The plot thickens.
So, since we are reduced to entering these labels directly in Marc 300
(in a way that can't be easily retrieved by machine).... it looks like
"coloured" rather than "colored" is the _correct_ RDA label to use,
regardless of whether you are in America or the UK? Since that is the
label contained in the RDA list of colo(u)rs? And "correcting"
"coloured" to "colored" is actually not a correction, but an error?
Do I have that right?
[While in general, I think of it's of little import whether it shows up
as "colored" or "coloured" in our display, probably not worth much
cataloger time -- it actually IS useful if it's taken from a controlled
list, to make it at least somewhat possible for a machine to interpret
it and do something flexible with it. Still hard to do in Marc 300 as
it is, but at least a step in the right directly. So if the official
controlled list says "coloured".... ]
On 3/2/2011 10:58 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
Quoting Jonathan Rochkind<rochk...@jhu.edu>:
Which is why in an ideal world, if we care about whether the
illustrations are colored or not (and I suspect the time is LONG
gone when our patrons or we actually DO), there would be a data
element in the record which marked, in a machine interpretable way,
whether there are illustrations (checkmark HERE), and whether they
are colored/coloured (checkmark THERE). Which could then be
translated to the appropriate spelling or even language for the
given audience.
The data elements for "colour" are among those in RDA that have
standard lists. Those lists are:
colour
colour of moving image
colour of still image
colour of three-dimensional form
As an example, "colour" has 3 values:
chiefly coloured
some coloured
coloured
All of these have identifiers that could be used in data entry (e.g.
with a check box) and all could have different labels that could be
used in display.
http://metadataregistry.org/rdabrowse.htm
In fact, I recently took a look at RDA/MARC comparisons, and RDA has
29 separate data elements that map to MARC 300 $b (and whose detail is
thus lost when coded in MARC). Of these, 21 are covered by controlled
lists. That aspect is lost when the data is "typed into" a MARC
subfield.
kc
But this is really just an example of the principle of the thing,
not a very good example in particular. Because like I said, I
suspect that whether illustrations are present in color or not is
not of much concern to 99% of patrons 99% of the time. In fact, if
you think about it too hard it's a bit frustrating that expensive
cataloger time is being spent marking down whether illustrations are
colored or not (let alone correcting or changing someone elses
spelling of colored!), when our actual real world records generally
can't manage to specify things the user DOES care about a lot --
like if there is full text version of the item on the web and what
it's URL is. (Anyone that has tried to figure this out from our
actual real world shared records knows what I'm talking about; it's
pretty much a roll of the dice whether an 856 represents full text
or something else, it can't be determined reliably from indicators
or subfields.)
________________________________________
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Bothmann, Robert
L [robert.bothm...@mnsu.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 7:47 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????
First, if an English speaker uses English as the language of
cataloging rather than the American dialect as the language of
cataloging, then Americans should leave that be and not change the
spelling to the American dialect--that is not a correction and I
don't agree with your choice to "correct" spelling that is not
incorrect.
I laughed out loud when I saw this--it's a great example of
something, I'm just not sure what. I suppose that if you consider
the principle of representation--that the description should
represent the resource the way the resource represents itself--then
this could be construed as an acceptable representation;
particularly if the resource explicitly says "beautiful all colour
illustrations".
*******************************************
Robert Bothmann
Electronic Access/Catalog Librarian
Associate Professor, Library Services
-----Original Message-----
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Deborah
Tomares
Sent: Tuesday, 01 March, 2011 3:05 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????
I just cataloged the book corresponding to OCLC #702491897. When I looked
at the record, the 300 read:
319 pages : |b illustrations (some coloured, all beautiful), maps ; |c 25
cm.
I've corrected the spelling of "coloured" to American usage--is there an
RDA provision I'm missing about this, or was it a typo?
But the part I can't understand is the inclusion of "all beautiful". Are we
allowed, under RDA provisions, to include value judgements about the
illustrations? Are value judgements allowed elsewhere in cataloging under
RDA? Under AACR2, we are supposed to be as objective as possible when
creating records, and not allow personal biases in subjects, etc. But this
is ridiculous. Aren't we supposed to just be transcribing in the 300 field?
Is this a rogue cataloger, or is there a provision I should be cringing
about now?
Thanks in advance for all information (and potential public drubbing of
CGU?).
Deborah Tomaras, NACO Coordinator
Librarian II
Western European Languages Team
New York Public Library
Library Services Center
31-11 Thomson Ave.
Long Island City, N.Y. 11101
(917) 229-9561
dtoma...@nypl.org
Disclaimer: Alas, my ideas are merely my own, and not indicative of New
York Public Library policy.
