. And we > haven't even raised the issue of "Polyglot" yet!) For users of my toolkit > (Voyager only, sorry) the "$l" button offers quite a lot of help with "&" > headings, though it's still a one-at-a-time operation; but finding and > adjusting a database worth of "&" headings is a very long slog no matter > how you do it. You didn't have any plans for the summer, did you? > > ** ** > > One of the fun (?) things one runs into with "&" headings is pre-RDA > headings for librettos, which are a whole study unto themselves… > > ** ** > > Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc. Twitter: GaryLStrawn > > > 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: 2007.25.428 > > > ** ** > > *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Gene Fieg > *Sent:* Friday, May 31, 2013 11:52 AM > > *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] English & Hebrew --> English.. a taste of things > to come? > > ** ** > > Just looked at record: > > n 79084797 > 040 DLC ǂb eng ǂe rda ǂc DLC ǂd OCoLC ǂd OrU ǂd DLC ǂd ICrlF > 130 0Haggadah. ǂl English > 377 eng > 430 0Haggadah. ǂl English & Hebrew ǂw nnaa > 4102 Jews. ǂk Liturgy and ritual. ǂt Hagadah. ǂl English & Hebrew ǂw nnaa > 430 0New American Haggadah > 670 New American Haggadah, 2012. > 670 Zion, Mishael. A night to remember, 2007: ǂb t.p. (the Haggadah of > contemporary voices) > > > > Suggestion: When the work catalogued (670) contains both English and > Hebrew, is there a way (a new field perhaps, other than a 530) to indicate > the Hebrew version. > > I too dread the idea of physically adding added entries (7XX 02) for these > types of things. What happens to a series such as Sources chretiennes, > here we have the original text and the French translation. Oh, happy > days > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] English & Hebrew --> English.. a taste of things to come?
Just looked at record: n 79084797 040 DLC ǂb eng ǂe rda ǂc DLC ǂd OCoLC ǂd OrU ǂd DLC ǂd ICrlF 130 0Haggadah. ǂl English 377 eng 430 0Haggadah. ǂl English & Hebrew ǂw nnaa 4102 Jews. ǂk Liturgy and ritual. ǂt Hagadah. ǂl English & Hebrew ǂw nnaa 430 0New American Haggadah 670 New American Haggadah, 2012. 670 Zion, Mishael. A night to remember, 2007: ǂb t.p. (the Haggadah of contemporary voices) Suggestion: When the work catalogued (670) contains both English and Hebrew, is there a way (a new field perhaps, other than a 530) to indicate the Hebrew version. I too dread the idea of physically adding added entries (7XX 02) for these types of things. What happens to a series such as Sources chretiennes, here we have the original text and the French translation. Oh, happy days On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Adger Williams wrote: > 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 > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Help with relationship designator
Are relationship designators required?
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:01 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
> Dana van Meter said:
>
> >The examples in the PCC Guidelines seem to indicate that one can use
> >creator and contributor type relationship designators in the same field,
> >as long as they are entered in WEMI order.
>
> Yes you may. But I still don't agree with the choice of main entry.
> The poet is author, and needs only the one $e or $4. The editor
> needs a whole string, including translator, which is not a main entry
> role.
>
> >One could also use a combination of 100 & 700 fields for the same
> >person, with only creator >relationship designators in the 100 field,
> >and contributor type >designators in the 700 field
>
> I don't think so. IMNSHO you should not have two entries for the same
> person in the same record, not even real name and pseudonym.
>
> >I'm starting to feel like just whimping out on this one and accepting
> >the AACR2 copy, but adding a 700 for Garfinkle.
>
> Please add it to the master record, whatever you decide on locally.
>
>
>__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
> ___} |__ \__
>
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Question about examples in 2.5.6.3
You know, can we just record what is actually in the item, instead of inventing things (note phrase cited above. Who writes like that?) Inventions of what things should be go back to pre-AACR2 rules. Do we want to go there? On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Joan Wang wrote: > Great! Heidrun. > > These examples should be reexamined. > > Thanks, > Joan Wang > > > On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller < > wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote: > >> John Hostage wrote: >> >> There is also this example in 2.5.1.4: >>> World's classics ed., New ed. rev. >>> >> >> Oddly, this example is almost identical to one in 2.5.6.3 >> (Recordingdesignations of a named revision of an edition): >> >> new edition, revised, reset, and illustrated >> Designation of edition: World's classics edition >> >> Here, the "new edition" bit is an example for "designation of a named >> revision of an edition" (what a phrase!!) and is not capitalized. >> >> So I think that the example in 2.5.1.4 could well be another mistake. >> Perhaps, it was erroneously assumed that "World's classics ed., New ed. >> rev." are two instances of the element "designation of edition" instead of >> "designation of edition" plus "designation of a named revision of an >> edition". I think such a misunderstanding could easily happen, as according >> to 2.5.2.1 we should take "a word such as edition, issue, release, level, >> state, or update" as evidence that it is a designation of edition. >> >> Another thing that is odd about the example in 2.5.1.4 are the >> abbreviations. I very much doubt that it actually said "World's classics >> ed." on the source of information - most probably it was "World's classics >> edition". The corresponding example in 2.5.6.3 doesn't have the >> abbreviations. >> >> Heidrun >> >> >> -- >> ----- >> Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. >> Stuttgart Media University >> Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany >> www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi >> > > > > -- > 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 > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Statements of responsibility from various sources
Just a question here. How would this affect authority work when one is trying establish usage? On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Bernadette Mary O'Reilly < bernadette.orei...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > Hello > > ** ** > > RDA gives an order of preferred sources of information for statements of > responsibility. Is this order to be invoked only if essentially the same > statements of responsibility (i.e., with the same information) are found on > more than one source? Or does it mean that > > if you take statements from one source you should not also take quite > different statements from another? > > ** ** > > In a MARC context: if editor-of-compilation is mentioned on title page, > contributors a little further in, translator on colophon and illustrator on > publisher’s website, should all these statements (assuming they are all > wanted) go in 245 $c? My own preference would be to give all statements > other than the one from the preferred source as quoted notes, because > stringing them all together might well interfere with identification. > However, this approach does not seem to be justified by the definition of > “note on statement of responsibility” [2.20.3]. > > ** ** > > Thanks, > > Bernadette > > *** > Bernadette O'Reilly > Catalogue Support Librarian > > 01865 2-77134 > > Bodleian Libraries, > Osney One Building > Osney Mead > Oxford OX2 0EW. > > *** > > ** ** > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Use of brackets in RDA records
There are no dumb questions, especially when it comes to RDA
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Arthur Liu wrote:
> I apologize if this is a dumb question, but is there a concrete definition
> for what a publisher is or does, or what constitutes the act of
> "publishing" or "publication"?
>
> The RDA Glossary states that a publisher is "A person, family, or
> corporate body responsible for publishing, releasing, or issuing a
> resource."
>
> What is the difference between publishing, releasing, and issuing?
>
> Also, RDA 2.8.1.1 (Publication Statements) states that all online
> resources are to be considered "published." To me, that implies that the
> act of hosting a file or set of files on the Internet is one type of
> publishing. For online resources then, is the server, domain owner, web
> administrator, etc. to be considered?
>
> One of the Oxford English Dictionary's definitions for "publisher" (I'm
> looking at 2b) is "A person or company whose business is the preparation
> and issuing of printed or documentary material for distribution or sale,
> acting as the agent of an author or owner; a person or company that
> arranges the printing or manufacture of such items and their distribution
> to booksellers or the public."
>
> This makes sense to me in the context of "normal" monographs put out by
> commercial publishers, but many government publications don't seem to use
> this terminology. I'm thinking of documents which have a "technical report
> documentation page" -- not sure that's what Cathy Crum was referring to.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Arthur
>
>
> Arthur Liu
> Library Technician
> John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 5:16 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
>
>> Deborah, with whom until recently I always agreed, said:
>>
>> >If you decide a statement is a responsibility statement (often based on
>> >layout) then remember that we do not 'guess' a publisher; we didn't under
>> >AACR, and we still don't, under RDA. So you would enter the corporate
>> body
>> >as statement of responsibility, and you would have to enter [publisher
>> not
>> >identified].
>>
>> Please, please, please don't do this. With the item in hand or on
>> screen, we are better able to determine data than the patron at the
>> catalogue. SLC has been guessing publisher for decades. Better to
>> pretend you are not guessing and just enter it, than to enter this
>> uninformative imprint.
>>
>> Rules are meant to help inform patrons, not deny them information.
>>
>>
>>__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
>> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing
>> HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/<http://www.slc.bc.ca/>
>> ___} |__ \__
>>
>
>
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] RDA Update History
One has to remember that RDA is "*dynamic"*. Ahem. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Dana Van Meter wrote: > I also happened to notice that yesterday Kevin, and I'm glad you bring it > up. The latest update was to be May 14th, and I even received an e-mail > from the Toolkit on May 13th announcing the May 14th update, but my > Toolkit also shows the latest update as April 2012. However I do notice > that when you're in RDA itself, if you scroll all the way down to the > bottom of a page it says: Document Date: 5/14/2013, so it would appear as > if the text of RDA has been updated, I'm not sure why the Toolkit hasn't > updated the Update History. But then again the Toolkit does a lot of > things I don't understand, like not providing the Index to AACR2, and not > having the LC-PCC PS icon print out if you print out an RDA rule. > > Dana Van Meter > HS-SS Library > Institute for Advanced Study > Princeton, NJ 08540 > vanme...@ias.edu > > -Original Message- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:45 PM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: [RDA-L] RDA Update History > > The RDA Update History seems not to be complete. Haven't there been > several updates to the content since it was published in June 2010? There > is only one update in the Update History, and that is dated April 2012. > It is *very* helpful to have a complete history of the updates, to help > catalogers determine if there was an actual change in a particular > instruction, or when instruction numbers have changed, etc. Will this > section of the RDA Toolkit be augmented with all of the histories for > updates that have occurred to date? > > Thanks. > > Kevin M. Randall > Principal Serials Cataloger > Northwestern University Library > k...@northwestern.edu > (847) 491-2939 > > Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] RDA Update History
I agree On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Kevin M Randall wrote: > The RDA Update History seems not to be complete. Haven't there been > several updates to the content since it was published in June 2010? There > is only one update in the Update History, and that is dated April 2012. It > is *very* helpful to have a complete history of the updates, to help > catalogers determine if there was an actual change in a particular > instruction, or when instruction numbers have changed, etc. Will this > section of the RDA Toolkit be augmented with all of the histories for > updates that have occurred to date? > > Thanks. > > Kevin M. Randall > Principal Serials Cataloger > Northwestern University Library > k...@northwestern.edu > (847) 491-2939 > > Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Abridging statement of responsibility
I think you are right. The last option in RDA is a melding of AACR2 and RDA. The original omission of "Dr.", for instance, had to do with the fact that the title did not add very much to essence of the area of responsibility (essence is a word may not be quite the correct word here). On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 8:10 AM, Meehan, Thomas wrote: > Dear all, > > > This is a fairly novice question but one where I would welcome some > clarification, especially as far as the RDA text goes. Apologies if this > has been raised before (I’m sure it must have been). I am looking at a > couple of contentious aspects of the statement of responsibility relating > to the title proper where I think there are three areas that require some > decision on policy: > > **1. **Which (or how many) statements of responsibility are to be > regarded as core. > > **2. **Statements of responsibility naming more than three persons > (2.4.1.5). > > **3. **Abridging statements of responsibility (2.4.1.4). > > ** ** > > It is the third one which confuses me most. The rule states “Transcribe a > statement of responsibility in the form in which it appears on the source > of information.” The examples that follow contain no titles (Mr, Dr, Earl) > except those that would have been retained under AACR2 and no affiliations > (…professor of History at the University of Biggleswade) at all. > > ** ** > > However, the Optional Omission beneath which says “Abridge a statement of > responsibility only if it can be abridged without loss of essential > information” has examples with all of this information in, e.g. “by Harry > Smith // Source of information reads: by Dr. Harry Smith”. The option seems > curiously vague about what can/should be omitted if the option is followed, > and why. > > ** ** > > Is this basically a case of the examples of the main rule not catching up > and so being illustrative of AACR2 rules rather than RDA? I notice, looking > at the really helpful LC training materials and BL workflow, that the point > is made more explicitly there so I think I am happy with what is intended, > but I am uncomfortable having to interpret the meaning of a rule based on > third party training and policy documentation, if that makes sense. > > ** ** > > Many thanks, > > ** ** > > Tom > > ** ** > > --- > > ** ** > > Thomas Meehan > > Head of Current Cataloguing > > Library Services > > University College London > > Gower Street > > London WC1E 6BT > > ** ** > > t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk > > ** ** > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] 336, 337, 338 and the post-MARC environment
And how are these field going to be displayed in an easily understandable manner to the patron. Will we need a priest of RDA near the shoulder of every patron as she/he searches for that DVD she knows is in the library somewhere, because the AACR2 catalog told her so? On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 12:45 PM, McRae, Rick wrote: > HI, Julie— > > I think it’s great that you’re providing the local training, and are also > offering the rationales for the RDA rules, not just the rules themselves.* > *** > > I don’t have a clear vision of what Bibframe or other post-MARC catalog > will look like either, so can’t offer you the right answer to your > colleagues’ questions – though the one you have provided seems completely > satisfactory to me. But I can offer a metaphor. > > ** ** > > Say, instead of input bibliographic and related data into our systems, we > were in the profession of cutting heavy stone blocks, transporting, and > putting one next to or on top of another in some kind of symmetrical > pattern, after slathering the rocks with mortar. And we did this for years > on end. No doubt every so often we would wipe the sweat off our faces, > rest our aching backs, take a breather and during that time we might ask a > “what is the point?” type of question. > > ** ** > > Perhaps the fully-realized RDA-based catalog might not happen till after I > retire—or perhaps even expire. Buf… when it comes, I think it’ll be a > cathedral. J > > Best, Rick > > ** ** > > Rick McRae > > Catalog / Reference Librarian > > Sibley Music Library > > Eastman School of Music > > (585) 274-1370 > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Julie Moore > *Sent:* Thursday, May 09, 2013 3:20 PM > *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > *Subject:* [RDA-L] 336, 337, 338 and the post-MARC environment > > ** ** > > Please excuse the cross-posting. > > ** ** > > I am doing local training for my library on RDA. I have often said that > the reason why we are moving to RDA is because this is now our national > standard. I have also said that part of the reason for moving to RDA is a > first step toward moving us into linked data and the post-MARC environment > ... which will likely be Bibframe. > > Yesterday's lesson was on the replacement of the GMD to the 336 (content > type), 337 (media type), and 338 (carrier type). One of the participants > asked me how exactly this change would better prepare our records for > moving into the post-MARC/Bibframe world. > > I explained that the 336, 337, and 338 is an attempt to parse the various > concepts out that have been kind of smooshed together over the years in the > GMD. And we hope that in our post-MARC environment, that the programs will > be able to make better use of these elements. Since Bibframe is not already > built for us to exactly see how this will work, it is difficult to know for > sure how the catalogs of the future will make use of these elements. > > I didn't feel like that was a very satisfactory answer, however. I was > wondering if anyone out there had any better answers that I can add to > this? > > Thanks kindly, > Julie > > -- > Julie Renee Moore > Head of Cataloging > California State University, Fresno > julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com > 559-278-5813 > “Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from > themselves.” > > ... James Matthew Barrie > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Relator terms in author/title added entries?
