subject:"\[RDA\-L\] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement"


Quoting Billie Hackney bhack...@getty.edu:

But it *is* more work.  Adding relator terms took a lot of extra  
time while I was doing original cataloging in RDA.  I know we've  
been through the argument a number of times before, but I just don't  
understand why the creators of RDA feel that it's necessary to make  
original catalogers do *more* instead of less when nearly all of us  
are supposed to get more done with fewer catalogers.


I can't imagine how calling someone artist can be more work. It *is*  
more work if you have to look up a role code in order to put it into a  
MARC subfield, but it's only *different* work if you have:


artist: [person name]
illustrator: [person name]
composer: [person name]
conductor: [person name]

rather than 100 or 700, which only tells that you're coding a name for  
a person, and then requires you to qualify it with a  
less-than-intuitive code.


It must be a rare piece that doesn't tell you what role a person  
plays. That piece probably takes as much to catalog today, because you  
have to determine if the named person is worth including in the  
record. If the role is right there before you, using it isn't more  
work if we finally get beyond MARC coding and stupid input interfaces  
that make people look up codes.


kc
p.s. We really need to mock up a couple of potential new input views  
so that people can see beyond MARC





Billie Hackney
Senior Monograph Cataloger
Getty Research Institute
1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
(310) 440-7616
bhack...@getty.edu
Brenndorfer, Thomas tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca  
11/9/2011 7:49 AM 
It is that precision (which carries forward the same amount of  
intellectual work in traditional cataloging-- it's not really  
more work) that makes the RDA element set more amenable to  
modern encoding and data management methods.







--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

2011-11-09 Thread Mike Tribby

If we finally get beyond MARC coding and stupid input interfaces that make 
people look up codes.

Sounds great. How do we get beyond those stupid input interfaces?
And an observation: sometimes stupid is, if not solely in the eye of the 
beholder, at least subject to differing perceptions or degrees of stupidity.


Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses

mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 10:34 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework 
statement

Quoting Billie Hackney bhack...@getty.edu:

 But it *is* more work.  Adding relator terms took a lot of extra time
 while I was doing original cataloging in RDA.  I know we've been
 through the argument a number of times before, but I just don't
 understand why the creators of RDA feel that it's necessary to make
 original catalogers do *more* instead of less when nearly all of us
 are supposed to get more done with fewer catalogers.

I can't imagine how calling someone artist can be more work. It *is* more 
work if you have to look up a role code in order to put it into a MARC 
subfield, but it's only *different* work if you have:

artist: [person name]
illustrator: [person name]
composer: [person name]
conductor: [person name]

rather than 100 or 700, which only tells that you're coding a name for a 
person, and then requires you to qualify it with a less-than-intuitive code.

It must be a rare piece that doesn't tell you what role a person plays. That 
piece probably takes as much to catalog today, because you have to determine if 
the named person is worth including in the record. If the role is right there 
before you, using it isn't more work if we finally get beyond MARC coding and 
stupid input interfaces that make people look up codes.

kc
p.s. We really need to mock up a couple of potential new input views
so that people can see beyond MARC



 Billie Hackney
 Senior Monograph Cataloger
 Getty Research Institute
 1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
 Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
 (310) 440-7616
 bhack...@getty.edu
 Brenndorfer, Thomas tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca
 11/9/2011 7:49 AM 
 It is that precision (which carries forward the same amount of
 intellectual work in traditional cataloging-- it's not really more
 work) that makes the RDA element set more amenable to
 modern encoding and data management methods.





--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.454 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/4005 - Release Date: 11/08/11 
19:34:00

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

2011-11-09 Thread Billie Hackney

Hi, Karen:
 
I didn't realize I was mistaken about the amount of work I do for original 
cataloging of materials about art, where there are curators, editors and 
essayists, galleries that are host institutions as well as publishers, artists 
who also wrote some or all of the text, and all this often without a title page 
and in a foreign language. Thank you for enlightening me.
 
Billie

 
 
Billie Hackney
Senior Monograph Cataloger
Getty Research Institute
1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
(310) 440-7616
bhack...@getty.edu
 Karen Coyle li...@kcoyle.net 11/9/2011 8:33 AM 
Quoting Billie Hackney bhack...@getty.edu:

 But it *is* more work.  Adding relator terms took a lot of extra  
 time while I was doing original cataloging in RDA.  I know we've  
 been through the argument a number of times before, but I just don't  
 understand why the creators of RDA feel that it's necessary to make  
 original catalogers do *more* instead of less when nearly all of us  
 are supposed to get more done with fewer catalogers.

I can't imagine how calling someone artist can be more work. It *is*  
more work if you have to look up a role code in order to put it into a  
MARC subfield, but it's only *different* work if you have:

artist: [person name]
illustrator: [person name]
composer: [person name]
conductor: [person name]

rather than 100 or 700, which only tells that you're coding a name for  
a person, and then requires you to qualify it with a  
less-than-intuitive code.

It must be a rare piece that doesn't tell you what role a person  
plays. That piece probably takes as much to catalog today, because you  
have to determine if the named person is worth including in the  
record. If the role is right there before you, using it isn't more  
work if we finally get beyond MARC coding and stupid input interfaces  
that make people look up codes.

kc
p.s. We really need to mock up a couple of potential new input views  
so that people can see beyond MARC



 Billie Hackney
 Senior Monograph Cataloger
 Getty Research Institute
 1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
 Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
 (310) 440-7616
 bhack...@getty.edu
 Brenndorfer, Thomas tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca  
 11/9/2011 7:49 AM 
 It is that precision (which carries forward the same amount of  
 intellectual work in traditional cataloging-- it's not really  
 more work) that makes the RDA element set more amenable to  
 modern encoding and data management methods.





-- 
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

Jim said:

Well, I beg to differ since I don't see that mere inversion of the name
that happens to be first on an item to be the equivalent to the selection
of a main entry.
 
That's where it files in a single entry list.  How more main can it get?
 
Certainly,  *in a bibliographic citation* a single one of all the authors
has to come first, but not in a computerized catalog where displays are (or
can be) much more fluid.
 
Not only must one be first for citations, but also for subject and
added entries.

Yet, in the bibliographic citation entry for this item, it
would be the first three to seven authors, with the first one inverted. Who
can maintain that the first person here is equivalent to a *single main
entry*?
 
I can.  It doesn't matter whether the additional two (Chicago Manual)
or six names are before or after the title.  That is simply a matter
of display.  The listing, citation, or entry is under the inverted
author.

In any case, there is no reason why Johnson should be treated
subordinately to Masters ...

except to assign a Cutter, create a single entry listing, citation, or
subject and added entries.  If Karen's idea of designating one as more
important to come first (as UTLAS once did with 6XX), I don't see how
one 100 being prime is superior to 100 and 700s.  What is gained?


Dublin Core also avoids a single main entry. 

Which means we can crosswalk from MARC to DC very cheaply for clients,
but going back is impossible.  There are other formats we supply to
clients by crosswalk for which the same is true.  We should not
sacrifice granularity in the master record without very careful
consideration.

Why continue this practice when there are three equal authors or
more? 

To repeat yet again, in order to Cutter, print acquisition lists,
print subject bibliographies, print book catalogues and cards (there
are still a few), agree with scholarly citations, create subject and
added entries, among other reasons.

The absence of a main entry (by any name) creates more work than it
saves.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

Thomas said:

An artist responsible for the artistic content of the work would
always form part of the authorized access point for the work. 

In terms of exhibition catalogues, the artist would be main entry if
reproductions exceed text, but he text author (curator) would be main
entry if text exceeds reproductions.  I assume this is true for RDA as
it is for AACR2.  

Our art library clients will not accept that.  From their point of
few, the amount of text is irrelevant.  Perhaps this is something to
be taken up in a special genre manual?

I did finally persuade Lucia Rather to instruct LC cataloguers to do a
246 for distinctive subtitle, when the artist's name was title proper,
and could be mistaken for a statement of responsibility at head of
title.  Art librarians are not as well organized as music ones, and
less adept at making their needs known.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

2011-11-09 Thread Billie Hackney

I apologize for being testy.  It's just that anything that catalogers 
themselves say about the difficulties they've experiences with RDA seem to be 
passed over and ignored during all of this theoretical discussion on why RDA is 
so wonderful. Being told that assigning relator terms is easy when it's not is 
rather frustrating.
 
 
Billie Hackney
Senior Monograph Cataloger
Getty Research Institute
1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
(310) 440-7616
bhack...@getty.edu

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement


Quoting Billie Hackney bhack...@getty.edu:


I apologize for being testy.


Accepted. We all get frustrated.

It's just that anything that catalogers themselves say about the  
difficulties they've experiences with RDA seem to be passed over and  
ignored during all of this theoretical discussion on why RDA is so  
wonderful. Being told that assigning relator terms is easy when it's  
not is rather frustrating.


Assigning relator terms in MARC is not easy. That's the point. But the  
intellectual work of determining the role is, I believe, the same in  
AACR2 and RDA. So what it comes down to is how hard it is to convey  
that in the record. I think the MARC coding of this is awkward and  
interfaces don't make it easier.


I doubt if any cataloger includes a name in a record without some idea  
of the role the person plays. However, if there is a need to include  
miscellaneous persons, there is no reason why such a relationship  
should not be allowed (that's up to the JSC). Note, however, that you  
will still, as Thomas B has stated, be using the FRBR entities that  
require you to separate out work, expression and manifestation roles,  
so some thinking about what the role is becomes (a perhaps painful)  
part of the process.


I think that MARC is getting in the way of our ability to think about  
this different.


kc




Billie Hackney
Senior Monograph Cataloger
Getty Research Institute
1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
(310) 440-7616
bhack...@getty.edu





--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

2011-11-09 Thread Benjamin A Abrahamse

It strikes me that perhaps two slightly different questions of work required 
by relators are being conflated in this discussion... which may why it is 
generating more heat than light.
One is the work of encoding relators, the other the work of determining how 
contributors are related to works, which (pace Coyle) is not always easy to do 
unequivocally-particularly if we are talking about cataloging all materials and 
not just recently-published, textual monographs.  Cataloger time invested in 
the encoding of relators can likely be minimized by better interfaces and 
encoding schemes; whereas I cannot see how cataloger time invested in 
determining what kind of contributor a given entity is going to be reduced 
through any improvements to encoding schemas or interfaces.
In other words, the question, or at least one question would be: is, or should 
relationship designation be a core RDA element?  What are the tradeoffs 
between having consistent, rich metadata, and making sure catalogers are 
investing their time effectively?  I did not participate in the RDA test, but 
from my reading of RDA chapter 18 and the LC RDA testing documents, it seems 
like it isn't.  (But I could be wrong-I'm far from an RDA expert.)

