Hello Tom I think the power of this change lies in the potential precision in searching. A individual like Deepak Chopra has authored many books. He has also contributed to, written forwards or prefaces to many more. In current systems if you search for Chopra, Deepak you will find a single entry (hopefully) and a number of items listed - some from field 100 some from field 700. You will then have to wade through the records to find which ones he actually wrote rather than contributed to or edited.
When the RDA stuff gets going you should be able to see at the first response to the search what role Chopra had in the genesis of the item and select appropriately from the headings presented. I have always thought the lack of differentiation in the role of names associated with a particular item was unhelpful. This change allows for more effective differentiation (hopefully - if the individual institution has adequate control on the range of terminology used and the consistent application of those terms). Best wishes Keith Keith Trickey Lead Trainer at Sherrington Sanders Liverpool. UK ________________________________ From: "Meehan, Thomas" <t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Sent: Monday, 10 June 2013, 9:11 Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points Is anyone aware of any research into whether patrons want the justification? E.g., once a cataloguer has put “Smith, John, editor” how much do most patrons want or need to see “edited by John Smith” in a note. At the moment I am all in favour of justifying information, especially when an added entry is hanging otherwise mysteriously without a relationship designator. Perhaps relationship designators will make us question what is actually informative to the patron. Thanks, Tom --- Thomas Meehan Head of Current Cataloguing Library Services University College London Gower Street London WC1E 6BT t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk From:Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg Sent: 07 June 2013 17:12 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points And not only justify entries, but also justify fixed fields. For instance, in hand right now, the fixed field for Index has value of one, but there is no note to that effect. Justifying it gives information to the patron, in plain English. What is our goal here? Down and dirty? Or cataloging and classification that is informative the patron? It is not enough to say, "Look at all that I have catalogued and now the books are on the shelves." Will the cataloging be fully informative to the patron as to what the book/item is??? That is the question. It is all about communication. On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:40 AM, Don Charuk <dcha...@torontopubliclibrary.ca> wrote: Thank you for your responses. We are of split opinion of the non-requirement of justification. some feel the relationship designators are sufficient while others still see the need for notes. Our opinion is also split on how to deal with compilations. Do we go with structured notes and make use of the subfields in 505 tag to allow searching or use authorized access points? We are leaning towards structured notes since it involves no authority work. -- 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.
