Adam
It always struck me as odd that 3XX fields were added to MARC 21 because of
RDA, but not named to correspond to the RDA elements they map to. Maybe it was
thought that codes other than RDA might want to use them.
368 was extended to cover persons as well as corporate bodies, in
John,
Isn't a festschrift by definition a compilation of of works by different persons,
families, or corporate bodies? As such it would fall under RDA 6.27.1.4 and the
authorized access point would be the preferred title of the compilation, so no
corporate main entry.
Yes, but isn't that
28.10.2013 20:02, J. McRee Elrod:
OTOH, this sort of issue may have long since become a non-issue when
it comes to searching. The main entry idea is obsolete ...
The main entry concept is not obsolete (despite the name change) so
long as we are Cuttering, creating subject and added entries
This tipping point is interesting. I think having the language in two fields
has value. But it impacts productivity to fully transcribe.
Margaret Maurer
Editor, TechKNOW | Head, Catalog Metadata | Associate Professor
Kent State University Libraries | 370 Library, P.O. Box 5190 |
I am cataloging a book where one author is writing in the style of a deceased
author. The authority record says that the deceased author should be included
as an added entry. Would the proper relationship designator for this author be
author, creator, or something else entirely?
Richard
I believe that it would be entirely inappropriate to use any RDA I.2.1
relationship designator for the deceased author. I suppose it would be
possible to make a case for having the author be an other person ...
associated with a work (RDA I.2.2), but there don't seem to be any specific
Bernhard said:
But Cutter is not of any genuine concern to cataloging rules.
No, but the effect on Cuttering should be, as should be display.
The A of RDA is not addressed at all by RDA,
The effect on access should be the prime concern in writing,
interpreting, and applying rules.
For the
I asked Michael Gorman what I should add to the MRIs concerning using
the main entry of an earlier edition as the main entry of a later
edition, with a different order of authors in the statement of
responsibility.
He responded in part:
Not sure how to respond. It's a small point but it
Colleagues,
Would you please inform me what the appropriate relationship
designator would be for the following based on the 245 field
below?
245 10 |a Natural History Museum book of animal records : b
thousands of amazing facts
Lynne LaBare asked
:
245 10 |a Natural History Museum book of animal records : ?b thousands
of amazing facts and unbelievable feats / |c Mark Carwardine.
710 2 |a Natural History Museum (London, England), |e issuing body (?)
Yes, if the Museum is 264 1 $b.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac)
Kevin said:
.. there don't seem to be any specific designators that fit the situation.
No finite list can reflect the infinite relationship possibilities.
In some situations there is no useful term, or we shoehorn an entity
into an ill fitting one, e.g., host institution for an art gallery
I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, but just to sound off my agreement with
Mac's statement, No finite list can reflect the infinite relationship
possibilities and wondering yet again why there aren't more generic RDA
relators like contributor.
For example, I'm cataloging a work with the
Isn't the decision based on whether the manifestation in hand represents a
revised edition of the original work or a new work in itself? If it's simply a
revision, changing the creator/work relationship seems problematic. If the
changes have resulted in a new work, then a new creator/work
Mac,
Hedrun said:
Corporate bodies are considered to be the originator if
A) they have prepared the work or
B) they have initiated and edited the work
What about prepared by Alpha Consulting for Beta Society? Often
societies, government offices, and other corporate bodies, commission
a
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Yes, if the Museum is 264 1 $b.
The 264 field appears as:
264 1 |a Buffalo, N.Y. :|b Firefly Books, |c 2013.
In this case, do I simply add the corporate name heading (access
point)
It seems that copyright holder is a legal relationship with very little
bibliographic significance. Moreover, it's a relationship that is potentially
volatile and has the possibility of being out of date soon after the
statement's appearance. The relationship between the resource and the
Has anyone mentioned the 542 field?
Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc. Twitter: GaryLStrawn
Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300
e-mail: mrsm...@northwestern.edu voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306
Forsan et haec olim meminisse
Lynne asked:
In this case, do I simply add the corporate name heading (access point)
without any relationship designator even though the Natural History
Museum holds the copyright ...
Kevin advises no relationship designator if none applies, Another
poster has advised that if no exact term
If I understand correctly there is no RDA rule that is equivalent to AACR's
21.23C1 If a sound recording containing works by different persons or bodies
has a collective title, enter it under the heading for the person or body
represented as principal performer So if I had a recording by a pop
I believe the relevant instructions are at RDA 6.28.1.5.
Steve McDonald
steve.mcdon...@tufts.edu
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
Can anyone point me to an inappropriate relationship designator? That sounds
a lot more fun...
(Sorry, but I couldn't resist.)
John
John Wagstaff
Head, Music Performing Arts Library
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
1114 W. Nevada Street
Urbana IL61801
Tel. 217-244-4070
e-mail:
I should expand on that, I guess. 6.28.1.5 indicates, among other things, that
a performance of a musical work involving substantial creative responsibility
for adaptation, improvisation, etc., on the part of the performer or
performers counts as an adaptation, and the authorized access point
Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.edu wrote:
I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, but just to sound off my agreement
with Mac's statement, No finite list can reflect the infinite relationship
possibilities and wondering yet again why there aren't more generic RDA
relators like contributor.
J. McRee (Mac) Elrod wrote:
Kevin advises no relationship designator if none applies, Another
poster has advised that if no exact term works, use the larger
category. even if not the the lists. (The MRIs add those categories
to its list.) In this case you might consider $ecreator.
Lynne LaBare, Senior Librarian/Cataloger lyn...@provolibrary.com wrote:
Is it correct to state that I can use contributor (20.2.1.3) or
creator (I.2.1) when a *specific* MRI for an entity does not exist that
reflects the entity's relationship to the bibliographical content of the
work?
If
Lynne,
If there isn't a good match, just don't record a relationship designator.
Or if you can determine that a new designator is needed and what that
would be, submit one for the JSC to consider (via the web form on the PCC
website if you are a PCC library, or to the Cataloging Committee:
If there is no appropriate term in RDA, you certainly may use a controlled
term from another list. The problem in MARC is that we cannot specify
what controlled list these terms come from.
Adam Schiff
On Tue, 29 Oct 2013, Lynne LaBare, Senior Librarian/Cataloger wrote:
Date: Tue, 29 Oct
That would be a naughty designator rather than an inappropriate one!
It's way before Friday for humor, isn't it? ;0)
On Tue, 29 Oct 2013, Kevin M Randall wrote:
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 20:29:48 +
From: Kevin M Randall k...@northwestern.edu
Reply-To: Resource Description and Access /
28 matches
Mail list logo