--b
Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Billie Hackney
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 11:50 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework 
statement

Hi, Karen:

I didn't realize I was mistaken about the amount of work I do for original 
cataloging of materials about art, where there are curators, editors and 
essayists, galleries that are host institutions as well as publishers, artists 
who also wrote some or all of the text, and all this often without a title page 
and in a foreign language. Thank you for enlightening me.

Billie



Billie Hackney
Senior Monograph Cataloger
Getty Research Institute
1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
(310) 440-7616
bhack...@getty.edu
 Karen Coyle li...@kcoyle.net 11/9/2011 8:33 AM 
Quoting Billie Hackney bhack...@getty.edu:

 But it *is* more work.  Adding relator terms took a lot of extra
 time while I was doing original cataloging in RDA.  I know we've
 been through the argument a number of times before, but I just don't
 understand why the creators of RDA feel that it's necessary to make
 original catalogers do *more* instead of less when nearly all of us
 are supposed to get more done with fewer catalogers.

I can't imagine how calling someone artist can be more work. It *is*
more work if you have to look up a role code in order to put it into a
MARC subfield, but it's only *different* work if you have:

artist: [person name]
illustrator: [person name]
composer: [person name]
conductor: [person name]

rather than 100 or 700, which only tells that you're coding a name for
a person, and then requires you to qualify it with a
less-than-intuitive code.

It must be a rare piece that doesn't tell you what role a person
plays. That piece probably takes as much to catalog today, because you
have to determine if the named person is worth including in the
record. If the role is right there before you, using it isn't more
work if we finally get beyond MARC coding and stupid input interfaces
that make people look up codes.

kc
p.s. We really need to mock up a couple of potential new input views
so that people can see beyond MARC



 Billie Hackney
 Senior Monograph Cataloger
 Getty Research Institute
 1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
 Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
 (310) 440-7616
 bhack...@getty.edu
 Brenndorfer, Thomas tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca
 11/9/2011 7:49 AM 
 It is that precision (which carries forward the same amount of
 intellectual work in traditional cataloging-- it's not really
 more work) that makes the RDA element set more amenable to
 modern encoding and data management methods.





--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

2011-11-09 Thread John Attig

Billie, I think part of Karen's point is that the intellectual analysis 
and decision-making is mostly the same whether you are determining which 
name to put in the 1XX and which in the 7XXs or assigning relationship 
designators.  Compared with that intellectual process, the actual keying 
of the designators is rather modest.


I would hope that no one undervalues that intellectual work -- at least 
they shouldn't.  And I would hope that one of the functions of RDA is to 
provide a more robust set of ways in which you can record the 
conclusions you draw from that intellectual work and convey the 
information to the users of your records.


John Attig
Authority Control Librarian
Penn State University
jx...@psu.edu

On 11/9/2011 12:09 PM, Billie Hackney wrote:
I apologize for being testy.  It's just that anything that catalogers 
themselves say about the difficulties they've experiences with 
RDA seem to be passed over and ignored during all of this theoretical 
discussion on why RDA is so wonderful. Being told that assigning 
relator terms is easy when it's not is rather frustrating.

Billie Hackney
Senior Monograph Cataloger
Getty Research Institute
1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
(310) 440-7616
bhack...@getty.edu

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

2011-11-09 Thread Layne, Sara

Karen,

The intellectual work of determining the specific role(s) a person or corporate 
body has in relation to a work/expression/manifestation (RDA) is more 
difficult/complicated than the intellectual work of determining that a person 
or corporate body has *a* role in relation to a resource (AACR2). 

Roles may not be precisely defined. A person or body may have multiple roles. 
Catalogers using AACR2 are accustomed to applying their judgment to the yes/no 
question of whether a person or body has a role that calls for an access 
point-- to define precisely the role or roles that person or body plays 
requires additional intellectual effort. And, in my experience, especially for 
corporate bodies, it can be time-consuming to ferret out precisely what the 
role(s) are.

I don't think this increase in intellectual effort is dependent on the use of a 
particular coding scheme or interface. It is inherent in the work. And yes, the 
need for specifying roles in RDA does appear to be a result of attempting to 
catalog in terms of FRBR entities.

Sara

Sara Shatford Layne
Principal Cataloger
UCLA Library Cataloging  Metadata Center
sla...@library.ucla.edu


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 9:18 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework 
statement

Quoting Billie Hackney bhack...@getty.edu:

 I apologize for being testy.

Accepted. We all get frustrated.

 It's just that anything that catalogers themselves say about the  
 difficulties they've experiences with RDA seem to be passed over and  
 ignored during all of this theoretical discussion on why RDA is so  
 wonderful. Being told that assigning relator terms is easy when it's  
 not is rather frustrating.

Assigning relator terms in MARC is not easy. That's the point. But the  
intellectual work of determining the role is, I believe, the same in  
AACR2 and RDA. So what it comes down to is how hard it is to convey  
that in the record. I think the MARC coding of this is awkward and  
interfaces don't make it easier.

I doubt if any cataloger includes a name in a record without some idea  
of the role the person plays. However, if there is a need to include  
miscellaneous persons, there is no reason why such a relationship  
should not be allowed (that's up to the JSC). Note, however, that you  
will still, as Thomas B has stated, be using the FRBR entities that  
require you to separate out work, expression and manifestation roles,  
so some thinking about what the role is becomes (a perhaps painful)  
part of the process.

I think that MARC is getting in the way of our ability to think about  
this different.

kc



 Billie Hackney
 Senior Monograph Cataloger
 Getty Research Institute
 1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
 Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
 (310) 440-7616
 bhack...@getty.edu




-- 
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

Benjamin said:

It strikes me that perhaps two slightly different questions of work
required by relators are being conflated in this discussion... One
is the work of encoding relators, the other the work of determining
how contributors are related to works ...

There is also the situation in which one person or group has more than
one relationship to the work, e.g., composer and performer, author and
illustrator, director and actor, writer and producer, etc.

Is the name given two, three, or more times with different relators;
or is the relator subfield to be repeating, in this proposed new
coding scheme?  If repeating, in what order?


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

2011-11-09 Thread Robert Maxwell

I've been assigning relator terms for years under AACR2 in my cataloging so I 
guess I'm just used to it-yes, it takes a little extra time, but I think the 
benefits to our users of spelling out the relationship of the person/corporate 
body/family to the resource far outweigh the extra thought and entry time. I 
personally (and yes, I am a practicing cataloger) find the extra time and 
effort to be negligible.
N.B. I'm glad the relationship indicators are getting renewed emphasis under 
RDA, but this isn't a new issue with RDA. Relationship indicators were allowed 
under AACR2 and previous codes (see AACR2 21.0D) and have been widely and 
fairly consistently used during all that time in many cataloging communities, 
including the rare materials cataloging community, in spite of LC's decision at 
implementation of AACR2 not to use them in most cases.
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 Billie Hackney
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 10:53 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework 
statement

Determining that there is a contributor and providing a fast access point is 
much easier and quicker than figuring out all of the ways that a person or 
organization contributed, looking up the terms in the poorly presented and 
designed list in the RDA toolkit, and then typing them all in.  When we were 
doing original cataloging in RDA here, it was definitely the element of the 
work that took up most of the group's time -- it wasn't just me.

Perhaps it is just a difficulty associated with original cataloging of the type 
of materials we do here, and all of the other testers didn't experience the 
same difficulty that we did?  Everyone else found assigning multiple relator 
terms easy?



Billie Hackney
Senior Monograph Cataloger
Getty Research Institute
1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
(310) 440-7616
bhack...@getty.edumailto:bhack...@getty.edu
 John Attig jx...@psu.edumailto:jx...@psu.edu 11/9/2011 9:42 AM 
Billie, I think part of Karen's point is that the intellectual analysis and 
decision-making is mostly the same whether you are determining which name to 
put in the 1XX and which in the 7XXs or assigning relationship designators.  
Compared with that intellectual process, the actual keying of the designators 
is rather modest.

I would hope that no one undervalues that intellectual work -- at least they 
shouldn't.  And I would hope that one of the functions of RDA is to provide a 
more robust set of ways in which you can record the conclusions you draw from 
that intellectual work and convey the information to the users of your records.

John Attig
Authority Control Librarian
Penn State University
jx...@psu.edumailto:jx...@psu.edu

On 11/9/2011 12:09 PM, Billie Hackney wrote:
I apologize for being testy.  It's just that anything that catalogers 
themselves say about the difficulties they've experiences with RDA seem to be 
passed over and ignored during all of this theoretical discussion on why RDA is 
so wonderful. Being told that assigning relator terms is easy when it's not is 
rather frustrating.


Billie Hackney
Senior Monograph Cataloger
Getty Research Institute
1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
(310) 440-7616
bhack...@getty.edumailto:bhack...@getty.edu

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

2011-11-09 Thread Christopher Winters

I've presided over the creation of more than 2400 RDA records for sheet maps 
over the last 13 months at the University of Chicago Library. Relationship 
designators have given us more problems than any other aspect of RDA, and (like 
the book catalogers here) we stopped using them a couple of months after the 
test period ended. LC, I notice, did not use them even during the test period. 
The problems are:

[1]  As others have pointed out, it's often just not very clear what the 
creators did. You've got to pretend to know more than you do. This is 
probably never a very good idea in cataloging work.

[2] The official relationship designators do not fit the actual functions of 
map production very well. There is a particular problem with corporate 
creators, who are often publishers. But publisher is not one of the official 
relationship designators, and issuing body doesn't really seem like the right 
term for corporate publishers.

[3] It's common in cartographic materials for the source of the data to be a 
different person or body from the mapmaker. We pushed the envelope a bit and 
started using source of data as a relationship designator.

I completely agree with those who find the relationship designators so 
problematic as to doubt their value.

