On the topic of data formats for dates, it looks like MARC authority records in the RDA test are also carrying the RDA date elements in ISO 8601 format as the default in 046 subfields:
RDA Test authority record for Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, 1772-1834 has: 046 __ |f 17721020 |g 18340725 100 1_ |a Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, |d 1772-1834 For complex dates, such as approximate dates, it appears that the source, edtf (Extended Date/Time Format) is to be specified. >From http://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/ad046.html: 046 ##$f1831?$2edtf 100 1#$aSmith, James,$dborn 1831? [probable year of birth] which LC (Library of Congress Policy Statements 9.3.2.3) intends to display as Smith, James, 1831?- The Extended Date/Time Format (edtf) looks to be a work in progress: http://www.loc.gov/standards/datetime/ Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library ________________________________________ From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle [[email protected]] Sent: October-11-10 10:17 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA Questions Quoting Mike Tribby <[email protected]>: > How does open-ended instruction on just how to note birth and death > dates achieve the interchangeability and all-important granularity > that RDA is purported to advance? Cataloging rules do not achieve interchangeability, no matter how precise and no matter how much they are followed, without a data format. RDA does not define a data format. So we have, at best, only one half of what we need to create data. To anyone doing data processing, it is obvious that "-1873" is a display form of something that needs to be encoded for machine processing in a data element for a death date with a specific format, e.g. yyyy. It is unfortunate that RDA mixes decision-making (how you decide which data to record) with display instructions. It is even more unfortunate that no effort has been undertaken to create at least one data format for RDA. (And, no, re-using MARC for RDA is not a solution.) RDA purports to be "format neutral" but in fact it is "format hostile" because it forces certain displays (the famed "p." v. "pages") that not only do not acknowledge that the data should be meaningfully encoded for machine processing, but the use of language terms irrevocably negates RDA as suitable for international use. kc > If I record Lee Perry as "Perry, Lee, 1936-" and another cataloging > agency records him as "Perry, Lee, b. 1936" how does that achieve > anything other than confusion? > > If confusion is our goal, I'm all for it at this point. But somehow > I doubt that's what we're pursuing here. > > > > > Mike Tribby > Senior Cataloger > Quality Books Inc. > The Best of America's Independent Presses > > mailto:[email protected] > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and > Access [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Robert > Maxwell > Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 10:35 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA Questions > > RDA only says to record the birth or death date. It does not specify > how you mark the data as referring to birth or death. If you will > look at 9.3.2 (date of birth) you will see that RDA simply says to > record the date, e.g. "1974". It is the same for other dates > associated with a person. RDA doesn't say how you should tell the > user of the data that the date is, for example, a birth date. That > is left to the cataloging agency to decide. > > > > In MARC, since we don't have a separate field or subfield for "birth > date" and "death date" the data needs to be marked in some other > way. Possibilities include using the word "born" or "b." before the > birth date and "died" or "d." before the death date. Another > possible way to mark the data is to append a dash to the end of the > year if the number represents a death date and append a dash to the > beginning of the year if the number represents a death date. > > > > LC has chosen, for the test, to use dashes to designate the number > as a birth date or a death date. If the dash comes after the number, > it is a birth date. If it comes before the number, it is a death > date. It is the same whether we have only the birth date, only the > death date, or both. This is LC's local cataloging agency decision, > but I think it would be good idea for others to follow it. The > decision seems quite sensible to me and will be much better for > indexing than interposition of a word in front of the number, and > less capricious than the former NACO practice of establishing a name > with a dash after the date if we thought the person was still alive > at the time, and instead using "b." if we thought the person was > dead-with the arbitrary result that a person was established with a > "b." or a dash solely depending on when his/her name was > established. I realize a dash before a death date without a birth > date looks strange, but I suspect we'll get used to it. > > > > Bob > > > > Robert L. Maxwell > Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept. > 6728 Harold B. Lee Library > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > (801)422-5568 > > > > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and > Access [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Thompson, > Rebecca L > Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 9:54 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [RDA-L] RDA Questions > > > > My colleague and I have a couple of questions: > > > > First, we are confused by the print versions pertaining to RDA on > the ALA website. The RDA: Resource Description and Access and RDA: > Element Set View have the exact same description, except the latter > has the statement "RDA: Element Set View is an innovative way of > sorting the RDA instructions by element, such as Title, Place of > Publication etc." We were under the impression this is what RDA was > to begin with. Is this a printed out version of what is under the > tools tab in the RDA Toolkit? Could anyone explain the differences > between the two? > > > > Our second question relates to the use of the terms "born" and > "died" (b. or d. in AACR2) in name headings. In 9.19.1.3, the > examples (copied below) show the use of these terms. However, at the > ALA RDA101 pre-conference in June and the ALCTS Introduction to RDA > webinar last Wednesday, the examples always showed use of a dash > (examples below) and we were told to not use the terms born and > died. Since both of these trainings were officially sanctioned, I am > wondering what is correct. Has there been a change and the toolkit > has been updated yet? Or was there a change and it just hasn't > filtered down the trainers yet? > > Thank you for your time and help. > > Examples from 9.19.1.3 > Smith, John, 1978- > Smith, John, 1718-1791 > Smith, John, born 1787 > Smith, John, died 1773 > > Examples from pre-conference and webinar Smith, John, 1978- Smith, > John, 1718-1791 Smith, John, 1787- Smith, John, -1773 > > > > > > ________________________________________________ > > Becky Thompson > > Assistant Professor of Library Science > > Missouri State University > > 901 South National > > Meyer Library 108F > > Springfield, MO 65897 > > 417.836-5745 > > 417.836.4764 (fax) > > [email protected] > > > > I looked at all the caged animals in the shelter.. the cast-offs to > human society. > I saw in their eyes love and hope, fear and dread, sadness and > betrayal; and I was angry. > God, I said, this is terrible! Why don't you do something??? > There was silence for a moment and then the voice whispered softly, > I have done something; I created You!? > ~Author Unknown > > > > ý Towards a Sustainable Future - do you really need to print this? > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.448 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3183 - Release Date: > 10/07/10 18:34:00 > -- Karen Coyle [email protected] http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