Just a question here. Are these relator codes mandatory in RDA? I hope not. Just ran across one for dramatist, Tony Kushner, that had the relator, "aus" Is a patron going to instinctively know what that means? I have yet to look it up. I think it means author of script. Have we substituted one set of abbreviations for another set that might just as mystifying as the Latin ones? Why not spell out the relators--too??? On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Kevin M Randall wrote: > Mac Elrod wrote: > > > By definition isn't any person, body, or family in 1XX a creator? > > No, the entity in the 1XX field may be an "Other Person, Family, or > Corporate Body Associated with a Work" (RDA 19.3). Most of these seem to > be legal works or religious works. > > > For systems which list the 700$t titles along with 245, 246, and 247 > > titles under an author's name, won't having no relators when the 700 > > has a $t be an inconsistency? > > I think it might be wise for most of our current MARC-based systems to > ignore the relationship designators in index displays. In individual > record displays the information may very well be helpful, but treating > relationship designators as part of the *heading* for purposes of searching > and sorting will only cause problems. Subfield $e (or $j in X11) is a > *relationship designator*--it is NOT part of the access point as defined by > RDA. The content of subfield $e in an RDA record is actually something > different from the content of that same subfield in an AACR2 record. In > the latter, it's information that's actually part of the access point. But > in the former, it's information relating the name to the resource, but it's > not part of the access point; it's just that in a MARC record, we haven't > figured out any other place to put the relationship designator. > > Kevin M. Randall > Principal Serials Cataloger > Northwestern University Library > k...@northwestern.edu > (847) 491-2939 > > Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Non-"arabic", non-roman numerals
And we're worried about ca. and other Latin abbreviations??? Would use Arabic numbers. Put the Greek enumeration, if you want. If you put in the 300 field, it will definitely Greek to the patron. On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote: > I have a Greek book, with the preface numbered in Greek numerals (cf. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_numerals). > > ** ** > > I assume that I would follow RDA 3.4.5.2, "Record pages, etc., that are > numbered in words by giving the numeric equivalent" and record: > > ** ** > > 15, 418 pages > > ** ** > > and add a note: > > ** ** > > "Pages 1-15 (first sequence) numbered with Greek numerals." > > ** ** > > Though it looks like the record will validate in OCLC if I record: ιεʹ, > 418 pages. > > ** ** > > Is there a preference? I would note that there are other instances in > which a books page numbers would be recorded in other numeral systems: > Arabic (using real Arabic numerals, not our so-called "Arabic numerals"), > Hebrew, Devanagari, etc. > > ** ** > > Thanks, > Ben > > ** ** > > Benjamin Abrahamse**** > > Cataloging Coordinator > > Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems > > MIT Libraries > > 617-253-7137 > > ** ** > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for a conference
ourtauld Institute of Art. > This e-mail, including any attachments, is confidential and may be legally > privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom > it is addressed. Any unauthorised dissemination or copying of this e-mail > or its attachments and any reliance on or use or disclosure of any > information contained in them is strictly prohibited and may be illegal. If > you have received this e-mail in error please notify us by return of e-mail > [or by telephone +44 (0) 20 7848 1273] and then delete it from your > system. > > ** ** > -- > > This email message has been delivered safely and archived online by > Mimecast. > For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com > -- > > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] FW: NACO question--qualifying conference names
Whatever it calls itself And make a xref from name (Conference) to the 1XX name (symposium) On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote: > I sent this email to the pcc list almost three hours ago and it hasn't > distributed. Maybe it got "sequestered"?? > > ** ** > > Anyways, if anyone has a good answer to my question below I'd appreciate > it. > > ** ** > > --Ben > > ** ** > > Benjamin Abrahamse > > Cataloging Coordinator > > Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems > > MIT Libraries > > 617-253-7137 > > ** ** > > *From:* Benjamin A Abrahamse > *Sent:* Thursday, May 02, 2013 11:12 AM > *To:* 'Program for Cooperative Cataloging' > *Subject:* NACO question--qualifying conference names > > ** ** > > RDA 11.13.1.2 states, "If the preferred name for the body does not convey > the idea of a corporate body, add a suitable designation. Add the > designation in a language preferred by the agency creating the data". This > presumably applies to conference headings as well. I have a conference > whose name, as formally presented, does not include the word "conference" > or any similar designation; however it is referred to elsewhere in its > proceedings as "the symposium" (not capitalized). > > ** ** > > Would it be preferable to establish the name as: > > ** ** > > Name (Conference) > > ** ** > > or > > ** ** > > Name (Symposium) > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Thanks, > Ben > > ** ** > > Benjamin Abrahamse > > Cataloging Coordinator > > Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems > > MIT Libraries > > 617-253-7137 > > ** ** > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Annoucement of 2013 JSC meeting; revised documents posted
Read the changes. Little hard to read them without context, the rest of the text. Question: what happens to a preferred access point if that person is knighted subsequent to his/her being established as a preferred access point. xref? On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 7:54 AM, JSC Secretary wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > (1) JSC 2013 meeting: > > The 2013 meeting of the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA > (JSC) will be the week of November 4-9, 2013, in Washington, D.C., USA. > > The deadline for proposals for this November 2013 meeting is August 5, > 2013. > > Proposals for revision of RDA instructions emanating from within the > author countries of RDA should be submitted through their respective > constituent bodies of JSC. Proposals for revision of RDA instructions > emanating from outside the author countries of RDA should be submitted to > *Barbara Tillett, Chair of the JSC*. > > Completed proposals are posted in the *constituency proposals > section*<http://www.rda-jsc.org/working1.html#constituency>of this web site > as they are received. > > Constituency responses to the new proposals are due October 5, 2013. > > > (2) Documents recently posted on the JSC web site to correct > mis-numbering of sub-instructions in RDA 9.19: > 6JSC/BL/3/Rev/Sec > final/rev/2<http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-BL-3-rev-Sec-final-rev-2.pdf> > 6JSC/BL/4/Sec > final/rev<http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-BL-4-Sec-final-rev.pdf> > 6JSC/LC/12/rev/Sec > final/rev<http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-LC-12-rev-Sec-final-rev.pdf> > > > > Regards, Judy Kuhagen > JSC Secretary > -- 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.