Chris Winters

Christopher Winters
Bibliographer for Anthropology, Geography, and Maps
University of Chiago Library


From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell 
[robert_maxw...@byu.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 12:03 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework 
statement

I’ve been assigning relator terms for years under AACR2 in my cataloging so I 
guess I’m just used to it—yes, it takes a little extra time, but I think the 
benefits to our users of spelling out the relationship of the person/corporate 
body/family to the resource far outweigh the extra thought and entry time. I 
personally (and yes, I am a practicing cataloger) find the extra time and 
effort to be negligible.
N.B. I’m glad the relationship indicators are getting renewed emphasis under 
RDA, but this isn’t a new issue with RDA. Relationship indicators were allowed 
under AACR2 and previous codes (see AACR2 21.0D) and have been widely and 
fairly consistently used during all that time in many cataloging communities, 
including the rare materials cataloging community, in spite of LC’s decision at 
implementation of AACR2 not to use them in most cases.
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 Billie Hackney
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 10:53 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework 
statement

Determining that there is a contributor and providing a fast access point is 
much easier and quicker than figuring out all of the ways that a person or 
organization contributed, looking up the terms in the poorly presented and 
designed list in the RDA toolkit, and then typing them all in.  When we were 
doing original cataloging in RDA here, it was definitely the element of the 
work that took up most of the group's time -- it wasn't just me.

Perhaps it is just a difficulty associated with original cataloging of the type 
of materials we do here, and all of the other testers didn't experience the 
same difficulty that we did?  Everyone else found assigning multiple relator 
terms easy?



Billie Hackney
Senior Monograph Cataloger
Getty Research Institute
1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
(310) 440-7616
bhack...@getty.edumailto:bhack...@getty.edu
 John Attig jx...@psu.edumailto:jx...@psu.edu 11/9/2011 9:42 AM 
Billie, I think part of Karen's point is that the intellectual analysis and 
decision-making is mostly the same whether you are determining which name to 
put in the 1XX and which in the 7XXs or assigning relationship designators.  
Compared with that intellectual process, the actual keying of the designators 
is rather modest.

I would hope that no one undervalues that intellectual work -- at least they 
shouldn't.  And I would hope that one of the functions of RDA is to provide a 
more robust set of ways in which you can record the conclusions you draw from 
that intellectual work and convey the information to the users of your records.

John Attig
Authority Control Librarian
Penn State University
jx...@psu.edumailto:jx...@psu.edu

On 11/9/2011

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

2011-11-09 Thread Elizabeth O'Keefe



I have mixed feelings about this discussion. We are heavy users of relator terms (we don't use the codes). This is partially because many of the items we catalogue, such as art works andmanuscripts, are unpublished and do not have statements of responsibility.If we didn't add relator terms to the headings, users would be reduced to scouring through the many notes on our records to figure out what is the relationship between the item and all the names that appear under the"Associated Names" label.I'm not sure that adding relator terms for items where the responsibilities are clearly spelled out in a statement of responsibility (e.g. by X; edited by Y; compiled by Z), or do not differ all that much except in degree (editor versus compiler) would be as useful. 

Adding relator termsdoes require additional time, both for the cataloger and for those in charge of cataloging (new catalogers have to be trained in the use of relator terms,policies have to be set on the sources we use andhow specific to be;if terms do not exist, we have to submit them to the relevant source.) We do this as an act of faith that someday, somehow, systems will be able to handle this data in a meaningful way, and use it in ways that will promote discovery and access. 

Some of the complications weencounter when supplying relator terms:Our system (Voyager 8) doesn't have a good way of handling multiple roles, which occur very frequently in our collections:Composer and librettist
Printer and publisherAuthor and illustrator (or artist)
Author, annotator,former owner, and donor
Binder and former owner
(well, you get the picture)

Degree of specificity:

We have a large graphic arts collection, sowe prefer more specific terms, such as "painter/engraver/illustrator/illuminator/etc." as opposed to the generic term "artist". We would actually use etcher, lithographer or woodcutter if the item described warrants it. We probably wouldn't care as much about differentiating between author/editor/compiler/prefacer (?) of a textual work. But in a world of shared cataloging andpooled records, shouldn't we all be operating at the same level of specificity?

Coding of source of relator term:It is currently not possible in MARC to indicate the source of a relator term. We use relator terms from the MARC list, from AAT, from the RBMS vocabularies and from "local" sources. It would be nice to be able to specify the source.

All these difficulties notwithstanding, we are committed to continue applying these terms. RDA's focus on relator terms is welcomed by us, if it leads to systems being able to utilize them better. But I'm not sure that relator terms will be as useful for other collections, even after the systems are in place.

Liz O'Keefe

Elizabeth O'KeefeDirector of Collection Information SystemsThe Morgan Library  Museum225 Madison AvenueNew York, NY 10016-3405TEL: 212 590-0380FAX: 212-768-5680NET: eoke...@themorgan.org

Visit CORSAIR, the Library’s comprehensive collections catalog, now onthe web athttp://corsair.themorgan.org
 Elizabeth O'Keefe 11/9/2011 12:27 PM  Billie Hackney bhack...@getty.edu 11/9/2011 12:53 PM 

Determining thatthere is a contributorand providing a fastaccess point is much easier and quickerthanfiguring out all of the ways thataperson or organizationcontributed, looking up the terms in thepoorly presented and designed list in the RDA toolkit, and then typing them all in. When we were doing original cataloging in RDA here, it was definitely the element of the work that took up most ofthe group'stime -- it wasn't just me. 

Perhaps it is just a difficulty associated with original cataloging of the type of materials we do here, and all of the other testersdidn't experience the same difficulty that we did? Everyone else found assigning multiple relator termseasy?


Billie HackneySenior Monograph CatalogerGetty Research Institute1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688(310) 440-7616bhack...@getty.edu John Attig jx...@psu.edu 11/9/2011 9:42 AM Billie, I think part of Karen's point is that the intellectual analysis and decision-making is mostly the same whether you are determining which name to put in the 1XX and which in the 7XXs or assigning relationship designators. Compared with that intellectual process, the actual keying of the designators is rather modest.I would hope that no one undervalues that intellectual work -- at least they shouldn't. And I would hope that one of the functions of RDA is to provide a more robust set of ways in which you can record the conclusions you draw from that intellectual work and convey the information to the users of your records.  John Attig  Authority Control Librarian  Penn State University  jx...@psu.eduOn 11/9/2011 12:09 PM, Billie Hackney wrote: 


I apologize for being testy. It's just thatanything thatcatalogers themselves say about the difficulties they've experiences with RDAseem to bepassed over and ignored during all of this

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

2011-11-09 Thread James Weinheimer

I almost changed the subject line, but this still *seems* to concern the 
bibliographic framework, or perhaps not.


Of course, relator codes require more work than not assigning them. That 
is a simple fact that no one can dispute. The question is: are they 
worth it?


This is not the sort of question that can be answered with a simple 
Yes, I think so or No, I don't think so. Different aspects must be 
considered first. The first fact that must be accepted is that the old 
records will not be upgraded and this has consequences for everything else.


First, will the relator codes be indexed for searching, i.e. will people 
be able to limit their searches to editors or compilers or 
contestee or process contact? I certainly hope not since the results 
will be unpredictable. Therefore, if the codes are not there for 
searching, what are they there for? There seems to be only one answer: 
for display.


Another aspect must be to see matters from the public's viewpoint. That 
viewpoint certainly should never be ignored. Since the old records will 
never be upgraded to add relator codes, they will see records with 
relator codes and records without relator codes all mixed together in 
every single search they do. What will be the correct way for a 
non-expert to approach them? Therefore, they will see, in every search, 
in one record, made post-RDA, there will be a relator code for a 
specific role, but in another record, pre-RDA, there will not be a 
relator code for exactly that same role. What then, is the purpose of 
the relator code? How can we keep them from being confused? How should 
people approach our records then, and how do we inform people what they 
should and shouldn't believe concerning the relator codes? What are the 
best ways to use them and what are poor ways? And remember, these will 
be exactly the same people who can't be expected to know what p. or 
ill. mean!


Naturally, another important aspect of the matter is the amount of work 
and the effects on productivity. When an experienced cataloger says that 
it has a noticeable effect on productivity, that statement should simply 
be accepted. It is in the nature of things that there will be easy items 
in English, just as we still get new editions of The old man and the 
sea and with very little work, we can count it as an original catalog 
record in our statistics. But there are other materials that are not in 
English, strange items with unclear roles that demand time. These kinds 
of strange roles can only get stranger with online materials.


It seems that there will be serious consequences both to catalogers and 
the public. This is normal when you decide to add new parts to the basic 
functions to the catalog. The only way to answer these considerations is 
to do at least some amount of research and find out if the consequences 
are worth the effort. Otherwise, we dive into the effort armed only with 
suppositions based on limited knowledge and personal beliefs.


Of course, in a regular business environment this sort of research would 
have been done at a very early stage, not at the very end.


--
James Weinheimer  weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com
First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement


Quoting Layne, Sara sla...@library.ucla.edu:



Roles may not be precisely defined. A person or body may have  
multiple roles. Catalogers using AACR2 are accustomed to applying  
their judgment to the yes/no question of whether a person or body  
has a role that calls for an access point-- to define precisely the  
role or roles that person or body plays requires additional  
intellectual effort.


If we truly move into an entity-relationship model for our data, the  
option of adding access points without the relationship will go  
away. The relationship is what connects the Group2 entity with the  
Group1 entity. There will be no other way to code it. (I'm thinking of  
doing a short pen-cast on this point since it is important; will post  
here if I do.)


Essentially, the E-R model requires you to say:

[this Work] [has author] [Person123]
[this Expression] [has illustrator] [Person789]

It's not a 100 field with a role code added to it; the thing we think  
of as the role code *is* the actual connector, and the statement  
cannot be made without it. This isn't rocket science, and it's a  
fairly common practice in metadata, where the data elements tell you  
what the role is, e.g.


for resourceABC:
author = Person123
editor = Person789
publisher = Corp876

MARC doesn't do this because MARC does not use active voice data  
elements. Instead it is a markup of a textual format and its data  
elements reference the placement of the text over the meaning  
(although in some cases they coincide). Main entry is a relationship  
between a string and a record, it is not a statement of how that  
person relates to the work being described.


