Re: [RDA-L] Difference between Introduction and Preface
On 05/08/2013 16:46, Bernhard Eversberg wrote: snip 05.08.2013 16:04, JSC Secretary: You can choose the higher-level designator writer of supplementary textual content if you don't want to or cannot identify a more specific relationship. This leaves me wondering whether or not the relationship designators are a D aspect or (also) an A aspect. To qualify as the latter, the rules should make that clear AND specify a hierarchy which would, for instance, make it algorithmically clear that writer of supplementary textual content covers Introduction, Preface, Forword, and Afterword. (And wouldn't it be useful indeed to be able to search for Noam Chomsky as a writer of supplementary textual content but specifically not prefaces? ) Alas, zillions of our records exist and will remain without designators, which casts some doubt on the usefulness of this element. If however, the designator is regarded as solely a D aspect, then why bother? Wouldn't the Statement of responsibility do the job nicely enough? /snip I've been waiting for a response to this, but apparently nobody wants to. Lubetzky was well-known for his opposition to the ISBD statement of responsibility since he spent decades trying to get rid of what he considered to be needless repetition, which was (in his opinion) against the interests of the cataloger, who ends up inputting the same information over and over, and the user, who ends up having to look at the same information over and over. Today, we are adding to that repetition by adding the relators in the $e, thereby repeating what is in the statement of responsibility, plus adding the alphabet soup of peoples' degrees after their names in the statement of responsibility, so you get something with a short title, e.g. Mechanical and electrical systems in buildings when the statement of responsibility often takes over the entire record and is similar to reading someone's business card: Richard R. Janis, M. Arch., P.E., AIA, LEED AP, Senior Lecturer, School of Engineering and School of Architecture, Washington University, William K.Y. Tao, M.S., D.Sc., P.E., Affiliate Professor, School of Engineering and School of Architecture, Washington University I guess this is useful enough to the public for the cataloger to type it all in. These people say they are in schools of architecture, and not Ufologists or experts in Klingonese or Parapsychology. Of course, on the web, there are some very, very strange job titles. Still, it would be much more efficient to handle this sort of information as links going into sites, e.g. http://www.pearsonconstructionbooks.com/authors/bio.aspx?a=6b9f200a-086c-4859-ae51-5769a2b282ea and http://www.pearsonconstructionbooks.com/authors/bio.aspx?a=5fdd1551-dc6a-4838-b794-435310d6ea5e or even (strangely enough) linking to an authority record where that information exists one time and does not have to be retyped over and over and over again? But as Bernhard pointed out, all of these points of information have to be assigned either to Description or Access or both. And if it is to be Access there will be additional work for catalogers with associated responsibilities and costs. Those costs and responsibilities should be dealt with sooner by the profession rather than later, by individual libraries that are already strapped. -- *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
[RDA-L] Difference between Introduction and Preface
I see that the relationship designators writer of introduction and writer of preface have been fast tracked into RDA Appendix I. However, nowhere in RDA can I see an explanation of what an introduction is and what a preface is. It may be that the unwritten assumption is that a preface is by the author of a book and an introduction by a second party, but I'm speculating. As publishers use foreword, introductory, preface etc. according to ad hoc considerations of marketing, taking the path of least resistance here and following title page usage would result in the same relationship having two different designators, and two different relationships (if indeed the relationships writer of introduction and writer of preface can be said to be different) potentially being expressed with the same designator. I'd be grateful if anyone could elucidate this, and apologies if it's already been covered on the list. Duncan Chalmers Cataloguer, Ingram Content Group Coutts Information Services Avon House, Headlands Business Park, Ringwood, Hampshire, BH24 3PB p: +44 (0) 1425 485848 | f: +44 (0) 1425 471525. duncan.chalm...@ingramcontent.commailto:name.lastn...@ingramcontent.com www.ingramcontent.comhttp://www.ingramcontent.com Registered Office: 5 New Street Square, London, EC4A 3TW. Registered in England and Wales No: 2574299; VAT No: 818302250
Re: [RDA-L] Difference between Introduction and Preface