[RDA-L] Quranic teaching
Just a question here. I just looked at the revised subject headings according to RDA. I noticed War--Religious aspects--Islam--Quranic teaching. Why isn't it simply War--Quranic teaching ? Are all topics -- [Scriptural teaching] going to be changed to: Topic--Religious aspects--[Religion]--[Scriptural teaching] ? -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Initials in names of persons
Heidrun, as to the "why", I have no idea. Perhaps, it had to do with way computers read letters only, and by putting a space between them, it could read better. For instance, at least under AACR2/LCRI, Ph.D is treated as though it were two words; therefore, we transcribe it as Ph. D. On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller < wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote: > Thanks, Gene. I hadn't realized spaces between initials have already > been common practice in authority records for such a long time (oh dear, > still so many things I don't know about Anglo-American cataloguing...). > > But why are the two cases treated differently, in the first place? > > I know that ISBD calls for no spaces (A.6.5: "Initials and acronyms are > recorded without internal spaces, regardless of how they are presented on > the resource."), a rule which we've been happily ignoring in Germany. So > maybe that's the reason for RDA 1.7.6. But then, why do it differently in > authority records? I suppose there must be an advantage in having internal > spaces in authority data (easier for indexing?), and then I don't see why > the same advantage shouldn't apply to similar data in the bibliographic > description. > > So, it's still a bit of a mystery to me, and I'd be glad if somebody could > enlighten me. > > Heidrun > > > > Gene Fieg wrote: > > As I understand it, and I could be wrong here. In the description of the > item in hand, there are no spaces between initials, but in the authority > record there are. This has been the common practice at least since AACR2 > and I think it is in the NACO manual. > > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller < > wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote: > >> I am puzzled by the treatment of initials in names of persons under RDA. >> >> According to AACR2, I believe there was never a space between two or more >> initials, regardless whether the initials appeared in the bibliographic >> description (e.g. in the statement of responsibility) or in a heading or >> reference. An example in 1.1.F4. reads "edited by P.C. Wason and P.N. >> Johnson-Laird", and one in 22.5A1. reads "Byatt, A.S.". So, the treatment >> was consistent. >> >> Now in RDA, initials in the bibliographic description are still >> transcribed without internal spaces, e.g. "edited by P.C. Wason and P.N. >> Johnson-Laird" (example in 1.7.6). Yet they are transcribed with spaces in >> preferred or variant names of persons, e.g. >> "Rowling, J. K." (example in 8.5.6.1). >> >> I find it difficult to understand why the rule was changed with respect >> to preferred/variant names only. Wouldn't it be much easier to apply the >> same custom in both cases? >> >> In Germany, we've always put spaces between initials in names of persons, >> regardless whether these appear in the bibliographic description or in >> headings/references. I think this is mainly due to matters of indexing. >> Many systems here simply ignore full stops in indexing. So without internal >> spaces we would end up with "PC" in the index instead of "P" and "C". >> >> Heidrun >> >> >> -- >> - >> Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. >> Stuttgart Media University >> Faculty of Information and Communication >> Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany >> www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi >> > > > > -- > 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. > > > > -- > - > Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. > Stuttgart Media University > Faculty of Information and Communication > Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germanywww.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi > > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Initials in names of persons
As I understand it, and I could be wrong here. In the description of the item in hand, there are no spaces between initials, but in the authority record there are. This has been the common practice at least since AACR2 and I think it is in the NACO manual. On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller < wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote: > I am puzzled by the treatment of initials in names of persons under RDA. > > According to AACR2, I believe there was never a space between two or more > initials, regardless whether the initials appeared in the bibliographic > description (e.g. in the statement of responsibility) or in a heading or > reference. An example in 1.1.F4. reads "edited by P.C. Wason and P.N. > Johnson-Laird", and one in 22.5A1. reads "Byatt, A.S.". So, the treatment > was consistent. > > Now in RDA, initials in the bibliographic description are still > transcribed without internal spaces, e.g. "edited by P.C. Wason and P.N. > Johnson-Laird" (example in 1.7.6). Yet they are transcribed with spaces in > preferred or variant names of persons, e.g. > "Rowling, J. K." (example in 8.5.6.1). > > I find it difficult to understand why the rule was changed with respect to > preferred/variant names only. Wouldn't it be much easier to apply the same > custom in both cases? > > In Germany, we've always put spaces between initials in names of persons, > regardless whether these appear in the bibliographic description or in > headings/references. I think this is mainly due to matters of indexing. > Many systems here simply ignore full stops in indexing. So without internal > spaces we would end up with "PC" in the index instead of "P" and "C". > > Heidrun > > > -- > - > Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. > Stuttgart Media University > Faculty of Information and Communication > Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany > www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Spelling of Qur'an
If you search Quran, without the alif, you will get the heading with the alif. Am a little puzzled by the lack of finding anything at begins with an Ayn or alif. Would that require a skip character in the title of a "1", even though we put the ayn or alif after the letter involved? On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Dana Van Meter wrote: > This may not be at all relevant here, but I have been noticing for at least > a year now that I have difficulty searching anything with an apostrophe in > LC's authority file. If I copy a heading which contains an apostrophe from > the body of a record in LC's online catalog, and then search the heading in > the authority file I get no results. But if I delete the apostrophe, and > type in a new apostrophe, I pull up the heading in the name authority file. > For some reason an apostrophe in a heading in LC's catalog isn't matching > the apostrophe in the authority record. However, I just checked Qur'an in > the name authority file and I agree it does appear to be an alif. Thank you > for pointing this out, I hope that it's not too late for it to be addressed > before the next Toolkit release on May 14th. > > Dana Van Meter > Cataloging Librarian > Historical Studies-Social Science Library > Institute for Advanced Study > Princeton, NJ 08540 > vanme...@ias.edu > > > -Original Message- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff > Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 2:36 PM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Spelling of Qur'an > > No they are different characters and in some fonts they do not display the > same (even in OCLC you can see that they are different characters). If you > search RDA in the RDA toolkit using the form found in the authority file > (copy and paste), you get no results. If you use an apostrophe instead, > you > get all of the places in RDA where the word occurs. > > Adam > > ^^ > 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 Mon, 15 Apr 2013, Gene Fieg wrote: > > > Does it display the same? And are the unicodes the same? > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Adam L. Schiff > > wrote: > > > >> I see that the LC/NACO authority records for Koran have been changed > >> to the form Qurʼan, with an alif. This is the correct Arabic > >> transliteration of the word, but when we were doing the examples for > >> RDA we were told by the JSC to use an apostrophe rather than an alif for > >> all of our examples. > >> We were instructed to use an apostrophe presumably because the > >> apostrophe is commonly used in English language resources. So I'm > >> not sure if the change to an alif was an intentional change or not. > >> If the alif is intentional, then the RDA examples need to be changed > too. > >> > >> 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 > >> ~~ > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > 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. > > > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Spelling of Qur'an
I double checked the ALA file in Connexion client. and found that Ayin or Ayn, is represented by a reverse comma, much like rough breathing in Greek. The aleph is the one with the "comma." On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Adam L. Schiff wrote: > No they are different characters and in some fonts they do not display the > same (even in OCLC you can see that they are different characters). If you > search RDA in the RDA toolkit using the form found in the authority file > (copy and paste), you get no results. If you use an apostrophe instead, > you get all of the places in RDA where the word occurs. > > Adam > > > ^^** > 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<http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff> > ~~** > > On Mon, 15 Apr 2013, Gene Fieg wrote: > > Does it display the same? And are the unicodes the same? >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Adam L. Schiff >> **wrote: >> >> I see that the LC/NACO authority records for Koran have been changed to >>> the form Qurʼan, with an alif. This is the correct Arabic >>> transliteration >>> of the word, but when we were doing the examples for RDA we were told by >>> the JSC to use an apostrophe rather than an alif for all of our examples. >>> We were instructed to use an apostrophe presumably because the >>> apostrophe >>> is commonly used in English language resources. So I'm not sure if the >>> change to an alif was an intentional change or not. If the alif is >>> intentional, then the RDA examples need to be changed too. >>> >>> 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<http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff> >>> ~~** >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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. >> >> -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Spelling of Qur'an
Does it display the same? And are the unicodes the same? On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Adam L. Schiff wrote: > I see that the LC/NACO authority records for Koran have been changed to > the form Qurʼan, with an alif. This is the correct Arabic transliteration > of the word, but when we were doing the examples for RDA we were told by > the JSC to use an apostrophe rather than an alif for all of our examples. > We were instructed to use an apostrophe presumably because the apostrophe > is commonly used in English language resources. So I'm not sure if the > change to an alif was an intentional change or not. If the alif is > intentional, then the RDA examples need to be changed too. > > 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 > ~~ > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Unnumbered page in a 504 note
Better examples can be found at 3.4.5 + dealing with pagination in general On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 11:41 PM, Gene Fieg wrote: > Just a question: how are unprinted page numbers a "quoted note"? > > > On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Schroeder, Elizabeth E. < > eeschroed...@stritch.edu> wrote: > >> LC PCC PS 1.7.1 is a guideline for all notes, including a 504. As you >> say, 504 does not contain quoted data. Since the instruction for square >> brackets says they are to be used only in the case of quoted data, they >> should not be used for the case of unprinted page numbers. This is a >> departure from past practice. >> >> ** ** >> >> Hope this helps, >> >> Lizzy >> >> ** ** >> >> *Elizabeth Schroeder* >> >> Cataloging/Metadata Librarian >> >> ** ** >> >> *Cardinal Stritch University Library* >> >> *Phone: *414-410-4258 >> >> *E-mail:* eeschroed...@stritch.edu >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and >> Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Gene Fieg >> *Sent:* Saturday, April 13, 2013 3:11 PM >> >> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA >> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Unnumbered page in a 504 note >> >> ** ** >> >> I don't see how LC PCC PS 1.71. applies to this. The one example given >> simply gives the pages. The past practice would indicate that those page >> numbers are actually printed in the item. If not, then the pages not >> numbered would be put in brackets, so that if p. 310 were not printed the >> note would read (pages [310]-325. >> >> If both 310 and 325 were not printed, it would be (pages [310]-[325] >> (meaning that pages 311-324 are printed >> >> If none of the pages numbers are printed, but only implied, the extent of >> the bibliography would be (p. [310-325] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ** ** >> >> On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Gene Fieg wrote: >> >> Just a note here: 504 is not a quoted note, but one that is constructed: >> Includes bibliographical references () >> >> ** ** >> >> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Dana Van Meter >> wrote: >> >> Thanks everyone. I did see rule 1.7.1 at some point in my RDA travels, >> and then forgot about it. I agree that it probably should apply in the >> case of the 504. I hate that cataloging in RDA feels like assembling a >> puzzle every single time. I wish that one didn’t have to jump to all over >> the place to find out how one thing should be done. >> >> >> >> Thanks again. >> >> >> >> -Dana >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and >> Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Cronquist, >> Michelle J >> *Sent:* Friday, April 12, 2013 3:21 PM >> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA >> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Unnumbered page in a 504 note >> >> >> >> You’d omit the brackets, according to LC-PSS 1.7.1, which says “Do not >> use square brackets in notes except when they are used in quoted data,” and >> gives this example: >> >> >> >> 500 <http://desktop.loc.gov/saved/Mabibl_500> ## >> >> $a"Types of prayer wheels found in south central Tibet, by Mei Lin": >> pages 310-375. >> >> Not "... pages [310]-[375]." >> >> >> >> --- >> >> Michelle Cronquist >> >> North Caroliniana Cataloger >> >> Special Collections Technical Services >> >> CB#3926, Wilson Library >> >> University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill >> >> >> >> 919-962-6901 >> >> 919-962-3594 (fax) >> >> >> >> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and >> Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] >> *On Behalf Of *Dana Van Meter >> *Sent:* Friday, April 12, 2013 2:57 PM >> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA >> *Subject:* [RDA-L] Unnumbered page in a 504 note >> >> >> >> Hello. I’ve rooted around RDA several times trying to find an answer to >> this question and I can’t find one anywhere. Is there any direction >> anywhere in RDA or in the policy sta
Re: [RDA-L] Unnumbered page in a 504 note