That said, there is no reason why RDA cannot have a set of generic  
roles when determining the exact role is not worth while. Because of  
its adherence to FRBR, that would need to be a small set of roles,  
such as:


Work:Creator
Expression:Contributor
Manifestation:Producer [or whatever JSC decides]

so you could say:

[this Work] [has creator] [Person123]

and you haven't said if the creator is a writer, a composer or an  
artist. That is similar to what we have today in MARC, where a 1xx  
without a role requires the user to fill in the blank. We don't tell  
users that Beethoven is a composer, or that John Updike is a writer.


Again, if our future bibliographic framework is an E-R model, roles  
as we think of them today are not optional. In MARC they are, but MARC  
is not an E-R model. If this doesn't work for catalogers, then one has  
to go back and re-think everything from FRBR through RDA.


kc


And, in my experience, especially for corporate bodies, it can be  
time-consuming to ferret out precisely what the role(s) are.


I don't think this increase in intellectual effort is dependent on  
the use of a particular coding scheme or interface. It is inherent  
in the work. And yes, the need for specifying roles in RDA does  
appear to be a result of attempting to catalog in terms of FRBR  
entities.


Sara

Sara Shatford Layne
Principal Cataloger
UCLA Library Cataloging  Metadata Center
sla...@library.ucla.edu


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and  
Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle

Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 9:18 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic  
Framework statement


Quoting Billie Hackney bhack...@getty.edu:


I apologize for being testy.


Accepted. We all get frustrated.


It's just that anything that catalogers themselves say about the
difficulties they've experiences with RDA seem to be passed over and
ignored during all of this theoretical discussion on why RDA is so
wonderful. Being told that assigning relator terms is easy when it's
not is rather frustrating.


Assigning relator terms in MARC is not easy. That's the point. But the
intellectual work of determining the role is, I believe, the same in
AACR2 and RDA. So what it comes down to is how hard it is to convey
that in the record. I think the MARC coding of this is awkward and
interfaces don't make it easier.

I doubt if any cataloger includes a name in a record without some idea
of the role the person plays. However, if there is a need to include
miscellaneous persons, there is no reason why such a relationship
should not be allowed (that's up to the JSC). Note, however, that you
will still, as Thomas B has stated, be using the FRBR entities that
require you to separate out work, expression and manifestation roles,
so some thinking about what the role is becomes (a perhaps painful)
part of the process.

I think that MARC is getting in the way of our ability to think about
this different.

kc




Billie Hackney
Senior Monograph Cataloger
Getty Research Institute
1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
(310) 440-7616
bhack...@getty.edu





--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

2011-11-09 Thread John Attig


Several comments here:

First, the JSC recognizes that the list of official designators is 
incomplete, and that the ones relevant to cartographic resources are 
probably inadequate.  This was also recognized in the report of the US 
RDA Test Coordinating Committee.  The JSC very much wants proposals for 
additional designators, and the cartographic resources community is 
definitely one they would like to hear from.


Second, there are some relationships that are part of the RDA element 
structure that do not have designators.  Publisher is one of these.  
This is an element in RDA and (therefore?) does not have a designator in 
Appendix I.  Because an access point for this element cannot be 
identified by MARC 21 tagging, I have argued to the JSC that the only 
way to identify that an access point represents a publisher is to use 
the MARC 21 relator term publisher in subfield $e.  This is certainly 
valid MARC and I would argue that it is valid RDA.  [I have also 
recommended that these element-level relationships be included as 
explicit designators in the RDA role element set in the Open Metadata 
Registry. In the long run, this may be more important that how we fudge 
this in MARC.]


John Attig
ALA Representative to the JSC
jx...@psu.edu

On 11/9/2011 1:49 PM, Christopher Winters wrote:
I've presided over the creation of more than 2400 RDA records for 
sheet maps over the last 13 months at the University of Chicago 
Library. Relationship designators have given us more problems than any 
other aspect of RDA, and (like the book catalogers here) we stopped 
using them a couple of months after the test period ended. LC, I 
notice, did not use them even during the test period. The problems are:
[1]  As others have pointed out, it's often just not very clear what 
the creators did. You've got to pretend to know more than you do. 
This is probably never a very good idea in cataloging work.
[2] The official relationship designators do not fit the actual 
functions of map production very well. There is a particular problem 
with corporate creators, who are often publishers. But publisher is 
not one of the official relationship designators, and issuing body 
doesn't really seem like the right term for corporate publishers.
[3] It's common in cartographic materials for the source of the 
data to be a different person or body from the mapmaker. We pushed the 
envelope a bit and started using source of data as a relationship 
designator.
I completely agree with those who find the relationship designators so 
problematic as to doubt their value.

Chris Winters
Christopher Winters
Bibliographer for Anthropology, Geography, and Maps
University of Chiago Library

*From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and 
Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell 
[robert_maxw...@byu.edu]

*Sent:* Wednesday, November 09, 2011 12:03 PM
*To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
*Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic 
Framework statement


I’ve been assigning relator terms for years under AACR2 in my 
cataloging so I guess I’m just used to it—yes, it takes a little extra 
time, but I think the benefits to our users of spelling out the 
relationship of the person/corporate body/family to the resource far 
outweigh the extra thought and entry time. I personally (and yes, I am 
a practicing cataloger) find the extra time and effort to be negligible.


N.B. I’m glad the relationship indicators are getting renewed emphasis 
under RDA, but this isn’t a new issue with RDA. Relationship 
indicators were allowed under AACR2 and previous codes (see AACR2 
21.0D) and have been widely and fairly consistently used during all 
that time in many cataloging communities, including the rare materials 
cataloging community, in spite of LC’s decision at implementation of 
AACR2 not to use them in most cases.


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 *Billie Hackney

*Sent:* Wednesday, November 09, 2011 10:53 AM
*To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
*Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic 
Framework statement


Determining that there is a contributor and providing a fast access 
point is much easier and quicker than figuring out all of the ways 
that a person or organization contributed, looking up the terms in 
the poorly presented and designed list in the RDA toolkit, and then 
typing them all in.  When we were doing original cataloging

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement


Quoting John Attig jx...@psu.edu:




On 11/9/2011 2:43 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:

If we truly move into an entity-relationship model for our data, . . .


You could equally have same if we truly move into a linked-data  
model for our data.  My understanding is that an indispensable  
piece of any linked data specification is the predicate -- which is  
the relationship designator turned into a verb.


Yes, I think that for this discussion this is true. There are  
differences, like: E-R doesn't require the use of identifiers, but LD  
does. FRBR defines an E-R model, which is kind of a precursor to  
linked data, and at this date, linked data is the direction folks are  
going in.




On the other hand, you don't have to use the most specific  
relationship designator available.  I suspect that many will be  
satisfied with creator and contributor and avoid being more  
specific.  Because there are well-defined hierarchies, this  
difference in granularity shouldn't be an obstacle to  
interoperability.


I agree. The RDA definition of contributor is:

A person, family, or corporate body contributing to the realization  
of a work through an expression. Contributors include editors,  
translators, arrangers of music, performers, etc.  (from the  
registry, not the toolkit text)


So use of this term depends entirely on its acceptance as part of the  
RDA standard, and the development of best practices as we go forward.


There are many levels of granularity, such as:

1. Contributor
1.1 Composer (Expression)
1.11 Composer of Music for Silent Film (Expression)
1.11 Composer of Music for Sound Film (Expression)

I don't know if RDA gives any advice about moving up and down the  
granularity tree when assigning roles, but presumably few data  
producers are expected to provide the lowest level of detail.


Note that in the registry[1] the hierarchy of roles is coded although  
it isn't easily visible (we need a good visualization, to say the  
least) but every Composer (Expression) is a Contributor, and by  
inference so are the ones marked 1.11, so it should be correct to use  
Contributor for all of these. Communities should be able to provide  
the level of granularity that they find useful, and others can treat  
the data with less (but not more) granularity if they so wish.


kc
[1] http://metadataregistry.org/schemaprop/list/schema_id/4.html



John






--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement


Quoting John Attig jx...@psu.edu:


Second, there are some relationships that are part of the RDA  
element structure that do not have designators.  Publisher is one  
of these.  This is an element in RDA and (therefore?) does not have  
a designator in Appendix I.


I noticed this a while back. I assumed it was intentional because  
publisher is represented with a transcribed text, not a Group2  
entity. you could actually have both, with the RDA Manifestation  
element being for the transcribed text, and an Expression - to -  
Group2 relationship if someone wants to treat the publisher as a  
corporate body (presumably with an authority record). It would be nice  
to have both options.


kc


Because an access point for this element cannot be identified by  
MARC 21 tagging, I have argued to the JSC that the only way to  
identify that an access point represents a publisher is to use the  
MARC 21 relator term publisher in subfield $e.  This is certainly  
valid MARC and I would argue that it is valid RDA.  [I have also  
recommended that these element-level relationships be included as  
explicit designators in the RDA role element set in the Open  
Metadata Registry. In the long run, this may be more important that  
how we fudge this in MARC.]


John Attig
ALA Representative to the JSC
jx...@psu.edu

On 11/9/2011 1:49 PM, Christopher Winters wrote:
I've presided over the creation of more than 2400 RDA records for  
sheet maps over the last 13 months at the University of Chicago  
Library. Relationship designators have given us more problems than  
any other aspect of RDA, and (like the book catalogers here) we  
stopped using them a couple of months after the test period ended.  
LC, I notice, did not use them even during the test period. The  
problems are:
[1]  As others have pointed out, it's often just not very clear  
what the creators did. You've got to pretend to know more than  
you do. This is probably never a very good idea in cataloging work.
[2] The official relationship designators do not fit the actual  
functions of map production very well. There is a particular  
problem with corporate creators, who are often publishers. But  
publisher is not one of the official relationship designators,  
and issuing body doesn't really seem like the right term for  
corporate publishers.
[3] It's common in cartographic materials for the source of the  
data to be a different person or body from the mapmaker. We pushed  
the envelope a bit and started using source of data as a  
relationship designator.
I completely agree with those who find the relationship designators  
so problematic as to doubt their value.