And what about writer of afterword, while we're at it? I've just have such a case in front of me: A novel, where the translator has also provided notes and the said afterword. It gives information about the author and her work. What is here presented as an afterword might, in other cases, just as well be presented as an introduction. Sometimes I think RDA makes too many distinctions. It would be far more sensible to have only one relationship designator covering writers of things like prefaces, introductions, forewords and afterwords. Then we wouldn't have to wreck our brains about the differences. Writer of added text would do the trick, if it wasn't restricted to primarily non-textual work. Heidrun On 05.08.2013 11:29, Duncan Chalmers wrote: I see that the relationship designators “writer of introduction” and “writer of preface” have been fast tracked into RDA Appendix I. However, nowhere in RDA can I see an explanation of what an “introduction” is and what a “preface” is. It may be that the unwritten assumption is that a preface is by the author of a book and an introduction by a second party, but I’m speculating. As publishers use “foreword”, “introductory”, “preface” etc. according to ad hoc considerations of marketing, taking the path of least resistance here and following title page usage would result in the same relationship having two different designators, and two different relationships (if indeed the relationships “writer of introduction” and “writer of preface” can be said to be different) potentially being expressed with the same designator. I’d be grateful if anyone could elucidate this, and apologies if it’s already been covered on the list. *Duncan Chalmers* Cataloguer, Ingram Content Group Coutts Information Services Avon House, Headlands Business Park, Ringwood, Hampshire, BH24 3PB p: +44 (0) 1425 485848 *| *f: +44 (0) 1425 471525. duncan.chalm...@ingramcontent.com mailto:name.lastn...@ingramcontent.com *www.ingramcontent.com* http://www.ingramcontent.com* **Registered Office: 5 New Street Square, London, EC4A 3TW. Registered in England and Wales No: 2574299; VAT No: 818302250* -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Difference between Introduction and Preface
Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: Sometimes I think RDA makes too many distinctions. It would be far more sensible to have only one relationship designator covering writers of things like prefaces, introductions, forewords and afterwords. Then we wouldn't have to wreck our brains about the differences. Writer of added text would do the trick, if it wasn't restricted to primarily non-textual work. I agree!! Mary L. Mastraccio Cataloging Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78265 1-800-531-7678
Re: [RDA-L] Difference between Introduction and Preface
You can choose the higher-level designator writer of supplementary textual content if you don't want to or cannot identify a more specific relationship. Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Mary Mastraccio ma...@marcive.com wrote: ** Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: Sometimes I think RDA makes too many distinctions. It would be far more sensible to have only one relationship designator covering writers of things like prefaces, introductions, forewords and afterwords. Then we wouldn't have to wreck our brains about the differences. Writer of added text would do the trick, if it wasn't restricted to primarily non-textual work. I agree!! Mary L. Mastraccio Cataloging Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78265 1-800-531-7678
Re: [RDA-L] Difference between Introduction and Preface
I think the point that was being made--and with which I was agreeing--is that sometimes too much specificity isn't really that helpful. In other words, it is nice there is a higher-level designator but have we gone too far in some lower-level designators? In most cases the very specific relationship designators is/will be very helpful but when it comes to introduction, preface, afterwords, forewords it might be more helpful to have them all lumped together. Just how some of us see it. But as Adam Schiff said --in another setting--some of us are lumpers and some are splitters. In a shared cataloging environment this difference of viewpoint can cause unexpected results in our catalogs. At least the lumpers can make global changes to move terms to the higher-level designators to improve search results. Mary L. Mastraccio Cataloging Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78265 1-800-531-7678 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of JSC Secretary Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 9:04 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Difference between Introduction and Preface You can choose the higher-level designator writer of supplementary textual content if you don't want to or cannot identify a more specific relationship. Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Mary Mastraccio ma...@marcive.commailto:ma...@marcive.com wrote: Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: Sometimes I think RDA makes too many distinctions. It would be far more sensible to have only one relationship designator covering writers of things like prefaces, introductions, forewords and afterwords. Then we wouldn't have to wreck our brains about the differences. Writer of added text would do the trick, if it wasn't restricted to primarily non-textual work. I agree!! Mary L. Mastraccio Cataloging Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78265 1-800-531-7678tel:1-800-531-7678