Just a question: how are unprinted page numbers a "quoted note"? On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Schroeder, Elizabeth E. < eeschroed...@stritch.edu> wrote: > LC PCC PS 1.7.1 is a guideline for all notes, including a 504. As you > say, 504 does not contain quoted data. Since the instruction for square > brackets says they are to be used only in the case of quoted data, they > should not be used for the case of unprinted page numbers. This is a > departure from past practice. > > ** ** > > Hope this helps, > > Lizzy > > ** ** > > *Elizabeth Schroeder* > > Cataloging/Metadata Librarian > > ** ** > > *Cardinal Stritch University Library* > > *Phone: *414-410-4258 > > *E-mail:* eeschroed...@stritch.edu > > ** ** > > *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Gene Fieg > *Sent:* Saturday, April 13, 2013 3:11 PM > > *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Unnumbered page in a 504 note > > ** ** > > I don't see how LC PCC PS 1.71. applies to this. The one example given > simply gives the pages. The past practice would indicate that those page > numbers are actually printed in the item. If not, then the pages not > numbered would be put in brackets, so that if p. 310 were not printed the > note would read (pages [310]-325. > > If both 310 and 325 were not printed, it would be (pages [310]-[325] > (meaning that pages 311-324 are printed > > If none of the pages numbers are printed, but only implied, the extent of > the bibliography would be (p. [310-325] > > > > > > > > ** ** > > On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Gene Fieg wrote: > > Just a note here: 504 is not a quoted note, but one that is constructed: > Includes bibliographical references () > > ** ** > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Dana Van Meter wrote: > > > Thanks everyone. I did see rule 1.7.1 at some point in my RDA travels, > and then forgot about it. I agree that it probably should apply in the > case of the 504. I hate that cataloging in RDA feels like assembling a > puzzle every single time. I wish that one didn’t have to jump to all over > the place to find out how one thing should be done. > > > > Thanks again. > > > > -Dana > > > > > > *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Cronquist, Michelle J > *Sent:* Friday, April 12, 2013 3:21 PM > *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Unnumbered page in a 504 note > > > > You’d omit the brackets, according to LC-PSS 1.7.1, which says “Do not use > square brackets in notes except when they are used in quoted data,” and > gives this example: > > > > 500 <http://desktop.loc.gov/saved/Mabibl_500> ## > > $a"Types of prayer wheels found in south central Tibet, by Mei Lin": pages > 310-375. > > Not "... pages [310]-[375]." > > > > --- > > Michelle Cronquist > > North Caroliniana Cataloger > > Special Collections Technical Services > > CB#3926, Wilson Library > > University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill > > > > 919-962-6901 > > 919-962-3594 (fax) > > > > *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA ] *On > Behalf Of *Dana Van Meter > *Sent:* Friday, April 12, 2013 2:57 PM > *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > *Subject:* [RDA-L] Unnumbered page in a 504 note > > > > Hello. I’ve rooted around RDA several times trying to find an answer to > this question and I can’t find one anywhere. Is there any direction > anywhere in RDA or in the policy statements that tell you what to do when > you are noting that bibliographical references are present and are noting > the page numbers the references fall on, and where either the starting or > ending (though usually the starting) page is not numbered in the book > itself. In AACR2 we would put the correct page number inside square > brackets. In most of the cases of this situation I’ve seen in the RDA > copy that’s out there, I see people just citing the page number without the > square brackets. I’ve only seen someone use square brackets once or > twice. The AACR2 in me hates to put the page number without the square > bracket when the page is not numbered in the book itself, which is
Re: [RDA-L] Unnumbered page in a 504 note
I don't see how LC PCC PS 1.71. applies to this. The one example given simply gives the pages. The past practice would indicate that those page numbers are actually printed in the item. If not, then the pages not numbered would be put in brackets, so that if p. 310 were not printed the note would read (pages [310]-325. If both 310 and 325 were not printed, it would be (pages [310]-[325] (meaning that pages 311-324 are printed If none of the pages numbers are printed, but only implied, the extent of the bibliography would be (p. [310-325] On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Gene Fieg wrote: > Just a note here: 504 is not a quoted note, but one that is constructed: > Includes bibliographical references () > > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Dana Van Meter wrote: > >> Thanks everyone. I did see rule 1.7.1 at some point in my RDA travels, >> and then forgot about it. I agree that it probably should apply in the >> case of the 504. I hate that cataloging in RDA feels like assembling a >> puzzle every single time. I wish that one didn’t have to jump to all over >> the place to find out how one thing should be done. >> >> ** ** >> >> Thanks again. >> >> ** ** >> >> -Dana >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and >> Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Cronquist, >> Michelle J >> *Sent:* Friday, April 12, 2013 3:21 PM >> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA >> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Unnumbered page in a 504 note >> >> ** ** >> >> You’d omit the brackets, according to LC-PSS 1.7.1, which says “Do not >> use square brackets in notes except when they are used in quoted data,” and >> gives this example: >> >> ** ** >> >> 500 <http://desktop.loc.gov/saved/Mabibl_500> ## >> >> $a"Types of prayer wheels found in south central Tibet, by Mei Lin": >> pages 310-375. >> >> Not "... pages [310]-[375]." >> >> ** ** >> >> --- >> >> Michelle Cronquist >> >> North Caroliniana Cataloger >> >> Special Collections Technical Services >> >> CB#3926, Wilson Library >> >> University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill >> >> ** ** >> >> 919-962-6901 >> >> 919-962-3594 (fax) >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and >> Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] >> *On Behalf Of *Dana Van Meter >> *Sent:* Friday, April 12, 2013 2:57 PM >> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA >> *Subject:* [RDA-L] Unnumbered page in a 504 note >> >> ** ** >> >> Hello. I’ve rooted around RDA several times trying to find an answer to >> this question and I can’t find one anywhere. Is there any direction >> anywhere in RDA or in the policy statements that tell you what to do when >> you are noting that bibliographical references are present and are noting >> the page numbers the references fall on, and where either the starting >> or ending (though usually the starting) page is not numbered in the book >> itself. In AACR2 we would put the correct page number inside square >> brackets. In most of the cases of this situation I’ve seen in the RDA >> copy that’s out there, I see people just citing the page number without the >> square brackets. I’ve only seen someone use square brackets once or >> twice. The AACR2 in me hates to put the page number without the square >> bracket when the page is not numbered in the book itself, which is >> generally the case with most of the books I catalog, as the heading >> Bibliography (or Bibliographical References, or whatever the case may be) >> usually >> appears a bit lower down on the page, and thus the page number is >> usually skipped on the starting page for the bibliographical references. >> I’ve looked at rule 7.16.1.3 and the LC-PCC PS for 7.16.1.3 and neither >> mentions what to do in a bibliographical references note when the starting >> (or ending) page is not numbered in the book itself. >> >> Is this mentioned anywhere in RDA, or in an LC-PCC PS? If it’s not, can >> someone from LC monitoring this list please add this to the LC-PCC PS for >> 7.16.1.3 so I don’t have to hem and haw every time I encounter this >> situation? >> >> Thanks very much for your help, >> >> Dana Van Meter >> >> Cataloging Librarian >> >> His
Re: [RDA-L] Unnumbered page in a 504 note
Just a note here: 504 is not a quoted note, but one that is constructed: Includes bibliographical references () On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Dana Van Meter wrote: > Thanks everyone. I did see rule 1.7.1 at some point in my RDA travels, > and then forgot about it. I agree that it probably should apply in the > case of the 504. I hate that cataloging in RDA feels like assembling a > puzzle every single time. I wish that one didn’t have to jump to all over > the place to find out how one thing should be done. > > ** ** > > Thanks again. > > ** ** > > -Dana > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Cronquist, Michelle J > *Sent:* Friday, April 12, 2013 3:21 PM > *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Unnumbered page in a 504 note > > ** ** > > You’d omit the brackets, according to LC-PSS 1.7.1, which says “Do not use > square brackets in notes except when they are used in quoted data,” and > gives this example: > > ** ** > > 500 <http://desktop.loc.gov/saved/Mabibl_500> ## > > $a"Types of prayer wheels found in south central Tibet, by Mei Lin": pages > 310-375. > > Not "... pages [310]-[375]." > > ** ** > > --- > > Michelle Cronquist > > North Caroliniana Cataloger > > Special Collections Technical Services > > CB#3926, Wilson Library > > University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill > > ** ** > > 919-962-6901 > > 919-962-3594 (fax) > > ** ** > > *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA ] *On > Behalf Of *Dana Van Meter > *Sent:* Friday, April 12, 2013 2:57 PM > *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > *Subject:* [RDA-L] Unnumbered page in a 504 note > > ** ** > > Hello. I’ve rooted around RDA several times trying to find an answer to > this question and I can’t find one anywhere. Is there any direction > anywhere in RDA or in the policy statements that tell you what to do when > you are noting that bibliographical references are present and are noting > the page numbers the references fall on, and where either the starting or > ending (though usually the starting) page is not numbered in the book > itself. In AACR2 we would put the correct page number inside square > brackets. In most of the cases of this situation I’ve seen in the RDA > copy that’s out there, I see people just citing the page number without the > square brackets. I’ve only seen someone use square brackets once or > twice. The AACR2 in me hates to put the page number without the square > bracket when the page is not numbered in the book itself, which is > generally the case with most of the books I catalog, as the heading > Bibliography (or Bibliographical References, or whatever the case may be) > usually > appears a bit lower down on the page, and thus the page number is usually > skipped on the starting page for the bibliographical references. I’ve > looked at rule 7.16.1.3 and the LC-PCC PS for 7.16.1.3 and neither mentions > what to do in a bibliographical references note when the starting (or > ending) page is not numbered in the book itself. > > Is this mentioned anywhere in RDA, or in an LC-PCC PS? If it’s not, can > someone from LC monitoring this list please add this to the LC-PCC PS for > 7.16.1.3 so I don’t have to hem and haw every time I encounter this > situation? > > Thanks very much for your help, > > Dana Van Meter > > Cataloging Librarian > > Historical Studies-Social Science Library > > Institute for Advanced Study > > Princeton, NJ 08540 > > vanme...@ias.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.
Re: [RDA-L] Unnumbered page in a 504 note
I don't use square brackets unless the numbers are only implied. If they are stated I put them in parentheses. However, if they are truly footnotes, I do not add page numbers. On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Dana Van Meter wrote: > ** > > Hello. I’ve rooted around RDA several times trying to find an answer to > this question and I can’t find one anywhere. Is there any direction > anywhere in RDA or in the policy statements that tell you what to do when > you are noting that bibliographical references are present and are noting > the page numbers the references fall on, and where either the starting or > ending (though usually the starting) page is not numbered in the book > itself. In AACR2 we would put the correct page number inside square > brackets. In most of the cases of this situation I’ve seen in the RDA > copy that’s out there, I see people just citing the page number without > the square brackets. I’ve only seen someone use square brackets once or > twice. The AACR2 in me hates to put the page number without the square > bracket when the page is not numbered in the book itself, which isgenerally > the case with most of the books I catalog, as the heading > Bibliography (or Bibliographical References, or whatever the case may be) > usually > appears a bit lower down on the page, and thus the page number is usually > skipped on the starting page for the bibliographical references. I’ve > looked at rule 7.16.1.3 and the LC-PCC PS for 7.16.1.3 and neither > mentions what to do in a bibliographical references note when the starting > (or ending) page is not numbered in the book itself. > > Is this mentioned anywhere in RDA, or in an LC-PCC PS? If it’s not, can > someone from LC monitoring this list please add this to the LC-PCC PS for > 7.16.1.3 so I don’t have to hem and haw every time I encounter this > situation? > > Thanks very much for your help, > > Dana Van Meter > > Cataloging Librarian > > Historical Studies-Social Science Library > > Institute for Advanced Study > > Princeton, NJ 08540 > > vanme...@ias.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.
Re: [RDA-L] recording production statements
One of the lines has Montclaire; should be Montclair. I used to go there a
lot in my youth. Bloomfield and Montclair were huge football rivals.
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 1:04 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
> Chris Fox posted:
>
> >ferocious beauty:
> >GENOME
> >Liz Lerman
> >Dance Exchange
> >
> >LIZ LERMAN
> >DANCE EXCHANGE
> >FEROCIOUS BEAUTY:
> >GENOME
> >MONTCLAIR STATE U.
> >April 13, 2008
>
> >LLDX
> >Genome:
> >Montclair
> >Chaptered
> >4/12/08
> >
> >Again, my confusion still remains on what date to use.
>
> The copy you have was produced from the recording made 2008; that
> recording is analogous the the plates from which a reprint is made.
> The date of the production of the copy is irrelevant.
>
> 245 00 $aFericious beauty :$bgenome /$cLiz Lerman Dance Exchange.
> 246 30 $aGenome
> 246 3 $aDance Exchange
> 264 0 $a[Montclaire, New Jersey] :$bLiz Lerman Dance Exchange,$c2008.
> 300$a1 DVD (60 min,) :$bsound, colour,$c4 1/4 in.
> 336$atwo-dimensional moving image$2rdacontent
> 337$avideo$2rdamedia
> 338$avideodisc$3rdacarrier
> 500$a"LLDX Genome: Montclair Chaptered 4/12/08."
> 511$aLiz Lerman Dance Exchange.
> 518$aMontclair State University, Monclair New Jersey, April 13, 2008.
> 700 1 $aLerman, Liz,$ecoriographer.
> 710 2 $aLiz Lerman Dance Exchange,$edancer.
>
> You might consider a 2nd 336 for performed music, if there is a music
> sound track.
>
> You could also add to your local record only:
>
> 264 3 $a[Baltimore, Maryland?] :$b[Liz Lerman],$c[2013?]
>
> but I would be more inclined to use Liz Lerman in 541 instead, as
> immediate source. The copy could have been made anytime after 2008.
>
> I don't like that single "dancer" on the 710, but the singular/plural
> problem existed with GMDs as well; we don't have "dancers".
>
> I am puzzeld by the quoted "chaptered". Could it be "captured", i.e.,
> a video of the dress rehearsal the day before performance?
>
>
>__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
> ___} |__ \__
>
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] recording production statements
x27;s the point of such a rule? We've given producer of unpublished items
> for years, and haven't been arrested yet. It is nice to be legal at last
> in
> that regard. Rules do tend to catch up with client demands, even if it
> takes decades to do so.
>
> We certainly supply publisher under AACR2. A produced object, an art
> reproduction for example, may or may not have producer's name on the item
> itself. All that changes for us in this regard with RDA are separate
> rather
> than a single set of brackets, and the new 588 field for indicating source
> of information, which were actually ISBD and MARC changes respectively.
>
> Considering the confusing and sometimes contradictory RDA provisions,
> perhaps our best litmus is what most helps our patrons?
>
> Deborah, I realize if you are producing a new version of your wonderful
> cataloguing tool, you will need to be more cognizant of what the rules say
> than we. Our clients do not care if we adhere to rules, so long as they
> get
> what they want.