Chris Winters
Christopher Winters
Bibliographer for Anthropology, Geography, and Maps
University of Chiago Library

*From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and  
Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell  
[robert_maxw...@byu.edu]

*Sent:* Wednesday, November 09, 2011 12:03 PM
*To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
*Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic  
Framework statement


I’ve been assigning relator terms for years under AACR2 in my  
cataloging so I guess I’m just used to it—yes, it takes a little  
extra time, but I think the benefits to our users of spelling out  
the relationship of the person/corporate body/family to the  
resource far outweigh the extra thought and entry time. I  
personally (and yes, I am a practicing cataloger) find the extra  
time and effort to be negligible.


N.B. I’m glad the relationship indicators are getting renewed  
emphasis under RDA, but this isn’t a new issue with RDA.  
Relationship indicators were allowed under AACR2 and previous codes  
(see AACR2 21.0D) and have been widely and fairly consistently used  
during all that time in many cataloging communities, including the  
rare materials cataloging community, in spite of LC’s decision at  
implementation of AACR2 not to use them in most cases.


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 *Billie  
Hackney

*Sent:* Wednesday, November 09, 2011 10:53 AM
*To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
*Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic  
Framework statement


Determining that there is a contributor and providing a fast access  
point is much easier and quicker than figuring out all of the ways  
that a person or organization contributed, looking up the terms in  
the poorly presented

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

2011-11-09 Thread John Attig


On 11/9/2011 3:59 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:

Quoting John Attig jx...@psu.edu:


Second, there are some relationships that are part of the RDA element 
structure that do not have designators.  Publisher is one of 
these.  This is an element in RDA and (therefore?) does not have a 
designator in Appendix I.


I noticed this a while back. I assumed it was intentional because 
publisher is represented with a transcribed text, not a Group2 
entity. you could actually have both, with the RDA Manifestation 
element being for the transcribed text, and an Expression - to - 
Group2 relationship if someone wants to treat the publisher as a 
corporate body (presumably with an authority record). It would be nice 
to have both options.


Actually, the publisher relationship is an element in Chapter 21, 
Persons, Families and Corporate Bodies Associated with a Manifestation.  
Other relationships in that chapter are Producer of an Unpublished 
Resource, Distributor, Manufacturer.  These are relationships which can 
be recorded as either identifiers or authorized access points; they are 
quite distinct from the Publisher's Name [etc.] elements in Chapter 2.  
Although there are cases in which RDA (and FRBR) treats an element as 
only a descriptive element or only a relationship, in this case, RDA 
supports both.  And I agree that we need both options more generally in RDA.


John Attig
Authority Control Librarian
Penn  State University
jx...@psu.edu

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

Christopher Winters said:

I've presided over the creation of more than 2400 RDA records for
sheet maps over the last 13 months at the University of Chicago
Library. Relationship designators have given us more problems than
any other aspect of RDA, and (like the book catalogers here) we
stopped using them  ...

This real life experience very much accords with our internal
experiments.  We have come up with a simplified relator term list* in one
alphabetic order, in case we *have* to use them, but we hope not.
Some RDA terms are too long for conventient display.

While relator terms are fairly problem free for a simple printed book,
simple printed books are a small minority of what SLC catalogues (records
for most of those are available from the national cataloguing
agencies).

We catalogue law reform commission reports for law firm libraries.  A
report which contains official recommendations of the commission is
entered under the commission.  A report which is informational only is
entered under personal author or title.  What would be the relator
term(s) used for that 110 and 710?  Different or the same?   Issuing
body for both?  Usually the commission is also the publisher.  
  
What $e term would be used after a 111?  We do many law symposia.

It seems to me many theorists lack the practical experience of Billie
and Christopher.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__


abridger
actor
addressee
animator
appellant
appellee
architect
artist
author
[bookseller]
cartographer
[cinematographer] [Use for 'director of photography']
choreographer
commentator
composer [Also use for all RDA relator phrases beginning 'composer']
conductor
court governed [Assign and export as 'court']
compiler
[conference - use issuer]
dancer
dedicatee
defendant
degree granting institution [Assign and export as 'institution']
[depicted]
designer
[director] [Usedfor 'film director', 'radio director', 'television director']
director of photography [Assign and export as 'cinematographer']
draftsman
enacting jurisdiction [assign and export as 'jurisdiction']
editor
engraver
etcher
film director [Assign and export as 'director']
film producer [Assign and export as 'producer']
filmmaker
honouree
host
host institution [Assign and export as 'host']
illustrator
[institution] [Use for 'degree granting institution']
instrumentalist
interviewee
interviewer
inventor
[issuer] [Use for 'issuing body']
issuing body [assign and export as 'issuer']
judge
[jurisdiction] [Use for 'enacting jurisdiction' and 'jurisdiction governed']
jurisdiction governed [Assign and export as 'jurisdiction]
landscape architect [Assign and export as 'landscaper']
[landscaper] ]Use for 'landscape architect]
librettist
lyricist
moderator
narrator
panelist
performer
photographer
plaintiff
praeses
printer
printmaker
[producer] [Use for 'film producer', 'radio producer', 'television producer']
production company
programmer
[publisher]
puppeteer
radio director [Assign and export as 'director']
radio producer [Assign and export as 'producer']
respondent
screenwriter
sculptor
singer
speaker
[sponsor] ]Use for 'sponsoring body']
sponsoring body [Assign and export as 'sponsor']
storyteller
teacher
television director [Assign and export as 'director']
television producer [Assign and export as 'producer']
transcriber
translator
[writer - use 'author']

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

2011-11-09 Thread Deemer, Pam

Reading the discussions about codes for designators and WEMI levels, made me 
remember for early U.S. court materials the so-called editors or compilers were 
considered creators, not contributors. Not all definitions we think are 
simple, are so. An original cataloger has to know a subject to know correct 
proper Group status for an access point or designation of a true role.

Is there a discovery system or catalog now that can display as facets the 
various roles in works and expressions that a person/entity may have? If I did 
an entity search, something like John D. Smythe: Creator (65), Contributor (68) 
or John D. Smythe: Creator: author (65), painter (45), Contributor: compiler 
(43), illustrator (21), composer (4) would display?

Pam Deemer
Assistant Law Librarian, Acquisitions and Cataloging Services
Emory University Hugh F. MacMillan Law Library
1301 Clifton Road
Atlanta, GA 30322-2780
(404)-727-0850

lib...@emory.edu





This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.

If you have received this message in error, please contact
the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the
original message (including attachments).

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

2011-11-09 Thread Adam L. Schiff



What $e term would be used after a 111?  We do many law symposia.


author

It is considered the creator of the work, just like a person may be.  So 
the correct relator term is author.



From RDA Appendix I:


author A person, family, or corporate body responsible for creating a work 
that is primarily textual in content, regardless of media type (e.g., 
printed text, spoken word, electronic text, tactile text) or genre (e.g., 
poems, novels, screenplays, blogs). Use also for persons, etc., creating a 
new work by paraphrasing, rewriting, or adapting works by another creator 
such that the modification has substantially changed the nature and 
content of the original or changed the medium of expression.


**
* 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   * 
**

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

2011-11-09 Thread Brenndorfer, Thomas

Some additional observations on relationship designators...

IMDb.com uses job type as a way of defining relationships between persons and
content.
So for Clint Eastwood, his filmography is organized by his relationship to
films:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm142/
There is a catchall job type miscellaneous crew, but even the listings under
that job type have added details about his role.

There is a two-tier structure in RDA for relationships-- relationship elements
and more specific relationship designators (which in turn can be further
fine-tuned).

For a Work, there are two elements: Creator, and, Other Person (Family,
Corporate Body) Associated with a Work (including religious and legal works).

For an Expression, there is one element: Contributor.

For an Manifestation, there are five elements: Producer of an Unpublished
Resource, Publisher, Distributor, Manufacturer, Other Person (Family, Corporate
Body) Associated with a Manifestation

For an Item, there are three elements: Owner, Custodian, Other Person (Family,
Corporate Body) Associated with an Item

Separating out relationships to the Work from the other entities overlaps with
decisions about the main entry, or, in RDA, decision about authorized or
variant access points for the work. The intellectual work in making those
decisions is largely the same. The degree of granularity for the nature of
relationship should be up to the community involved. I would think that the
respective domain expertises would find efficient and accurate designators that
serve endusers effectively, to whatever level of granularity is appropriate.

Depending on the resource, I do find relator codes can result in a better
distribution of effort-- a record for a movie with 25 added entries is easier
to understand when the relator code is connected to the name. The alternative
of scanning piles of text in notes to understand the relationship is less
efficient, depending on how the record is used and who is using it.

The RDA example records at
http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC_RDA_Complete_Examples_(Bibliographic)_revised.pdf
indicate how different encoding methods can handle relationships.

In the MARC encoding methods on page 7, multiple roles to different Group 1
entities can be concatenated:

100 1# $a Porter, Kalan, $e composer, $e singer
700 1# $a Sokyrka, Theresa, $e singer

In an RDA element set version, the relationships can be spelled out
differently, and offer greater clarity as to the nature of the roles and why
one name can be a main entry and the other cannot:

Work:
Work manifested: Porter, Kalan. 219 days.

Creator: Porter, Kalan
Relationship designator: composer

Expression:
Contributor: Porter, Kalan
Relationship designator: singer

Contributor: Sokyrka, Theresa
Relationship designator: singer

The degree to which encoding is made efficient is up to the encoding scheme and
the interface. As an example, LibraryThing uses relatively efficient drop-down
menus to help people enter designators between related works:
http://www.librarything.com/wiki/index.php/HelpThing:Work/Relationships#Relationships_and_Examples

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

2011-11-09 Thread Nirmala Gounder

Please take me off the list. I am not involved in this area of work anymore. 

Regards 
Nirmala

Nirmala Gounder ALIANZA, RLIANZA| Team Leader Technical Services | Bay of 
Plenty Polytechnic Library | Private Bag 12001, Tauranga 3143 | P: 07 544 0190 
ext  6768 | F: 07 544 2386 | nirmala.goun...@boppoly.ac.nz | www.boppoly.ac.nz
 

-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: Thursday, 10 November 2011 11:37 a.m.
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework 
statement


 What $e term would be used after a 111?  We do many law symposia.

author

It is considered the creator of the work, just like a person may be.  So 
the correct relator term is author.

From RDA Appendix I:

author A person, family, or corporate body responsible for creating a work 
that is primarily textual in content, regardless of media type (e.g., 
printed text, spoken word, electronic text, tactile text) or genre (e.g., 
poems, novels, screenplays, blogs). Use also for persons, etc., creating a 
new work by paraphrasing, rewriting, or adapting works by another creator 
such that the modification has substantially changed the nature and 
content of the original or changed the medium of expression.

