And what happens if the recording is not of one performance but is made up of the best parts of a performance given on different days, nights.
I think that is what happens when some community theatres do when recording performances. So what we have here is the work, expressed between one date and another at a particular placed. It is not published; copyright, you know. On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Deborah Fritz <debo...@marcofquality.com>wrote: > Disclaimer: I am not an expert on facsimiles/reproductions, and might be > way > off base here, but I think this is an underlying issue that we have not > been > covering, in this example. > > Remember that Chris said: " A professor here wrote to the choreographer of > a > performance he saw to find out if it was possible to obtain a recording of > the dance. He was told by the choreographer that she would be happy to > send > a DVD to the library. What we received was a DVD with an handwritten label > using a marker. The fact that this DVD doesn't appear to be mass produced, > and was not "advertised" or made available anywhere except by personal > request to the choreographer makes me want to consider this item > unpublished. " > > Do we actually care who produced/made the DVD (who copied the file to the > physical carrier)? Because I *think* that what we are describing here is a > dance performance work (or works) expressed as a two-dimensional moving > image and manifested as an unpublished reproduction, carried on a DVD. > > So, yes, absolutely, we want to indicate responsibility and relationships > for the work(s) and the expression (the choreographer, the dance company, > etc.) but if we don't know who copied the video/film onto a blank DVD, then > we need to remember that we are describing a reproduction, and 1.11 says " > When describing a facsimile or reproduction, record the data relating to > the > facsimile or reproduction in the appropriate element". So, the question we > seem to be stuck on is actually "what is the name of the producer of the > DVD > (who made the DVD)?". 2.7.1.1 (Scope): " Production statements include > statements relating to the inscription, fabrication, construction, etc., of > a resource in an unpublished form." > > So, rather than trying to discover that (who made the DVD), perhaps we > should just invoke the CORE instruction and just give the date (which is > the > only core Production Statement element) that we think the copy was made > (perhaps [2013?]) > > Then we need to record whatever pertinent other relationship data we can > (e.g., the choreographer of the dance, the dance company), but I don't want > to address that because I don't feel I have enough information to do so. > > How are we going to switch to RDA thinking, if we don't work our way > through > the underlying principles, using RDA thinking to follow RDA instructions, > when we encounter something that is 'out of the ordinary'? And if we > discover some discrepancies in the instructions, then we need to point them > out and get them resolved. > > If we had the resource in hand, or at least more information about it, we > could all work together on how to record all of the possible description > and > relationship elements for it, and I think we would see that we are all on > the same page about wanting to provide as much useful information as we > can; > it is just a matter of what elements (fields/subfields) we use for that > information. > > And, yes, just as it matters in MARC where you put the data (245$c vs. > 264$b) it matters in RDA which element you 'use' for the data (Statement of > Responsibility vs Producer's Name, etc.) > > Deborah > > - - - - - - - - > Deborah Fritz > TMQ, Inc. > debo...@marcofquality.com > www.marcofquality.com > > > -----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: Friday, March 29, 2013 9:14 PM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] recording production statements > > Deborah cited RDA: > > >I did see that 2.7.4.2 contradicts 2.7.4.7, but I interpreted it the > >other way around: that 2.7.4.7 should be adjusted, because we were not > >allowed to supply a publisher, etc. name under AACR; so I felt that RDA > >was continuing that policy. However, I see that we *are* allowed to > >supply a Publisher's Name (2.8.4.7), and Distributor's Name (2.9.4.7), > >but not a Manufacturer's Name (2.10.4.7) ... > > We ignore any rule which forbids supplying useful information known to us. > What's the point of such a rule? We've given producer of unpublished items > for years, and haven't been arrested yet. It is nice to be legal at last > in > that regard. Rules do tend to catch up with client demands, even if it > takes decades to do so. > > We certainly supply publisher under AACR2. A produced object, an art > reproduction for example, may or may not have producer's name on the item > itself. All that changes for us in this regard with RDA are separate > rather > than a single set of brackets, and the new 588 field for indicating source > of information, which were actually ISBD and MARC changes respectively. > > Considering the confusing and sometimes contradictory RDA provisions, > perhaps our best litmus is what most helps our patrons? > > Deborah, I realize if you are producing a new version of your wonderful > cataloguing tool, you will need to be more cognizant of what the rules say > than we. Our clients do not care if we adhere to rules, so long as they > get > what they want. > > > __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) > {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ > ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________ > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