>
>
>__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
> ___} |__ \__
>
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] question about a Bible heading
phal books, see >> 6.23.2.6<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp6&target=rda6-5421#rda6-5421> >> .* >> >> RDA 6.23.2.6 says: >> *An apocryphal book is one that is not included in the Catholic canon >> nor in the Protestant Apocrypha. Choose as the preferred title for an >> apocryphal book the title commonly found in sources in a language preferred >> by the agency creating the data.* >> * * >> * * >> * * >> *EXAMPLE* >> *Book of Jubilees* >> *Epistola Apostolorum* >> *Gospel according to the Hebrews* >>* * >> * * >> * * >> *For compilations of apocryphal books, apply the instructions at >> 6.2.2.9.2<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp6&target=rda6-2556#rda6-2556> >> .* >> 6.2.2.9.2 Two or More Parts >> <http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=lcpschp6&target=lcps6-315#lcps6-315> >> Alternative >> <http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=lcpschp6&target=lcps6-323#lcps6-323> >> When identifying two or more unnumbered or non-consecutively numbered >> parts of a work, identify the parts collectively. Record the conventional >> collective title Selections as the preferred title for the parts. Apply >> this instruction instead of or in addition to recording the preferred title >> for each of the parts. >> >> >> >> EXAMPLE >> Selections >>Preferred title for the parts of the work in a compilation comprising >> books 1 and 6 of Homer’s Iliad >>Selections >>Preferred title for the parts of the work in a compilation comprising >> four episodes of the television program The Simpsons originally >> broadcast between 1990 and 2001 >> >> But I am confused by the instructions at this point--and my library >> follows the LC-PCC PS for instructions, which in this case tells me to: >> >> LC-PCC PS for >> 6.2.2.9.2<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp6&target=rda6-2596#rda6-2596> >> ALTERNATIVE >> LC practice for Alternative: Instead of recording the preferred title >> for each of the parts, record the conventional collective title Selections >> as the preferred title for the parts. If one or more parts is especially >> important, also record the part title(s). >> >> So what would be the appropriate heading for the 130 in this case? In >> the authority file there are plenty of headings for individual New >> Testament apocryphal books, but none for the books as a group. And the >> individual books are established by the individual book name, and are not >> established as parts of the Bible. For example, the following heading: >> >> 130 _0 Abgar letters >> >> has the following 4xxs: >> 430 0 Bible. ǂp Apocryphal books. ǂp Abgar letters >> 430 0 Bible. ǂp N.T. ǂp Apocryphal books. ǂp Abgar letters ǂw nnaa >> >> I am totally lost at this point. Any and all help is greatly >> appreciated! >> >> >> Regards, >> Ione Damasco >> >> -- >> Ione T. Damasco >> Cataloger Librarian >> Associate Professor >> Roesch Library >> University of Dayton >> 300 College Park >> Dayton, OH 45469-1360 >> (937) 229-4238 >> idamas...@udayton.edu >> > > > > > > > -- > Robert Rendall > Principal Serials Cataloger > Original and Special Materials Cataloging, Columbia University Libraries > 102 Butler Library, 535 West 114th Street, New York, NY 10027 > tel.: 212 851 2449 fax: 212 854 5167 > > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date
And just what is the patron supposed to think when he/she sees different kinds of info. What were those FRBR goals again? And all for the benefit of the patron On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 7:43 AM, Snow, Karen wrote: > Shouldn't there be a question mark inserted as well since the publication > date is probable, but unknown? (rules 1.9.2.3 and 2.8.6.6) > > 264 #1 $c [2014?] > 264 #4 $c (c)2014 > > > Karen Snow, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Graduate School of Library & Information Science > Dominican University > 7900 West Division Street > River Forest, IL 60305 > ks...@dom.edu > 708-524-6077 (office) > 708-524-6657 (fax) > > > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [ > RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Deborah Fritz [ > debo...@marcofquality.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 9:32 AM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date > > However, there is an LC PCC PS for 2.8.6.6 that says "2. If the copyright > date is for the year following the year in which the publication is > received, supply a date of publication that corresponds to the copyright > date." > > And this is a carryover from an LCRI that said, basically, the same thing. > > So, I would recommend: > 264 #1 $c [2014] > 264 #4 $c (c)2014 > > Adding the Copyright Date in this case, would help to explain the choice > of the supplied Date of Publication > > Deborah > > - - - - - - - - > Deborah Fritz > TMQ, Inc. > debo...@marcofquality.com > www.marcofquality.com > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Matter of possible concern
It strikes me that the whole idea of including the date in the u.t. was to alert the patron (remember him/her?) to the edition or "printing" if you will, of the work desired. Or is RDA forgetting about the goals of FRBR (i.e. updates of Cutter's goals)? On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Adger Williams wrote: > 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 > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Bib records with uniform titles for the Bible
Just checked ours again. We have several under Bible. Genesis And also many under Bible. O.T. Genesis. Ain't automation wonderful. On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 6:40 AM, Adger Williams wrote: > 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 wrote: > >> 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 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 >>> wrote: >>> >>>> 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 >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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 > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Bib records with uniform titles for the Bible
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 wrote: > 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 wrote: > >> 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.
Re: [RDA-L] RDA and the Title Proper
And then we could use some imagination here and use 246 for Studying... I do not have the book in front of me (don't know if we have it) But another 246 could be used: Historical Israel, biblical Israel On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 9:04 AM, M. E. wrote: > Kevin M Randall wrote: > >> This touches on one of my "favorite" cataloging pet peeves, which is >> the tendency of many catalogers to treat as "other title information" >> things that really should be seen as essential parts of the title proper. >> > > Another example came up on AUTOCAT a few years ago. If memory serves, the > title page of the book was laid out in this way: > > Historical Israel: Biblical Israel > Studying Joshua to 2 Kings > > And the 245 read: > > 245 10 Historical Israel : $b biblical Israel : studying Joshua to 2 > Kings / ... > > The cataloger read too much into that colon. > > Then we have those situations where 245 $b other title information should > instead be part/section/supplement titles (245 $n/$p). > > -- > Mark K. Ehlert > Minitex > <http://www.minitex.umn.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.
Re: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4
It may not be the same as AACR2 but it has the same gist (gyst?): don't include any unnecesary verbiage that does not add to the reponsible agent. This would include personal names that have forename and surname. When surname is only available and a title is present, use it. When corporate bodies are involved, unless there will be ambiguity, there is no need to add corporation language (Inc, Cie, Ltd., etc.) On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Lisa Hatt wrote: > On 3/12/2013 9:07 AM, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote: > > > But 2.4.1.4 states, "Transcribe a statement of responsibility in the > > form in which it appears on the source of information." Immediately > > followed by the "optional omission", "Abridge a statement of > > responsibility only if it can be abridged without loss of essential > > information." I have looked in vain for something similar to AACR2 > > 1.1F7., "Include titles and abbreviations of titles of nobility, > > address, honour, and distinction ... Otherwise, omit all such data > > from statements of responsibility", and not found it. > > I suppose the question is, then, is such information as affiliations and > and titles considered "essential" and thus required to be included? And > what purpose should we have in mind when determining what information is > "essential" - making a perfectly faithful reproduction of what's on the > t.p.? or just identification of the resource in general? > > > -- > Lisa Hatt > Cataloging > De Anza College Library > 408-864-8459 -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4
I will take the optional omission, then. But even before all of that, the
examples don't seem to imply or state that we have to include a lot of
irrellevant info.
Now, one should keep that t.p. in hand when makin authority records, but
for description, not needed.
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Kevin M Randall wrote:
> The examples under "Optional Omission" are:
>
> ** **
>
> by Harry Smith
>
> Source of information reads: by Dr. Harry Smith
>
> ** **
>
> Charles F. Hoban, Jr.
>
> Source of information reads: Charles F. Hoban, Jr., Special Assistant,
> Division of Visual Education, Philadelphia Public Schools
>
> ** **
>
> sponsored by the Library Association
>
> Source of information reads: sponsored by the Library Association (founded
> 1877)
>
> ** **
>
> The implication here is that the entire statement as found after "Source
> of information reads:" would be included in the statement of responsibility
> element, unless it is abridged per the Optional Omission.
>
> ** **
>
> Kevin M. Randall
>
> Principal Serials Cataloger
>
> Northwestern University Library
>
> k...@northwestern.edu
>
> (847) 491-2939
>
> ** **
>
> Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Gene Fieg
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 12, 2013 10:52 AM
> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
>
> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4
>
> ** **
>
> Well, I thought I would go back to 2.4.1.4 and see what it says.
>
>
>
> It appears to be very much in line with AACR2. I did not see anything
> like the examples given in previous e-mails. Titles are omitted. They
> don't really add anything to the area of responsibility. I did see
> "Professors" used once, and that may be due the use of the last name.
>
>
>
> Anyway, I see no justification in RDA to include all of that other stuff
> mentioned in other e-mails. I looked at the LC guidlines (LCPPCs?) and
> they don't seem to include all that stuff either.
>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 6:30 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
>
> Daniel posted:
>
>
> >"edited by J. Garland, [of] Cambridge Carbonates UK; J.E. Neilson,
>
> .[of] University of Aberdeen, UK; S.E. Laubach, [of] University of
> .Texas at Austin, USA and K.J. Whidden, [of] USGS, USA"
>
> This has the same difficulty presented by "by", "par", etc. introduced
> into statements of responsibility before ISBD's "/" replaced them, and
> by RDA's "language of the catalogue" inclusions. Such inclusions
> create difficulties in multilingual situations.
>
> With the exception of the loss of "[sic]", RDA's tendency to have data
> transcribed as found (with the exceptions of punctuation and
> capitalization) might be good.
>
> The goal of IFLA's Universal Bibliographic Control (UBC) was that
> descriptions created anywhere in the world (preferably in the country
> of publication) could be used anywhere. RDA's inclusions represent a
> giant step backward from that ideal.
>
>
>
>__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing
> HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/<http://www.slc.bc.ca/>
> ___} |__ \__
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Gene Fieg
> Cataloger/Serials Librarian
> Claremont School of Theology
> gf...@cst.edu
>
>
>
> Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
> represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
> or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that
> of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
> of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a
> courtesy for information only.
>
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4
Well, I thought I would go back to 2.4.1.4 and see what it says.
It appears to be very much in line with AACR2. I did not see anything like
the examples given in previous e-mails. Titles are omitted. They don't
really add anything to the area of responsibility. I did see "Professors"
used once, and that may be due the use of the last name.
Anyway, I see no justification in RDA to include all of that other stuff
mentioned in other e-mails. I looked at the LC guidlines (LCPPCs?) and
they don't seem to include all that stuff either.
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 6:30 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
> Daniel posted:
>
> >"edited by J. Garland, [of] Cambridge Carbonates UK; J.E. Neilson,
> .[of] University of Aberdeen, UK; S.E. Laubach, [of] University of
> .Texas at Austin, USA and K.J. Whidden, [of] USGS, USA"
>
> This has the same difficulty presented by "by", "par", etc. introduced
> into statements of responsibility before ISBD's "/" replaced them, and
> by RDA's "language of the catalogue" inclusions. Such inclusions
> create difficulties in multilingual situations.
>
> With the exception of the loss of "[sic]", RDA's tendency to have data
> transcribed as found (with the exceptions of punctuation and
> capitalization) might be good.
>
> The goal of IFLA's Universal Bibliographic Control (UBC) was that
> descriptions created anywhere in the world (preferably in the country
> of publication) could be used anywhere. RDA's inclusions represent a
> giant step backward from that ideal.