**
* 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   * 
**
Private and Confidential
This electronic mail message and any files transmitted with it are intended 
solely for the use of the addressee(s) and may contain information that is 
confidential or privileged. If you receive this message and you are not the 
intended addressee (or responsible for the delivery of the message to the 
intended addressee) please notify the author immediately, disregard the 
contents of this message and delete the message from your system.  Please note 
that we accept no responsibility for viruses or any other malicious code in 
this email or any included attachments.

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

Adam answered:

 What $e term would be used after a 111?  We do many law symposia.

author

I remember a French cataloguer at IFLA snippily telling me that
corporate bodies do not write books, people do.

The papers in symposia are written by individual lawyers, and
delivered at the symposia.  The symposia has no  hand in their
creation.

The record for a law commission report written by one person with no
official recommendations, and that person as 100, would have 710
$eauthor?  A law commission report with official recommendations
written by a task force, entered under the commission, would have 110
$eauthor?  The commision had no hand in their creation; they just
adopted them.

The relator term author in all three cases would not be true.

I think we will use issuer (short for issuingn body) if we must
use relator terms.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

2011-11-09 Thread Adam L. Schiff


On Wed, 9 Nov 2011, J. McRee Elrod wrote:


Adam answered:


What $e term would be used after a 111?  We do many law symposia.


author


I remember a French cataloguer at IFLA snippily telling me that
corporate bodies do not write books, people do.

The papers in symposia are written by individual lawyers, and
delivered at the symposia.  The symposia has no hand in their
creation.


True, as far as it goes.  But in both AACR2 and RDA symposia can be main 
entries/creators of works.  Symposia, like other corporate bodies, have 
long been considered capable of authorship by our rules.


RDA 19.2.1.1.1 Corporate Bodies Considered to Be Creators
Corporate bodies are considered to be creators when they are responsible 
for originating, issuing, or causing to be issued, works that fall into 
one or more of the following categories:


a) works of an administrative nature dealing with any of the following 
aspects of the body itself:


i) its internal policies, procedures, finances, and/or operations

or

ii) its officers, staff, and/or membership (e.g., directories)

or

iii) its resources (e.g., catalogues, inventories)

b) works that record the collective thought of the body (e.g., reports of 
commissions, committees; official statements of position on external 
policies, standards)


c) works that report the collective activity of

i) a conference (e.g., proceedings, collected papers)

or

ii) an expedition (e.g., results of exploration, investigation)

or

iii) an event (e.g., an exhibition, fair, festival) falling within the 
definition of a corporate body (see 18.1.2) provided that the conference, 
expedition, or event is named in the resource being described


d) works that result from the collective activity of a performing group as 
a whole where the responsibility of the group goes beyond that of mere 
performance, execution, etc.


e) cartographic works originating with a corporate body other than a body 
that is merely responsible for their publication or distribution.


f) legal works of the following types:

i) laws of a political jurisdiction

ii) decrees of a head of state, chief executive, or ruling executive body

iii) bills and drafts of legislation

iv) administrative regulations, etc.

v) constitutions, charters, etc.

vi) court rules

vii) treaties, international agreements, etc.

viii) charges to juries, indictments, court proceedings, and court 
decisions.



While it's true that a conference itself doesn't write the text of its 
proceedings, it's treated as a collective creator.  When you go to the 
relationship designators for creators, the appropriate one for a 
conference is author, no matter that you don't like the term when used for 
corproate bodies and the fact that it implies actual writing by an 
individual.  Since the definition in RDA applies, the correct designator 
is author.


A person, family, or corporate body responsible for creating a work that 
is primarily textual in content, regardless of media type (e.g., printed 
text, spoken word, electronic text, tactile text) or genre (e.g., poems, 
novels, screenplays, blogs).


Under rule 19.2.1.1.1 a conference is responsible for creating a work 
consisting of its proceedings.  If the proceedings are textual, the 
appropriate designator is author.  One could always propose a more 
specific designator to use for the specific situation of a conference as 
creator of a work.  Any suggestions for that?


**
* 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   * 
**

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

2011-11-08 Thread Jim Weinheimer

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 7:01 AM, Hal Cain wrote:
snip

 However, once I began to see how competent systems handled MARC, it became
 plain that what they were doing was basically to create a matrix and
 populate it with the tag values, the indicator values, and the subfield
 data prefixed by the subfield code.  Then the indexing routines read the
 matrix (not the raw MARC ISO2709 data) and distributed the data into the
 appropriate areas of the system's internal table structure.  From those
 tables, I was able, when required, to obtain what I wanted by direct query
 on the appropriate part of the database. When it was necessary to export a
 single MARC record, a group of them, or indeed the whole database, the
 system had routines which reversed the process (and, last of all, counted
 the number of characters in order to fill in the record length element of
 the MARC leader). This was extremely burdensome to programmers who came to
 the game in the 1990s and had no background in early data processing,
 chiefly of text rather than numbers, but in its time it was pure genius.
 Nowadays it's a very special niche, and the foreignness to programmers and
 designers of the processes involved probably plays a part in keeping us
 from having really good cataloguing modules and public catalogues; and I
 can understand the frustration entailed for those who expect to interrogate
 a database directly.

 Bear in mind, though, that using a modern cataloguing module (Horizon is
 the one I'm most familiar with), I can search for a record on a remote
 system, e.g. the LC catalog, through Z39.50, and have the record on my
 screen, in editable form, in a second or two, indistinguishable from a
 record in the local database. The system's internal routines download the
 record in MARC format (ISO 2709, hated by Jim) and build the matrix which
 feeds the screen display.

/snip

This is really a nice description of the problems of ISO2709, Hal. Thanks a
lot.

I would like to clarify one point however: do I hate ISO2709 format? I can
answer that honestly: no. It served its purpose well for the environment it
was born into. That environment changed however, and we need to face up to
that. If our modern systems (i.e. modern web browsers) worked with the
ISO2709 format, i.e. the files that the machine actually receives, then I
would be all for it.

Yet, this is not the reality of the situation. Browsers work with a variety
of formats, but they work with XML, which gives us some options. Browsers
do not work with ISO2709, and I don't believe they ever will. Therefore,
the only systems that can work with ISO2709 records (which is how libraries
exchange their cataloging information) are other catalogs, and that
automatically restrains us from participating in the wider information
universe. As a result, in my own opinion, hanging on to ISO2709 borders on
the irrational since we automatically limit the utility of our records,
thereby limiting ourselves.

MARCXML has many limitations that I won't discuss here, but *at least* it
is in XML which *can* be used in the new environment. It is much more
flexible than ISO2709. For instance, I have mentioned before that I believe
we should get away from a *single* main entry--that while a single main
entry made sense in the card catalog, it makes no sense in a computerized
catalog. Others disagree, but no matter what, I think it is vital that we
should have that kind of flexibility.

Getting rid of a *single* main entry would be the equivalent of DC's
creator and contributor where creator is repeatable, thereby creating
multiple main entries. It turns out this is much more difficult than merely
making 1xx repeatable, since you also have to allow it in the 6xx, 7xx and
8xx, for books *by* Masters and Johnson, for books *about the books*
written by Masters and Johnson, for analytical and series treatments as
well.

You could do this without too much difficulty in XML, even in MARCXML, but
in ISO2709, it would be a relative nightmare because you would have to
rework the entire structure, from the directory on down. (This is why the
MARCXML principle of roundtripability--what a word!--needs to be dropped.
Otherwise, we remain trapped in the ISO2709 format anyway!) Anyway, while
it may be possible to rework ISO2709 to such an extent, would it be
worthwhile to do it on such an old format?

This is just one example of the relative inflexibility of ISO2709, but
there are many more.

Still, I don't hate ISO2709. It served its purpose admirably, but it's like
the horse and buggy. I'm sure nobody hated horses and buggies after the
automobile came out, but eventually, if it turned out that Dad and Grandpa
refused to get a car when everybody else had one and the advantages were
plain for all to see, Junior very possibly would have wound up hating the
horse and buggy he was forced to use.
-- 

James L. Weinheimer  weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com
First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
Cooperative

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

2011-11-08 Thread Bernhard Eversberg


08.11.2011 07:01, Hal Cain:



However, once I began to see how competent systems handled MARC, it
became plain that what they were doing was basically to create a
matrix and populate it with the tag values, the indicator values, and
the subfield data prefixed by the subfield code.

This is only one possible way.
There are other ways; I programmed one that is not decidedly MARC
specific but handles MARC/ISO anyway. It is scriptable, not hard-
wired to do just this job and nothing else.

The ISO7209 structure (later renamed Z39.2) was an incredibly fussy
concoction that presumedly allowed for some efficiency in the days
of magnetic tape based processing. (To know in advance, inside the
program, how long a field would be, was an advantage then.)

Today, fussing around like that is ridiculous, it would be full well
possible and economical to use something like the MarcEdit external
structure:

=LDR  01234cam a22002771a 45e0
=001  438554701
=008  100412s1975n\\\eng\d
=020  \\$a0913896039
=050  \0$aPN3377.5.S3
=082  00$a808.3876
=090  \\$aQ2'Fdg-150
=100  1\$aDe Camp , Lyon Sprague
=245  00$aScience fiction handbook /$cL. Sprague de Camp and Catherine 
Crook de Camp

=250  \\$aRevised ed.
=260  \\$aPhiladelphia :$bOwlswick Press,$c1975
=300  \\$aVIII, 220 S. ; 8
=500  \\$aLiteraturverz. S. 203 - 212
=650  \0$aScience fiction Authorship
=650  \0$aScience fiction History and criticism
=700  12$aDe Camp , Catherine Crook
=700  12$aCamp, Catherine Crook de

It can be editied as a simple text file, sent by e-mail or ftp, or
magnetic tape. It can use UTF-8 or any other encodings. For those few
systems that still can ingest only ISO data, there's MarcEdit to
convert it back and forth.

It is therefore beside the point to talk about ISO2709 when discussing
whether MARC must die or not. From a programmer's POV, this matter
can be considered closed. MARC has other flaws that are much more
serious and not all of them solvable algorithmically.



