Sorry. Should be $e of 300 fields :)
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Joan Wang <jw...@illinoisheartland.org>wrote: > A similar case is for accompanying materials. I consider it a whole-part > relationship. But they are encoded in $c of 300 fields. I was told that it > is a structured description. So .... > > Thanks, > Joan Wang > > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller < > wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote: > >> Bob, >> >> admittedly, it would never have occured to me that "a language preferred >> by the agency creating the data" could also be a code language. But if >> that's a legitimate interpretation, then of course I'm all for it. Not for >> the first time, I find that I need to learn to read RDA in a somewhat more >> liberal way than I was used to with our German RAK rules. >> >> I also like your reasoning about the codes in 041 $h; that was a real >> eye-opener. If seen like this, recording the code indeed does fit the >> definition of a structured description for the related expression. >> >> Heidrun >> >> >> >> >> On 02.07.2013 03:15, Robert Maxwell wrote: >> >> Heidrun, >> >> I believe the code in 008/35-37 and the code in subfield $a of 041 (and >> probably most of the other 041 subfields, except $h) do qualify as >> legitimate ways to record language of expression under 6.11.1.3. We are >> told to "record the language or languages of the expression using an >> appropriate term or terms in a language preferred by the agency creating >> the data" and the agency could say its preference is to record the language >> as a code. In fact that is exactly how we record language of expression >> under PCC practice in an expression authority record (language code in >> 377). So I don't believe that 6.11.1.3 only allows recording the >> information in "natural language". >> >> I also agree that 041 $h gives exactly the same information as the >> "Translated from" note (at least the very general one we've been >> discussing), but the reason I think (or thought--see the next paragraph) in >> this case that the code is non-RDA is because of the definitions of >> structured and unstructured description in 24.4.3, which is pretty clearly >> given in terms of natural language (structured description: "a full or >> partial description of the related resource using the same data that would >> be recorded in RDA elements for a description of that related resource"; >> unstructured description: "a full or partial description of the related >> resource written as a sentence or paragraph"). I suppose this could be >> remedied by tweaking the definition of structured description -- codes in >> 041 seem pretty "structured" to me. >> >> Alternately it could be argued that "the same data that would be recorded >> in RDA elements for ... the related resource" could in fact apply to the >> code in 041 $h: if the element we're talking about is the language of >> expression element, and we've agreed (as seen above in the first paragraph) >> that in the description *of the related resource* (that is the >> description of the French original, whether that description is a >> bibliographic record or an authority record for the expression) the >> language of expression element can be recorded as a code in bibliographic >> 041 $a (or the code in 008/35-37), or in an authority record it can be >> recorded as a code in 377, then under the definition of structured >> description it can be recorded as a code in 041 $h in the bibliographic >> record *for the translation*. Under this argument the code is in fact a >> structured description of that particular element and thus is *not* a >> non-RDA element. I think I've convinced myself. How about you? :-) >> >> 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 >> >> "We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine >> ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, >> 1842. >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and >> Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Heidrun Wiesenmüller [ >> wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de] >> *Sent:* Monday, July 01, 2013 3:01 PM >> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA >> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] "Translated from" notes and code for original >> language >> >> Bob, >> >> >> "Translated from the French" is an unstructured description of the >> relationship of the resource to another expression (though it's not a very >> specific description) and is covered by RDA 24.4.3. See also the example at >> 26.1.1.3 "The English edition of a Spanish publication, which is also >> issued in French, German, and Arabic editions", which like the "Translated >> from the French" note describes in a very general way the relationship of >> the resource to four other expressions. >> >> >> Thanks. You're probably right, it could count as an (albeit very general) >> unstructured description. >> >> I'd say the codes in 041 are non-RDA (at least they don't fall under >> the definition of either structured or unstructured description in 24.4.3), >> but that doesn't mean that they can't be recorded in a MARC record (they >> aren't AACR2 either). >> >> >> Good point. Actually, they also aren't mentioned in the German RAK rules, >> and it never bothered me before ;-) >> >> But there is one more general point which comes to mind: If you think >> about it, the code in 041 $h gives exactly the same information as the >> "Translated from" note - only in coded form instead of natural language. >> But we've come to the conclusion that the note can be seen as an RDA >> element, but the code cannot (if we take the wording of 24.4.3 seriously). >> >> I feel that RDA needs to become more aware of the existence of coded >> information. 6.11.1.3 (Recording language of expression) is a good example >> for this. If I understand the rule correctly, it only provides for >> recording the language of the expression in natural language, but not as a >> code. I accept that using natural language terms makes sense e.g. as part >> of an authorized access point (although, of course, you could still record >> a code, but show it to the users as natural language). But isn't it also a >> way of recording "language of the expression", whenever a language code is >> used in MARC 008 35-37? >> >> So, why not have a more general rule in the first place and say, e.g. >> "Record the language or languages of the expression using appropriate >> means, e.g. an appropriate term in the language preferred by the agency >> creating the data"? Then the natural language terms could be used where >> appropriate, but the use of codes would also be covered by the wording of >> the instruction. >> >> But perhaps I'm on the wrong track here altogether and have simply >> misunderstood the application of 6.11.1.3. >> >> Heidrun >> >> >> -- >> --------------------- >> Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. >> Stuttgart Media University >> Faculty of Information and Communication >> Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germanywww.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi >> >> >> >> -- >> --------------------- >> Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. >> Stuttgart Media University >> Faculty of Information and Communication >> Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germanywww.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi >> >> > > > -- > Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. > Cataloger -- CMC > Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) > 6725 Goshen Road > Edwardsville, IL 62025 > 618.656.3216x409 > 618.656.9401Fax > -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