>
>
>__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing
> HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/<http://www.slc.bc.ca/>
> ___} |__ \__
>
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4
Oh, boy! On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote: > Do people really think > > ** ** > > "edited by J. Garland, Cambridge Carbonates UK, J.E. Neilson, University > of Aberdeen, UK, S.E. Laubach, University of Texas at Austin, USA and K.J. > Whidden, USGS, USA" > > ** ** > > is more helpful and unambiguous to users than, > > ** ** > > "edited by J. Garland, J.E. Neilson, S.E. Laubach, and K.J. Whidden"? > > ** ** > > To me at least the former looks like a mix of individuals and corporate > bodies. And that is what 2.4.1.4 without the optional omission (which, > unfortunately, LC and PCC don't seem to like) leads to. > > ** ** > > --Ben** > > ** ** > > Benjamin Abrahamse > > Cataloging Coordinator**** > > Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems > > MIT Libraries > > 617-253-7137 > > ** ** > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Reproductions of Art Works and FRBR
This is applicable to all art or arts, music included. See CCQ, vol. 50 (or 51?) nos. 5-8. On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Joan Wang wrote: > I agree with Sara. Honestly, I think about the question the whole morning. > Finally I feel that a photography of an original artistic work should be a > new work and expression. I did a hesitation on " a new work". But it is > very hard to say that photographing is not an individual artistic content > creation. Any more thoughts? > > Thanks, > Joan Wang > Illinois Heartland Library System > > On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Elizabeth O'Keefe > wrote: > >> Several months ago, there was a discussion on the PCCList about whether >> it was appropriate to add an access point for: >> >> [Artist]. Works. Selections >> >> to a printed monograph that includes reproductions of the artist's >> work. The use of conventional collective titles is well-established for >> compilations of textual works, but prior to RDA, headings of this kind >> were never applied to monographs illustrated with reproductions of art >> works. Catalogers of art-related materials felt the headings were >> confusing and unhelpful. >> >> The Cataloging Advisory Committee of ARLIS has held several discussions >> about this topic, and is considering, among other issues, the FRBR >> justification for the practice. We are uncertain about how FRBR would >> characterize the relationship between an art work and a reproduction of >> that work, and would welcome comments from readers of this list on >> questions such as: >> >> Is a reproduction an expression of the art work? A manifestation of the >> art work? Or is it an expression or manifestation of a different work >> that is related to the art work? If the reproduction is in turn >> reproduced in another medium, such as a printed monograph, what is the >> relationship between the art work, the photographic reproduction of that >> art work, and the photomechanical reproduction of that reproduction >> presented in the printed work? And is the FRBR relationship affected by >> the content type--in other words, will the FRBR relationships for a >> reproduction of a photograph of a drawing be different from the FRBR >> relationships for a reproduction of a photograph of a three-dimensional >> object? >> >> Any thoughts you choose to share on this vexing topic will be much >> appreciated. >> >> Liz O'Keefe >> >> >> >> Elizabeth O'Keefe >> Director of Collection Information Systems >> The Morgan Library & Museum >> 225 Madison Avenue >> New York, NY 10016-3405 >> >> TEL: 212 590-0380 >> FAX: 212-768-5680 >> NET: eoke...@themorgan.org >> >> Visit CORSAIR, the Library’s comprehensive collections catalog, now >> on >> the web at >> http://corsair.themorgan.org >> > > > > -- > 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 > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
And this example is a reflection of orthographic reform. Does it fit the question asked? On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 10:03 AM, McRae, Rick wrote: > > I agree with Jenifer's favoring 240 over 246 for the proper form of title. > In support, check out n 84105541 in OCLC NAF: > > 1001 Morley, Thomas, ǂd 1557-1603? ǂt Plaine and easie introduction to > practicall musicke > 4001 Morley, Thomas, ǂd 1557-1603? ǂt Plain and easy introduction to > practical music > > Of course in Morley's time, the former title was considered proper > spelling, and the title in the above 400 would have been considered riddled > with typos. Any later edition reading "Plain and easy..." would be > cataloged with the uniform, er, preferred title "Plaine and easie.." as a > 240, not as a variant title. > I see a similar analogy to the erroneous dissertation title we're > discussing. The work originally intended by the creator would have had the > properly spelled title. > Practically, I side with Angelina (and reinforced by others) that if a > corrected title can be replaced by Student or Grad Office prior to > cataloging, that would be best. But if not, then I'd opt for the 240 > solution-- but not 246, for the reasons that others have argued. > > > Rick McRae > Catalog / Reference Librarian > Sibley Music Library > Eastman School of Music > (585) 274-1370 > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jenifer K Marquardt > Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 12:50 PM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles > > Hello, everyone. > > What about the basic question that was asked? Why is the corrected > version of any 245 with an error put in the MARC field 246 rather than in > the 240? The 246 represents varying forms of the title, yes, but the title > of the work is really the corrected version, isn't it? And so then it > would seem that the 240 would be the place to record the corrected version. > This is a question that would apply to any title with an error, not just > this thesis example. Does anybody know why the 246 is used instead of the > 240? > > Thanks, > > 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 Jerri Swinehart [ > swine...@oakland.edu] > Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 12:40 PM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles > > I think though that what needs to guide catalogers in this case is that > the student who wrote the dissertation is asking for a typo correction. The > rest of the equation such as a (sic) or a 246 is only valid as long as the > student doesn't find the typo important. In this case the student does so I > would let the student have the dissertation, recommend that he/she go to > the "Grad office" for help. When the dissertation made its way back to me > then I would catalog it. > > Remember, cataloging also involves public service, which by quoting > cataloging rules to a student who does not know them, is not being served > here. > > Sorry ... I will always disagree with the oh well crowd. > > Thank you. > > Jerri Swinehart > MLIS > Library Technician III > Metadata Technician > Oakland University > Kresge Library > Technical Services > Rochester, MI 48309-4484 > swine...@oakland.edu<mailto:swine...@oakland.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.
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
As far as I understand it, you transcribe what you see. Just had one of those. Title was Upnashads. The record also had a 246. The whole point of a catalog is get the patron to the work he/she wants or is seeking, or may find while doing a browse by title on the computer. Do we want to help the patron or not? RDA cannot be a cataloging code for catalogers. It has to be a means to an end: "Gee, I am glad I found this. Thanks." On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 3:49 AM, Michael Cohen wrote: > RDA Exercise > > > > > A patron asked us to correct a typo in the title page of his > dissertation. The rules are quite clear > on how to handle this situation: transcribe the title page title in 245 and > record the corrected title in 246. But > 246 is defined as Varying Form of Title, and a corrected typo is not a > variation of the real title in the same way that spelling out ‘and’ for & > is. Rather, isn’t the corrected (or > intended) title actually the title of the Work (instead of the > Manifestation) > and therefore shouldn’t it be recorded in 240 instead of 246? > > > > Please explain the flaws in this logic. > > -- > > Michael L. Cohen > Interim Head of Cataloging > General Library System, University of Wisconsin-Madison > 324C Memorial Library > 728 State Street > Madison, WI 53706-1494 > Phone: (608) 262-3246 Fax: (608) 262-4861 > Email: mco...@library.wisc.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.
Re: [RDA-L] Use of ISBD punctuation with RDA. And a workshop.
Also apparently we are using Third edition and not 3rd ed. Ordinal numbers spelled out. (Does that really help anybody?) On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Joan Wang wrote: > Kevin, Thanks for these. These appear in Appendix B. Is there a simple > rationale when use abbreviations and when not? > > Thanks, > Joan Wang > Illinois Heartland Library System > > On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Kevin M Randall wrote: > >> The lack of abbreviations in RDA has been exaggerated. Abbreviations >> for units of measure are used in: >> >> ** ** >> >> Dimensions (B.5.1) >> >> Extent of Storage Space (B.5.2) >> >> Duration (B.5.3) >> >> Additional Scale Information (B.5.7) >> >> Right Ascension (B.5.8) >> >> ** ** >> >> And abbreviations are also used in: >> >> ** ** >> >> Numeric Designation of a Musical Work (B.5.4) >> >> Numbering of Part (B.5.5) >> >> Medium of Performance of Musical Content (B.5.6) >> >> Date (B.5.9) >> >> Other Distinguishing Characteristic of a Legal Work >> (B.5.10) >> >> ** ** >> >> The mention in several places in Appendix B about not using a period >> after "cm" is simply a reminder that "cm" is not an abbreviation. >> Apparently this reminder is absolutely necessary, given the discussions >> that keep popping up. >> >> ** ** >> >> The matter of whether or not to use a period at the end of MARC field 300 >> is entirely due to very silly inconsistency in the relationship between the >> MARC bibliographic format and ISBD display conventions (not to mention that >> the "no period after 'cm' unless there's a 490" rule does not take into >> consideration changes in ISBD*). It has nothing whatsoever to do with >> RDA. I, for one, will be *very* happy when we finally have moved to a >> metadata format that lets us leave out ISBD punctuation completely. And >> until then, I'm not going to worry about whether or not any particular >> record has the "correct" period or lack of period at the end of field 300. >> >> >> ** ** >> >> *My reading of the latest ISBD Consolidated Edition is that there is >> absolutely nothing wrong with having a period at the end of Area 5, no >> matter what the paragraphing style for the display happens to be: >> >> ** ** >> >> A.3.2.3 "Each area of the description other than the >> first is preceded by a point, space, dash, space (. --), unless that area >> is clearly separated from the preceding area by paragraphing, in which case >> the point, space, dash, space may be replaced by a point (.) given at the >> end of the preceding area." >> >> ** ** >> >> Kevin M. Randall >> >> Principal Serials Cataloger >> >> Northwestern University Library >> >> k...@northwestern.edu >> >> (847) 491-2939 >> >> ** ** >> >> Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and >> Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Joan Wang >> *Sent:* Friday, March 01, 2013 11:26 AM >> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA >> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Use of ISBD punctuation with RDA. And a workshop.* >> *** >> >> ** ** >> >> There is an exception for abbreviation, min. for minutes, while we say >> that RDA is not use abbreviations any more. We can explain the reason why >> not use abbreviations. But how can we explain the exception? >> >> Let's have fun with RDA :) >> >> Joan Wang >> Illinois Heartland Library System >> > > > > -- > Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. > Cataloger -- CMC > Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) > 6725 Goshen Road > Edwardsville, IL 62025 > 618.656.3216x409 > 618.656.9401Fax > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Change of title, not content : RDA experts
The case in hand the first listed author of the later "edition" was the same as the first. It was only with 1982 publication that the second author was listed. On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Adam L. Schiff wrote: > Probably John, but the example illustrates the more simple case of two > editions with the identical title. It's obviously more of a judgment call > if you have versions with different titles, but hopefully the later version > clearly states that it is just a revision of the earlier edition. > > Maybe it would be good to add an additional example at this part of that > instruction. I'll suggest it to the RDA Examples Group. > > Adam > > > ^^** > 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<http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff> > ~~** > > On Tue, 19 Feb 2013, John Hostage wrote: > > Isn't this covered by the last part of RDA 6.27.1.5? >> >> --** >> John Hostage >> Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian >> Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services >> Langdell Hall 194 >> Cambridge, MA 02138 >> host...@law.harvard.edu >> +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) >> +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax) >> >> >> -Original Message- >>> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access >>> [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-**BAC.GC.CA ] >>> On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff >>> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 16:37 >>> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA >>> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Change of title, not content : RDA experts >>> >>> Thanks for locating the documentation on this Daniel. But we shouldn't >>> be expected to have to try to find it there - it needs to be in the LC- >>> PCC PSs where catalogers can be expected to look once they have been >>> trained >>> in RDA. Hopefully someone from LC PSD is reading this and can put >>> something in the policy statements! >>> >>> ^^** >>> 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<http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff> >>> ~~** >>> >>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2013, Paradis Daniel wrote: >>> >>> LC's RDA training materials provides the answer to your question (see >>>> >>> http://www.loc.gov/**catworkshop/RDA%20training%** >>> 20materials/LC%20RDA%20Tr<http://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/RDA%20training%20materials/LC%20RDA%20Tr> >>> aining/**Module3ExpressionsAndContentSe**pt12.doc, Appendix 2). The >>> examples provided indicate that a "uniform title" would be used to >>> collocate the editions if following LC practice: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> C. New title proper, and the work has been revised >>>> >>>> o new expression >>>> >>>> o UT field for original preferred title -- change from AACR2 >>>> >>> (related work a.e.) >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Example A: >>>> >>>> Original: >>>> >>>> 100 $a Monson, Craig. >>>> >>>> 245 $a Disembodied voices : $b music and culture in an early modern >>>> Italian convent / >>>> >>>>$c Craig A. Monson. >>>> >>>> 260 $a Berkeley : $b University of California Press, $c 1995. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Revision: >>>> >>>> 100 $a Monson, Craig. >>>> >>>> 240 $a Disembodied voices >>>> >>>> 245 $a Divas in the convent : $b nuns, music, and defiance in >>>> seventeenth-century Italy / >>>> >>>>$c Craig A. Monson. >>>> >>>> 260 $a Chicago : $b University of Chicago Press, $c 2012. >>>> >>>> 500 $a Revision of the author's Disembodied voices. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Example B: >>>> >>>> Original: >>>> >>>> 245 $a Contemporary art and multicultural education / $c edited by >>>> Susan Cahan and >>>> >>>>Zoya Kucor. >>>> >>>> 260 $a New York : $b New Museum of Contemporary Art : $b Routledge, >>>> >>> $c 1996. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Revision: >>>> >>>> 130 $a Contemporary art and multicultural education >>>> >>>> 245 $a Rethinking Contemporary Art and Multicultural Education / $c >>>> The New >>>> >>>>Museum of Contemporary Art. >>>> >>>> 250 $a Fully revised second edition. >>>> >>>> 260 $a New York, NY : $b Routledge, $c 2011. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Change of title, not content : RDA experts
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Gene Fieg wrote: > I asked this question before, but we might as well go with RDA in this > matter. > Book in hand: A brief history of the Western world / Thomas H. Greer, > Gavin Lewis. > Prev. title: A brief history of Western man. > Under RDA do we need a preferred access point (i.e. u.t.) for this? > Chapter 6 ain't too clear and I don't see an LCCPS on this. > > > LC has classed both under the same class using the same cutter. > > -- > 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. > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] RDA encoding
This sounds like a very good question. Just how are we going to "nest" our data? On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Lapka, Francis wrote: > I have what is probably a naïve question, touching on RDA and BIBFRAME. > I’ll preface the question with an example. Imagine a resource with the > following title page: > > ** ** > > “ > > An heroic epistle to an unfortunate monarch, by Peregrine the Elder. > > Enriched with explanatory notes. > > The second edition. > > London: Published in the year MDCCLXXVIII by E. Benson > > “ > > ** ** > > Let’s suppose that a cataloger encoded the data in one of the following > (imaginary) schemes: > > ** ** > > Encoding 1 > > ** ** > > An heroic epistle to an unfortunate monarch, by Peregrine > the Elder. Enriched with explanatory notes. > > The second edition. > > London: Published in the year MDCCLXXVIII by E. Benson* > *** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Encoding 2 > > ** ** > > > > An heroic epistle to an unfortunate monarch, by Peregrine the Elder. > > Enriched with explanatory notes. > > The second edition. > > London: Published in the year MDCCLXXVIII by E. Benson > > > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Would these encodings be considered valid RDA cataloging for the elements > covered in the example? That is, would these encodings satisfy the RDA core > requirements for Title, Statement of Responsibility, Edition statement, and > Publication statement? All of the required data is included, but it is not > encoded in parsed fields equivalent to RDA elements. Does this make it > invalid? If not, would it be reasonable to expect BIBFRAME to accommodate > (or play well with) encoding scenarios such as these? > > ** ** > > Francis > > ** ** > > ** ** > > _ > > *Francis Lapka, Catalog Librarian* > > Yale Center for British Art, Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts > > 1080 Chapel Street, PO Box 208280, New Haven, CT 06520 > > 203.432.9672francis.la...@yale.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.
[RDA-L] Fwd: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
This failed the first time. I hope it goes through this time -- Forwarded message -- From: Mail Delivery Subsystem Date: Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 9:49 AM Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) To: gf...@cst.edu Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently: rd...@infoserv.nlc-bnc.ca Technical details of permanent failure: DNS Error: Domain name not found - Original message - X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=hmO9q5OkzrsV8bu0Tbcb5AX0VBBxNfqGj1CMeITuxy0=; b=PCVQczMEgA6FerD0vGMvS84BNISRuiG1AQR8ooNIIH168I0TVFFzUlC3tofLYs2fZt 8FFb1tWYYML5yCrCLyYN2tLtDpfAVFUQ+lMuMKUYtI8eM90iYxiOx9OxcRFAJpZ8gqjF 5Px6+zfyg+c1rY97ccNZC0gIii0GNgc/RFusJBRaMA6SAJ42mTRoeQj7HE3sUEZqHpeM pqdi9vIeAquFrVSvvFRCF1tuH/k9JeUz41ONwleNtXyVnrsxqi3VRqisLeAAwFWrHm9T 2qEk/gzycpf5tKIPi95sfzDLoiJMMesoQ8tG20h/h3oHbii2Vf44PdBTxPMsZ+mutzdF 5M8w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.58.198.79 with SMTP id ja15mr4593607vec.15.1360950596394; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 09:49:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.58.225.39 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 09:49:56 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 09:49:56 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Different editions, under different title: RDA From: Gene Fieg To: autocat Cc: RDA-L Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6d7dfedade0304d5c700b7 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkjxYQSFWlUWxSXwW6aTIOareeDqB5q2QIcKLwD6Asb9sMtZGKongtP1xEj0UH2tNIjKh8+ I want to know if RDA requires a new preferred access point for a revised edition under a different title. The closest I came to is the citation below. Confused. What are the examples supposed to show? If the work is presented simply as an edition of the previously existing work, treat it as an expression of that work. Use the authorized access point representing the previously existing work. If it is considered important to identify the particular expression, construct an authorized access point representing the expression as instructed at 6.27.3< http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp6&target=rda6-7055#rda6-7055 > . EXAMPLE Carroll, Bradley W. Introduction to modern astrophysics Authorized access point representing the first edition of a work by Bradley W. Carroll and Dale A. Ostlie Carroll, Bradley W. Introduction to modern astrophysics Authorized access point representing the second edition of the work by the same authors -- 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. -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Corporate authorship; and, Loose-leaf that's not updating
Where does it say it is a publication dealing with laws? Perhaps RDA kept the following directive--haven't looked it up but if a body caused something to be issued, it would be entered under that body. Again, how do we know that this is legal document? On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 7:47 AM, John Hostage wrote: > A compilation of state laws would be a compilation of works by different > … corporate bodies (RDA 6.27.1.4). > > ** ** > > If a publication is issued in loose-leaf binders but is not updated, the > loose-leaf nature is not mentioned in the record at all. > > ** ** > > -- > > John Hostage > > Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian > > Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services > > Langdell Hall 194 > > Cambridge, MA 02138 > > host...@law.harvard.edu > > +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) > > +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax) > > ** ** > > *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *MCCUTCHEON, SEVIM > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 13, 2013 08:51 > *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > *Subject:* [RDA-L] Corporate authorship; and, Loose-leaf that's not > updating > > ** ** > > I’m working on a book that’s a compilation of state laws regarding > podiatry. It was put out by the American Podiatry Association. It is in a > three-ring binder, so it is loose-leaf. However, the preface, etc. > indicates that it is not meant to be updating – it’s complete in itself, > and not subject to additions, changes, deletions. > > ** ** > > Two questions: > > **1. **Where in the RDA Toolkit can I find instructions to help me > decide whether the corporate body should get a main access point (in a 110) > or an added access point (710)? > > **2. **There appear to be no instructions in the RDA Toolkit for > the rare situation of a loose leaf that isn’t updating. Shall I just > mention it in a note? That is, have something like: > > 300 1 v. (various pagings) > > 500 Loose-leaf; issued in a 3-ring binder > > ** ** > > Sevim McCutcheon > > Catalog Librarian, Asst. Prof. > > Kent State University Libraries > > 330-672-1703 > > lmccu...@kent.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.
Re: [RDA-L] unsubscribe
Why are these coming to me On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:26 AM, benjosso wrote: > Please remove me from this listserv (can't find another way out) or this: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1orMXD_Ijbs&feature=youtube_gdata_player > Thank you. > > Benjamin F. Ossoff -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Relator codes (was: Statement of responsibility ...)
A question I asked myself this morning about these relater codes.
If a patron, enters a personal name and is given the name, plus, author,
editor, compiler, etc. options, I wonder if the patron will say to
him/herself, "Geez, was he the author, or was he just the compiler. Gee,
maybe I should go home and check the citation."
I think it will be easier on the patron to enter by personal name in this
case and if the list is too long, limit key word or something like it. I
am not too sure if relators will be that helpful for patrons--or only for
patrons who know* exactly *how that person is related to the work and the
relator has been entered correctly. I mean, is a "compiler" an "author" or
not?
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:52 AM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
> Rita Lifton asked:
>
> >Referring to the statement that "many libraries are planning to strip
> >off $4 and/or $e ...", are you saying that the subfields would be
> ?entered in cataloging and then suppressed? Just wanted to understand.
>
> When SLC begins RDA cataloguing (when a majority of derived records
> are RDA, April or May?) we intend to enter $4 relationship codes (in
> accordance with LAC policy), which could be exported for clients as
> $eterms in either English or French (drawn the code definitions, which
> often differ from RDA terms).
>
> So far, only one client has said they want relator terms. All others
> want them removed. Therefore it is important to have added entries
> justified in the description so that the relationship is known in the
> absence of a code or term. (There is the problem of unrelated access
> points being retained when a record for one manifestation is edited to
> create a record for another, e.g., the English and French versions of
> the same work, universal for Canadian Federal documents.)
>
> Of course if in the future we have a client whose ILS can translate
> the codes, we would export the codes for them.
>
> Our major clients these days are e-aggregators and e-publishers, who
> in turn make records available to libraries with a variety of ILS
> capabilities. We are offering them the option of having both RDA and
> AACR2 compatible versions of the records, at little additional cost.
>
> So yes, we will enter the codes, but usually take them out on export;
> most small libraries would not have the IT staff to take them out or
> suppress them.
>
> We will leave the codes in for records loaded to OCLC. We don't load
> all our records to OCLC, just for those aggregators and publishers who
> want OCNs in their records. LAC has stopped loading those records
> because they lack Canadian ILL locations, but many are loaded to LAC by
> libraries who acquire them from the aggregator or publisher; those may
> lack the codes. I have been unable to persuade LAC to see Amicus as a
> source of catalogue records as well as a source of ILL locations.
>
> I doubt if many libraries doing their own cataloguing would enter $4
> or $e if they don't intend to utilize them. We will do so since we
> use the same records for all clients, thus they must be added if even
> one client wants them.
>
>
>__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing
> HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/<http://www.slc.bc.ca/>
> ___} |__ \__
>
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Unit names (aka SMD)
Mac, I think it was you that made the suggestion to qualify the GMD with
the SMD.
For instance |h [videorecording : video cassette]
I always thought that was a neat suggestion.
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 11:10 AM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
> I said:
>
> >Certainly SLC will use exact unit names ...
>
> In addition to being more exact, specific unit names avoid the
> redundancy of repeating a carrier term which may be displayed in lieu
> of the GMD.
>
>
>__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing
> HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/<http://www.slc.bc.ca/>
> ___} |__ \__
>
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Tables of types and content
ok. Will try it. Taking RDA/NACO training and trying my hand at this. Have to get recertified in personal names and hopefully other categories. Would love to get certification in corporate bodies, which I think will give some authority on creating series authoriy records. On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 11:37 AM, JSC Secretary wrote: > Gene: > > Did you go to the MARC format and click on the link in 336 $2 section (as > noted in my initial response to your query)? The link there takes you to > the table of MARC codes that can be used in subfield $b. > > To answer the question in your earlier reply to my email: there is an > entry in the index for the content type terms = > Content type, 6.9. > <http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp6&target=rda6-3410#rda6-3410> > > <http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp6&target=rda6-3410#rda6-3410> > > Judy > > > > On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Gene Fieg wrote: > >> And where are the content codes. Apparently "txt" is the code for text. >> Where are the codes? >> >> On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 11:03 AM, JSC Secretary < >> jscsecret...@rdatoolkit.org> wrote: >> >>> Gene, >>> >>> If you're asking about the code for subfield $b in MARC 336, see the >>> link in the MARC format for bibliographic data at 336 subfield $2. The RDA >>> controlled list of terms for Content type is in RDA 6.9. >>> >>> Judy Kuhagen >>> JSC Secretary >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Gene Fieg wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Gene Fieg wrote: >>>> >>>>> How does one find *easily* the tables of terms to be used when |b is >>>>> rdacontent. I can't find it in the index. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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. >> > > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Tables of types and content
And where are the content codes. Apparently "txt" is the code for text. Where are the codes? On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 11:03 AM, JSC Secretary wrote: > Gene, > > If you're asking about the code for subfield $b in MARC 336, see the link > in the MARC format for bibliographic data at 336 subfield $2. The RDA > controlled list of terms for Content type is in RDA 6.9. > > Judy Kuhagen > JSC Secretary > > > On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Gene Fieg wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Gene Fieg wrote: >> >>> How does one find *easily* the tables of terms to be used when |b is >>> rdacontent. I can't find it in the index. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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. >> > > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Tables of types and content
Thank you. Could that be placed in the index somewhere?? On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 11:03 AM, JSC Secretary wrote: > Gene, > > If you're asking about the code for subfield $b in MARC 336, see the link > in the MARC format for bibliographic data at 336 subfield $2. The RDA > controlled list of terms for Content type is in RDA 6.9. > > Judy Kuhagen > JSC Secretary > > > On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Gene Fieg wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Gene Fieg wrote: >> >>> How does one find *easily* the tables of terms to be used when |b is >>> rdacontent. I can't find it in the index. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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. >> > > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Tables of types and content
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Gene Fieg wrote: > How does one find *easily* the tables of terms to be used when |b is > rdacontent. I can't find it in the index. > > > -- > 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. > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Brackets for unnumbered pages in notes?
> 6728 Harold B. Lee Library > > Brigham Young University > > Provo, UT 84602 > > (801)422-5568 > > ** ** > > "We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves > to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. > > ** ** > > *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA ] *On > Behalf Of *Benjamin A Abrahamse > *Sent:* Friday, December 21, 2012 12:21 PM > *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > *Subject:* [RDA-L] Brackets for unnumbered pages in notes? > > ** ** > > RDA geniuses: > > ** ** > > I know that under RDA we no longer use brackets to indicate a range of > unnumbered pages or leaves in the physical description. What about in > notes? RDA 1.10.4 says, "Refer to passages in the resource, or in other > sources, if these either support assertions made in the description" but > nothing about what to do if you're referring to an unnumbered page. Doing > an "RDA quick search" for unnumbered pages brings up plenty of instructions > but none (that I saw) regarding notes. > > ** ** > > E.g.: > > ** ** > > Includes bibliographic resources (pages [67]-69). > > ** ** > > or > > ** ** > > Includes bibliographic resources (unnumbered page 67-page 69). > > ** ** > > ??? > > ** ** > > Thanks, > > --Ben > > ** ** > > Benjamin Abrahamse > > Cataloging Coordinator > > Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems > > MIT Libraries > > 617-253-7137 > > ** ** > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only. <>
Re: [RDA-L] Brackets for unnumbered pages in notes?