Maybe the problem is that there's no universal bibliographic database
that isn't MARC-based?

There certainly are such databases. One of them is Pica, widely used
in Europe, and now owned by OCLC. Another one is the system programmed
by myself, also widely used. Both can handle MARC, in whichever ways
it comes. But internally, they go their own ways. If needed, they
deliver MARC records or whatever, via web services or as simple files.

B.Eversberg

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

2011-11-08 Thread Akerman, Laura

I'm posting this to the BIBFRAME list as well since it seemed relevant...

To me, the original main entry concept could more usefully be thought about 
in a larger context of  for any field that is repeatable in a set of 
bibliographic description fields, is it useful to be able to designate one such 
fields as primary for purposes of selection for display, categorization 
(where a particular application requires one to select one box to 
characterize a resource) or other functionalities?  If so, should the 
designation be stored with the field, or separately from it?

Other MARC approaches that serve that function include choice of format 
(which one goes in Leader byte 6, which one gets reflected in an 006, when a 
resource has characteristics of two formats?).

For fields like subject, I believe there was a convention that the most 
important subject (the one upon which the primary classification number was 
based) had the first position in the record.   Since many modern systems permit 
or even force re-ordering tags in numerical order, that positional value can 
and often is easily lost.  Many of us stopped lamenting this a long time ago, 
but was it valuable?

What I don't think is valuable, is having to pick one author of a work with 
multiple authors and designate that person as the main one, based on the 
almost arbitrary factor of position of the name on the title page, (which is 
often alphabetical), and ending up deeming this person Creator and relegating 
the other author(s) to Contributor status.  (Nor do I think that dichotomy is 
particularly useful.)

Laura

Laura Akerman
Technology and Metadata Librarian
Room 128, Robert W. Woodruff Library
Emory University, Atlanta, Ga. 30322
(404) 727-6888
lib...@emory.edu

-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: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 11:24 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework 
statement

Jim said:

Getting rid of a *single* main entry would be the equivalent of DC's
creator and contributor where creator is repeatable, thereby
creating multiple main entries.

How would you produce single entry bibliographies?  How would scholars cite in 
footnotes?  How would cataloguers construct subject and added entries for works?

Libraries are part of a larger bibliographic universe, and should adhere to its 
standards and practices, which would include returning to compiler main entry.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__



This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.

If you have received this message in error, please contact
the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the
original message (including attachments).

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

2011-11-08 Thread Mike Tribby

For fields like subject, I believe there was a convention that the most 
important subject (the one upon which the primary classification number was 
based) had the first position in the record.   Since many modern systems permit 
or even force re-ordering tags in numerical order, that positional value can 
and often is easily lost.  Many of us stopped lamenting this a long time ago, 
but was it valuable?

Yes.


Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses

mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

2011-11-08 Thread Adam L. Schiff

And it is still the rule if you are following the LCSH conventions as 
specified in its rulebook, the Subject Headings Manual.  The first subject 
heading is also tied closely to the classification number assigned.


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 Tue, 8 Nov 2011, Mike Tribby wrote:


For fields like subject, I believe there was a convention that the most important 
subject (the one upon which the primary classification number was based) had the first 
position in the record.   Since many modern systems permit or even force re-ordering tags 
in numerical order, that positional value can and often is easily lost.  Many of us 
stopped lamenting this a long time ago, but was it valuable?

Yes.


Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses

mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

Laura Akerman said:

What I don't think is valuable, is having to pick one author of a
work with multiple authors and designate that person as the main
one ...

As I asked Jim, how would you construct at 600$a$t subject or 700$a$t
added entry for a manifestation, if there were no main entry?  How
would a scholar construct a footnote citation?  How would you list it
in a single entry bibliography?

It seems to me main entry (by any other term) is a vital concept in
the bibliographic universe.


For fields like subject, I believe there was a convention that the
most important subject (the one upon which the primary classification
Ynumber was based) had the first position in the record.   Since many
modern systems permit or even force re-ordering tags in numerical
order, that positional value can and often is easily lost.  Many of
us stopped lamenting this a long time ago, but was it valuable?

Agreed.  We do try to make the first 650 (as opposed to the first 6XX)
agree with the class number.  But I suspect 6XX order is as
unimportant as note order to patrons.

There was a way of coding in UTLAS to bring a particular 6XX first,
one of many features lost with its demise.  There was no wayy of
coding to bring a particular 5XX first.

For note order, we use more exact coding than most, e.g., 501 DVD
special features, 503 (which we refuse to give up) for Originally
issued ..., 508 for all non cast credits, 511 for cast credets, DVD
in 300 rather than 538,  588 for source (e.g., IMDb).  It's much less
labour intensive than arranging a bunch of 5XXs.  (DVDs tend to have
more notes than many library resources.)
  
As mentioned in my list of requirements for a replacement coding
scheme, it should arrange data in optimum display order, without a lot
of manipulation at data entry, or complicated OPAC programming.




   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

2011-11-08 Thread James Weinheimer


On 08/11/2011 17:23, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
snip

Jim said:


Getting rid of a *single* main entry would be the equivalent of DC's
creator  andcontributor  wherecreator  is repeatable, thereby creating
multiple main entries.

How would you produce single entry bibliographies?  How would scholars
cite in footnotes?  How would cataloguers construct subject and added
entries for works?

Libraries are part of a larger bibliographic universe, and should
adhere to its standards and practices, which would include returning
to compiler main entry.

/snip

Could you point me in the direction of a bibliographic citation format 
that demands someone choosing a *single* main entry? I have worked a lot 
with them and have never found anything resembling a single main entry. 
While the practices vary, the main rule is, copy the authors in the 
order they appear on the title page. Some stop at a maximum of four, 
none more than seven. Some want the forms of names as spelled out on the 
item, others say to abbreviate first and middle names. These formats 
mostly want people to differentiate between authors and others, e.g. 
editors, compilers, and translators, by putting in (ed.) or mentioning 
translations. Here is the Chicago format 
http://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/DocChi_WC_book.html. Another nice page 
is from Ursinus 
http://myrin.ursinus.edu/help/resrch_guides/cit_style_mla.htm. Here is a 
guide for the Harvard rules 
http://libweb.anglia.ac.uk/referencing/harvard.htm For books with two, 
three or four authors of equal status the names should all be included 
in the order they appear in the document. Use an *and* to link the last 
two multiple authors. These rules, and others, actually use et al.!


I admit that these considerations would provide a reason to go back to 
the practice of adding relator codes (which I do *not* think is the 
right thing to do, by the way).


Now, as far as cataloging items for subject or added entries for works 
with two or more main entries, it can be done in XML quite easily, but 
more difficult with ISO2709. With XML, for a subject entry for Masters 
and Johnson (two main entries), you could have (an abbreviated MARCXML 
record. I think catalogers can follow):


record
100
aSmith, John/ad1960-/d
/100
245
aThe book by Masters and Johnson/a
bsome thought/b
cby John Smith/c
/245
260
aNew York/a
bRandom/b
c2011/c
/260
subjectUniformTitle
100
aMasters, William Howell/a
d1915-2001/d
/100
100
aJohnson, Virginia/a
d1925-/d
/100
240
aHuman Sexual Response///a
/240
/subjectUniformTitle
/record

The same could be done with an analytic or series, just replacing 
subjectUniformTitle with analyticUniformTitle or 
seriesUniformTitle. How this could be done in ISO2709, I do not know, 
but I won't say that it cannot be done because somebody may figure out a 
way, but I can't imagine why anyone should want to. XML can do it right 
now and it could be utilized by browsers the world over--right now. Once 
we get away from ISO2709, there will be all kinds of novel bibliographic 
structures that can be implemented. ISO2709 leads catalogers to think in 
certain ways about how information in structures. There is no need for 
that any longer.


--
James Weinheimer  weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com
First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

2011-11-08 Thread Jonathan Rochkind

Kind of off topic, but curious why you don't think relator codes are the 
right thing to do. If we're listing 3 or 5 or 10 people or entities 
'responsible' for an artistic work, why wouldn't we want to be able to 
say the nature/role of each entities responsibility?  Or, if we do, but 
relator codes are a poor device for this, why?


On 11/8/2011 3:25 PM, James Weinheimer wrote:

On 08/11/2011 17:23, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
snip

Jim said:


Getting rid of a *single* main entry would be the equivalent of DC's
creator  andcontributor  wherecreator  is repeatable, thereby creating
multiple main entries.

How would you produce single entry bibliographies?  How would scholars
cite in footnotes?  How would cataloguers construct subject and added
entries for works?

Libraries are part of a larger bibliographic universe, and should
adhere to its standards and practices, which would include returning
to compiler main entry.

/snip

Could you point me in the direction of a bibliographic citation format 
that demands someone choosing a *single* main entry? I have worked a 
lot with them and have never found anything resembling a single main 
entry. While the practices vary, the main rule is, copy the authors in 
the order they appear on the title page. Some stop at a maximum of 
four, none more than seven. Some want the forms of names as spelled 
out on the item, others say to abbreviate first and middle names. 
These formats mostly want people to differentiate between authors and 
others, e.g. editors, compilers, and translators, by putting in (ed.) 
or mentioning translations. Here is the Chicago format 
http://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/DocChi_WC_book.html. Another nice 
page is from Ursinus 
http://myrin.ursinus.edu/help/resrch_guides/cit_style_mla.htm. Here is 
a guide for the Harvard rules 
http://libweb.anglia.ac.uk/referencing/harvard.htm For books with 
two, three or four authors of equal status the names should all be 
included in the order they appear in the document. Use an *and* to 
link the last two multiple authors. These rules, and others, actually 
use et al.!


I admit that these considerations would provide a reason to go back to 
the practice of adding relator codes (which I do *not* think is the 
right thing to do, by the way).