Re: [RDA-L] Difference between Introduction and Preface
05.08.2013 16:04, JSC Secretary: You can choose the higher-level designator writer of supplementary textual content if you don't want to or cannot identify a more specific relationship. This leaves me wondering whether or not the relationship designators are a D aspect or (also) an A aspect. To qualify as the latter, the rules should make that clear AND specify a hierarchy which would, for instance, make it algorithmically clear that writer of supplementary textual content covers Introduction, Preface, Forword, and Afterword. (And wouldn't it be useful indeed to be able to search for Noam Chomsky as a writer of supplementary textual content but specifically not prefaces? ) Alas, zillions of our records exist and will remain without designators, which casts some doubt on the usefulness of this element. If however, the designator is regarded as solely a D aspect, then why bother? Wouldn't the Statement of responsibility do the job nicely enough? B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] Difference between Introduction and Preface
The MARC Code List for Relators does lump some of them together: Author of afterword, colophon, etc. [aft] A person or organization responsible for an afterword, postface, colophon, etc. but who is not the chief author of a work Author of introduction, etc. [aui] A person or organization responsible for an introduction, preface, foreword, or other critical introductory matter, but who is not the chief author This has come up before, but not sure why there are MARC relators for terms which dont exist in RDA. Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mary Mastraccio Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 10:17 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Difference between Introduction and Preface I think the point that was being made--and with which I was agreeing--is that sometimes too much specificity isn't really that helpful. In other words, it is nice there is a higher-level designator but have we gone too far in some lower-level designators? In most cases the very specific relationship designators is/will be very helpful but when it comes to introduction, preface, afterwords, forewords it might be more helpful to have them all lumped together. Just how some of us see it. But as Adam Schiff said --in another setting--some of us are lumpers and some are splitters. In a shared cataloging environment this difference of viewpoint can cause unexpected results in our catalogs. At least the lumpers can make global changes to move terms to the higher-level designators to improve search results. Mary L. Mastraccio Cataloging Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78265 1-800-531-7678 _ From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of JSC Secretary Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 9:04 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Difference between Introduction and Preface You can choose the higher-level designator writer of supplementary textual content if you don't want to or cannot identify a more specific relationship. Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Mary Mastraccio ma...@marcive.com wrote: Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: Sometimes I think RDA makes too many distinctions. It would be far more sensible to have only one relationship designator covering writers of things like prefaces, introductions, forewords and afterwords. Then we wouldn't have to wreck our brains about the differences. Writer of added text would do the trick, if it wasn't restricted to primarily non-textual work. I agree!! Mary L. Mastraccio Cataloging Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78265 1-800-531-7678
Re: [RDA-L] Difference between Introduction and Preface
Heidrun said:
Sometimes I think RDA makes too many distinctions.
They certainly do. In the cases you cite, I would use $econtributor.
In most cases, a single word should be used, not a phrase, in order
not to over clutter the display.
Take the distinction between 2-D and 3-D moving images. The ISBD Area
0 modified single word image (moving) seems better to me.
On the other hand, there are no RDA media terms for large print, kits,
or equipment. Nor a very good relator term for conferences.
Someone asked why there are more MARC relator codes than RDA terms.
That's because the MARC codes are superior. Rather than reinventing
that wheel, JSC should have just taken the meanings following the MARC
codes, plus perhaps ISBD Area 0 terms not already in the code list.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