> > "We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves > to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. > > ** ** > > *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA ] *On > Behalf Of *Robert Maxwell > *Sent:* Friday, December 21, 2012 1:05 PM > *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Brackets for unnumbered pages in notes? > > ** ** > > RDA does not address this, but there is an LC-PCC Policy statement that > catalogers may follow if they like and should if they’re creating PCC > records: > > ** ** > > LC-PCC PS for 1.7.1[image: > http://access.rdatoolkit.org/images/rdalink.png]<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp1&target=rda1-787#rda1-787> > > > GENERAL GUIDELINES ON TRANSCRIPTION > > … > > Punctuation in Notes > > LC practice/PCC practice: > > … > > 3. > > Square brackets. Do not use square brackets in notes except when they are > used in quoted data. > > > > EXAMPLE > > 500 <http://desktop.loc.gov/saved/Mabibl_500> ## > > $a"Types of prayer wheels found in south central Tibet, by Mei Lin": pages > 310-375. > > Not "... pages [310]-[375]." > > 500 <http://desktop.loc.gov/saved/Mabibl_500> ## > > $a"2090245PMA"–-Page 4 of cover. > > Not "... –Page [4] of cover." > > ** ** > > This seems fine to me and I’ve been following it in my RDA cataloging: > > ** ** > > Includes bibliographic references (pages 67-69). > > not > > Includes bibliographic references (pages [67]-69). > > ** ** > > In my opinion it isn’t crucial in this context that the reader of the > record know that the number “67” doesn’t appear on page 67. What is crucial > is that the reader know that there’s a bibliography and that it’s three > pages long. > > ** ** > > Bob > > ** ** > > Robert L. Maxwell > > Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian > > Genre/Form Authorities Librarian > > 6728 Harold B. Lee Library > > Brigham Young University > > Provo, UT 84602 > > (801)422-5568 > > ** ** > > "We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves > to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. > > ** ** > > *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA ] *On > Behalf Of *Benjamin A Abrahamse > *Sent:* Friday, December 21, 2012 12:21 PM > *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > *Subject:* [RDA-L] Brackets for unnumbered pages in notes? > > ** ** > > RDA geniuses: > > ** ** > > I know that under RDA we no longer use brackets to indicate a range of > unnumbered pages or leaves in the physical description. What about in > notes? RDA 1.10.4 says, "Refer to passages in the resource, or in other > sources, if these either support assertions made in the description" but > nothing about what to do if you're referring to an unnumbered page. Doing > an "RDA quick search" for unnumbered pages brings up plenty of instructions > but none (that I saw) regarding notes. > > ** ** > > E.g.: > > ** ** > > Includes bibliographic resources (pages [67]-69). > > ** ** > > or > > ** ** > > Includes bibliographic resources (unnumbered page 67-page 69). > > ** ** > > ??? > > ** ** > > Thanks, > > --Ben > > ** ** > > Benjamin Abrahamse > > Cataloging Coordinator > > Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems > > MIT Libraries > > 617-253-7137 > > ** ** > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only. <>
Re: [RDA-L] Brackets for unnumbered pages in notes?
Ugh! On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote: > RDA geniuses: > > ** ** > > I know that under RDA we no longer use brackets to indicate a range of > unnumbered pages or leaves in the physical description. What about in > notes? RDA 1.10.4 says, "Refer to passages in the resource, or in other > sources, if these either support assertions made in the description" but > nothing about what to do if you're referring to an unnumbered page. Doing > an "RDA quick search" for unnumbered pages brings up plenty of instructions > but none (that I saw) regarding notes. > > ** ** > > E.g.: > > ** ** > > Includes bibliographic resources (pages [67]-69). > > ** ** > > or > > ** ** > > Includes bibliographic resources (unnumbered page 67-page 69). > > ** ** > > ??? > > ** ** > > Thanks, > > --Ben > > ** ** > > Benjamin Abrahamse > > Cataloging Coordinator > > Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems > > MIT Libraries > > 617-253-7137 > > ** ** > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Use of brackets
What is SOR?
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:20 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
> Mark said:
>
> >It's an option now. To steal an example from RDA:
> >
> >Dublin [Ohio]
>
> Yes, but resistance to the change was fierce, as a "slipper slope" to
> not just transcribing what is present. Those brackets allowed in
> 245/$c seem to me to make that resistance strange, since the SOR is
> closer to the transcribe as is title proper than is imprint.
>
>
>__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing
> HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/<http://www.slc.bc.ca/>
> ___} |__ \__
>
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Recording Statements of Responsibility Relating to Series
Are we required to use $e in RDA, or is it an option? On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Kevin M Randall wrote: > Lynne J. LaBare wrote: > > > I am new to RDA cataloging and request your help in the correct way to > > record a statement of responsibility for a series in the 800 field. The > > example I have is as follows: > > > > 800 1_ $aSnyder, Maria V., $e author.$t Healer series ;$v 2. > > > > Please inform me if I am interpreting RDA:2.12.6.3 correctly. Thank you. > > What you have here is what appears to be a good MARC field based on RDA > instructions in Section 8, "Recording Relationships between Works, > Expressions, Manifestations, & Items", including 24.4.2, "Authorized Access > Point Representing the Related Work or Expression". This is an access > point, dealing with the relationship between related resources (in this > case the resource being cataloged and the series of which it is a part). > > Statement of responsibility of the series is an attribute of the > manifestation and is handled in RDA Section 1, "Recording Attributes of > Manifestation & Item", specifically 2.12, "Series Statement". Putting the > series statement into MARC, and using ISBD formatting, would result in > something like this (I'm guessing at what may actually be appearing on the > resource): > > 490 1_ $a Healer series / $c Maria V. Snyder ; $v 2 > > > Kevin M. Randall > Principal Serials Cataloger > Northwestern University Library > k...@northwestern.edu > (847) 491-2939 > > Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates
; you have no date of manufacture either, then enter [date of manufacture > not identified] , for a single-part resource > (2.10.6.6<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/2.10.6.6.html> > ) > > Deborah > > - - - > > Deborah Fritz > > TMQ, Inc. > > debo...@marcofquality.com > > www.marcofquality.com > > -Original Message- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [ > mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA ] On > Behalf Of Snow, Karen > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 10:02 AM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates > > I've done a little searching and can't find the answer, so I am hoping the > collective wisdom can help me out... > > If you use [date of publication not identified] in 264_1 $c and you have a > copyright date in 264_4 (let's say 2005), how would this look in DtSt and > Dates fixed fields? > > DtSt = t > > Dates = , 2005 > > ? > > Thanks in advance for your help, > > Karen > > ** ** > > Karen Snow, Ph.D. > > Assistant Professor > > Graduate School of Library & Information Science Dominican University > > 7900 West Division Street > > River Forest, IL 60305 > > ks...@dom.edu > > 708-524-6077 (office) > > 708-524-6657 (fax) > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
I always liked the French way of doing this |h texte imprime. Beautiful. On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Adam L. Schiff wrote: > Another aspect I have not seen mentioned, is that AACR2 style GMDs >> only had to be assigned to nonbook materials. RDA 33X must be >> assigned to all library resources, a major increase in effort. Not >> only it is three terms for one, but they must be assigned to many more >> records. >> > > For users of OCLC Connexion, there is a macro that makes adding these > terms, along with their coded values, take about 3 seconds. This is not > huge increase of effort. The macro pulls up a pulldown menu and you just > select the terms you need and click add. > > > * 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 * > > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates
Where this reasoning goes is this: Since the 245 has a dual role, why not split it? Currently, the 245 is description and access point. Should we split them? On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Kevin M Randall wrote: > Steven Arakawa wrote: > > > I don't know whether the 440 vs. 490/830 analogy works. The problem > > with 440 was that it combined description and controlled access in one > > MARC field; 490/830 clearly recorded the distinction between the series > as > > it appeared vs. the series as controlled access. In the 264 situation, > > controlled access does not factor in; it's a question of what is worth > > transcribing or recording in a wholly descriptive context. With regard to > > copyright dates, there doesn't seem to be agreement on whether these > > are worth including as part of the description, so no best practice has > > been defined so far. > > Description vs. controlled access was not the point of the analogy. The > point was that there was a single MARC element containing two entirely > different things. In the case of 440, yes, the two entirely different > things happened to involve a transcription vs. controlled access situation. > In the case of 260 $c, while it's not transcription vs. controlled access, > it's still a situation of having two entirely different things coded with > the same MARC tag. Publication date and copyright date are not the same > thing, yet both are 260 $c. I think the analogy is quite appropriate. > > Kevin M. Randall > Principal Serials Cataloger > Northwestern University Library > k...@northwestern.edu > (847) 491-2939 > > Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates
Hmm. Could be right. However, if III, our system here, could read a MARC record directly, we might not have this problem. Our 260 displays just as we record it. So, what will a patron think, when he/she sees 1999, c1999. Why include both dates when one will do. On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Young,Naomi Kietzke wrote: > Gene, > > ** ** > > This proves what, exactly? If we are to align our cataloging rules to the > display capability of online systems, we will have an even more dizzying > area of localized standards. I, for one, do not want to see the ExLibris > Aleph v20 Policy Decisions published, followed by the III Milennium Rule > Interpretations, et al. > > ** ** > > In a Monday grump, > > ** ** > > Naomi Young > > University of Florida > > na...@uflib.ufl.edu > > Who has been trying to standardize consortial policies and knows at least > one path to madness. > > ** ** > > *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Gene Fieg > *Sent:* Monday, October 22, 2012 4:24 PM > *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > > *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates* > *** > > ** ** > > I have also seen both dates entered in the description. Patrons will > think we are nuts when they see the display. > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Joan Wang > wrote: > > AACR2 requires to record publication date and copyright date if they are > different. But RDA does not have the same rule. So in AACR2 records, we see > different dates in 008 field, and would not see the same dates appearing. > But in RDA records we can see the same dates in 008 field. > > Joan Wang > > ** ** > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Benjamin A Abrahamse > wrote: > > I would point out that this is not what I'm seeing in OCLC. > > Most RDA records now seem to have Date status set to "t" (Publication date > and copyright date) and both date fields filled out, accordingly. Whether > there is a difference between pub. date and copyright date, or not. > > --Ben > > > Benjamin Abrahamse > Cataloging Coordinator > Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems > MIT Libraries > 617-253-7137 > > > > > ** ** > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates
I have also seen both dates entered in the description. Patrons will think
we are nuts when they see the display.
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Joan Wang wrote:
> AACR2 requires to record publication date and copyright date if they are
> different. But RDA does not have the same rule. So in AACR2 records, we see
> different dates in 008 field, and would not see the same dates appearing.
> But in RDA records we can see the same dates in 008 field.
>
> Joan Wang
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:
>
>> I would point out that this is not what I'm seeing in OCLC.
>>
>> Most RDA records now seem to have Date status set to "t" (Publication
>> date and copyright date) and both date fields filled out, accordingly.
>> Whether there is a difference between pub. date and copyright date, or not.
>>
>> --Ben
>>
>>
>> Benjamin Abrahamse
>> Cataloging Coordinator
>> Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
>> MIT Libraries
>> 617-253-7137
>>
>>
>> -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: Monday, October 22, 2012 2:56 PM
>> To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
>> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates
>>
>> robert Maxwell said:
>>
>> >,,, how to code the fixed fields in a MARC record if you do choose to
>> >record the element that way while recording a copyright date
>>
>> One should NEVER do that. It is cruel and unusual publishment for patrons.
>>
>> If 264 1 $c and 264 4 $c are the same:
>>
>> 008/06 = s, 008/07-10 = 2005
>>
>> If 264 1 $c and 264 4 $c differ:
>>
>> 008/06 = t, 008/07-10 = 2006, 008/11-14 = 2005
>>
>>
>>__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
>> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing
>> HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/<http://www.slc.bc.ca/>
>> ___} |__ \__
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Joan Wang
> Cataloger -- CMC
> Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office)
> 6725 Goshen Road
> Edwardsville, IL 62025
> 618.656.3216x409
> 618.656.9401Fax
>
>
--
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.