Now, as far as cataloging items for subject or added entries for works 
with two or more main entries, it can be done in XML quite easily, but 
more difficult with ISO2709. With XML, for a subject entry for Masters 
and Johnson (two main entries), you could have (an abbreviated MARCXML 
record. I think catalogers can follow):


record
100
aSmith, John/ad1960-/d
/100
245
aThe book by Masters and Johnson/a
bsome thought/b
cby John Smith/c
/245
260
aNew York/a
bRandom/b
c2011/c
/260
subjectUniformTitle
100
aMasters, William Howell/a
d1915-2001/d
/100
100
aJohnson, Virginia/a
d1925-/d
/100
240
aHuman Sexual Response/a
/240
/subjectUniformTitle
/record

The same could be done with an analytic or series, just replacing 
subjectUniformTitle with analyticUniformTitle or 
seriesUniformTitle. How this could be done in ISO2709, I do not 
know, but I won't say that it cannot be done because somebody may 
figure out a way, but I can't imagine why anyone should want to. XML 
can do it right now and it could be utilized by browsers the world 
over--right now. Once we get away from ISO2709, there will be all 
kinds of novel bibliographic structures that can be implemented. 
ISO2709 leads catalogers to think in certain ways about how 
information in structures. There is no need for that any longer.

--
James weinheimerweinheimer.ji...@gmail.com  mailto:weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com
First Thus:http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
Cooperative Cataloging Rules:http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

Jim said:

Could you point me in the direction of a bibliographic citation format 
that demands someone choosing a *single* main entry?
 
See Chicago Manual of Style 14th ed. 16.35-38.  Up to three authors
may be given, but only the first is given in inverted order.  Sounds
like a main entry to me.  One has to choose one to invert.  Beyond
three, only the first is given.  (Entry under first of more than three
is closer to RDA than AACR2, but like AACR2 in substituting et al.
for additional authors.)

Am I the only one old enough to remember more than one author at the
top of the unit card?  But *one* was first.

 Now, as far as cataloging items for subject or added entries for
works with two or more main entries ...

One still has to be first.  I don't see the advantage of having more
than one with one first, as opposed to having one.  See the statement
of responsibility if you want all.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

2011-11-08 Thread Akerman, Laura

Someone pointed out to me that I should clarify my last remark, talking about 
the separating of people into Creator and Contributor I was thinking about 
what happens when mapping MARC to the Dublin Core Creator or Contributor 
elements, which are loosely defined - not to the RDA concepts which have a 
different and more distinct definition:

Creator - A person, family, or corporate body responsible for the creation of a 
work.

Contributor - A person, family or corporate body contributing to the 
realization of a work through an expression.  Contributors include editors, 
translators, arrangers of music, performers, etc.

Is there any way to determine the RDA distinctions within the current MARC21?  
Without the use of relators, I can't see how...

Laura

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Akerman, Laura
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 2:00 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework 
statement

I'm posting this to the BIBFRAME list as well since it seemed relevant...

To me, the original main entry concept could more usefully be thought about 
in a larger context of  for any field that is repeatable in a set of 
bibliographic description fields, is it useful to be able to designate one such 
fields as primary for purposes of selection for display, categorization 
(where a particular application requires one to select one box to 
characterize a resource) or other functionalities?  If so, should the 
designation be stored with the field, or separately from it?

Other MARC approaches that serve that function include choice of format 
(which one goes in Leader byte 6, which one gets reflected in an 006, when a 
resource has characteristics of two formats?).

For fields like subject, I believe there was a convention that the most 
important subject (the one upon which the primary classification number was 
based) had the first position in the record.   Since many modern systems permit 
or even force re-ordering tags in numerical order, that positional value can 
and often is easily lost.  Many of us stopped lamenting this a long time ago, 
but was it valuable?

What I don't think is valuable, is having to pick one author of a work with 
multiple authors and designate that person as the main one, based on the 
almost arbitrary factor of position of the name on the title page, (which is 
often alphabetical), and ending up deeming this person Creator and relegating 
the other author(s) to Contributor status.  (Nor do I think that dichotomy is 
particularly useful.)

Laura

Laura Akerman
Technology and Metadata Librarian
Room 128, Robert W. Woodruff Library
Emory University, Atlanta, Ga. 30322
(404) 727-6888
lib...@emory.edumailto:lib...@emory.edu

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA]mailto:[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA]
 On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 11:24 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework 
statement

Jim said:

Getting rid of a *single* main entry would be the equivalent of DC's
creator and contributor where creator is repeatable, thereby
creating multiple main entries.

How would you produce single entry bibliographies?  How would scholars cite in 
footnotes?  How would cataloguers construct subject and added entries for works?

Libraries are part of a larger bibliographic universe, and should adhere to its 
standards and practices, which would include returning to compiler main entry.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.camailto:m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__



This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the 
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. 
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby 
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message 
(including any attachments) is strictly prohibited.

If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply 
e-mail message and destroy all copies of the original message (including 
attachments).

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

Jonathan asked:

Kind of off topic, but curious why you don't think relator codes are the 
right thing to do.
 
Whatever Jim's objections, I can tell you why our clients wish them
removed:

1) They may create separate hitlists for the same person.

2) If one hitlist, the relation of the person to the first title
listed may differ from other titles in the hitlist.

3) Although a greater problem with $i before $a, they may complicate
searching.

4) They create problems (see 1  2) for print products such as
acquisitions lists and subject bibliographies.

5) They do not include all the complexities expressed in 245/$c.

6) Some of the terms in the RDA list are long and cumbersome, taking
up too much display space.

7) They represent a departure from legacy records; patrons will not
understand why some entries have them and some don't.  



   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

2011-11-08 Thread Jonathan Rochkind

Yep, I understand those issues that you've mentioned before. They are 
all (with the possible exception of #7) cases of software being broken. 
If you have to mangle data to meet the expectations of broken software, 
well, then you have to. But it doesn't mean the data is broken. You are 
certainly free to strip out any data that your broken software is unable 
to handle appropriately, but I don't think it's an argument for those 
elements to not be in the data in the first place.


Well, #5 is different too. It's obviously not possible for a coded 
vocabulary to ever express everything possible by freely entered human 
language text. But that's not an argument against using coded 
vocabularies to supplement transcribed or freely entered text either. If 
it were, that argument would apply to just about any of our coded values 
or fixed fields, and we'd have no coded or fixed fields at all, all we'd 
have is transcribed or free text entered.


But this is surely a boring argument we've had before.

On 11/8/2011 4:48 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:

Jonathan asked:


Kind of off topic, but curious why you don't think relator codes are the
right thing to do.


Whatever Jim's objections, I can tell you why our clients wish them
removed:

1) They may create separate hitlists for the same person.

2) If one hitlist, the relation of the person to the first title
listed may differ from other titles in the hitlist.

3) Although a greater problem with $i before $a, they may complicate
searching.

4) They create problems (see 1  2) for print products such as
acquisitions lists and subject bibliographies.

5) They do not include all the complexities expressed in 245/$c.

6) Some of the terms in the RDA list are long and cumbersome, taking
up too much display space.

7) They represent a departure from legacy records; patrons will not
understand why some entries have them and some don't.



__   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
   {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
   ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

Laura Akerman posted;

Creator - A person, family, or corporate body responsible for the creation =
of a work.

100/110/111 (you forgot conference).  Family coding will change with RDA.

Contributor - A person, family or corporate body contributing to the realiz=
ation of a work through an expression.  Contributors include editors, trans=
lators, arrangers of music, performers, etc.

700/710/711, if you add joint authors beyond the first to your list above.

Beyond that, I so not see the need for the distinction.  Of course
245/$c, 508, 511, etc. express these relationships in the words of the
item.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement

2011-11-08 Thread Karen Coyle


Quoting Akerman, Laura lib...@emory.edu:


To me, the original main entry concept could more usefully be  
thought about in a larger context of  for any field that is  
repeatable in a set of bibliographic description fields, is it  
useful to be able to designate one such fields as primary for  
purposes of selection for display, categorization


I have to say that I really like this idea. I've been thinking of how  
we might employ primary secondary and everything else in subject  
analysis. I know that the first subject heading is supposed to be  
primary, but I also know that the order gets lost in many cases.  
Primary and not-primary could also be applied to facets: the resource  
is mainly about, say, England, but some of the action takes place in  
France and Italy. It seems it would be useful for the user to know the  
weight of the assigned subjects or facets. In my mind these look  
like tag clouds, with the most important ones being larger and bolder.


As for creators as main entries, to me, indicating the role of  
creators and agents of all types allows you to make sensible choices  
on output rather than having the catalog make one decision for all  
situations. It's just a matter of giving more weight to, say, an  
author over an illustrator for the purposes of some brief displays. I  
also think that you could have more than one algorithm for selection  
of displays. Surely some citation function would place an author in  
the primary position but would place an editor as a mention after the  
title, while others place them both as entry points. Or a book on 20th  
century film directors would want its bibliography with the directors  
as its main entry, while other citations would logically go under  
title.


I think the questions about how you would manage 6xx or 7xx with $t is  
a bit of a red herring -- you've got a primary display entry  
selected, so it's no different from having a main entry for those  
functions.


kc


(where a particular application requires one to select one box to  
characterize a resource) or other functionalities?  If so, should  
the designation be stored with the field, or separately from it?


Other MARC approaches that serve that function include choice of  
format (which one goes in Leader byte 6, which one gets reflected  
in an 006, when a resource has characteristics of two formats?).


For fields like subject, I believe there was a convention that the  
most important subject (the one upon which the primary  
classification number was based) had the first position in the  
record.   Since many modern systems permit or even force re-ordering  
tags in numerical order, that positional value can and often is  
easily lost.  Many of us stopped lamenting this a long time ago, but  
was it valuable?


What I don't think is valuable, is having to pick one author of a  
work with multiple authors and designate that person as the main  
one, based on the almost arbitrary factor of position of the name on  
the title page, (which is often alphabetical), and ending up deeming  
this person Creator and relegating the other author(s) to  
Contributor status.  (Nor do I think that dichotomy is  
particularly useful.)


Laura

Laura Akerman
Technology and Metadata Librarian
Room 128, Robert W. Woodruff Library
Emory University, Atlanta, Ga. 30322
(404) 727-6888
lib...@emory.edu

-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: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 11:24 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic  
Framework statement


Jim said:


Getting rid of a *single* main entry would be the equivalent of DC's
creator and contributor where creator is repeatable, thereby
creating multiple main entries.


How would you produce single entry bibliographies?  How would  
scholars cite in footnotes?  How would cataloguers construct subject  
and added entries for works?


Libraries are part of a larger bibliographic universe, and should  
adhere to its standards and practices, which would include returning  
to compiler main entry.



   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__



This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.

If you have received this message in error, please contact
the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the
original message (including attachments).





--
Karen Coyle

Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement