[RDA-L] Difference between Introduction and Preface
I see that the relationship designators writer of introduction and writer of preface have been fast tracked into RDA Appendix I. However, nowhere in RDA can I see an explanation of what an introduction is and what a preface is. It may be that the unwritten assumption is that a preface is by the author of a book and an introduction by a second party, but I'm speculating. As publishers use foreword, introductory, preface etc. according to ad hoc considerations of marketing, taking the path of least resistance here and following title page usage would result in the same relationship having two different designators, and two different relationships (if indeed the relationships writer of introduction and writer of preface can be said to be different) potentially being expressed with the same designator. I'd be grateful if anyone could elucidate this, and apologies if it's already been covered on the list. Duncan Chalmers Cataloguer, Ingram Content Group Coutts Information Services Avon House, Headlands Business Park, Ringwood, Hampshire, BH24 3PB p: +44 (0) 1425 485848 | f: +44 (0) 1425 471525. duncan.chalm...@ingramcontent.commailto:name.lastn...@ingramcontent.com www.ingramcontent.comhttp://www.ingramcontent.com Registered Office: 5 New Street Square, London, EC4A 3TW. Registered in England and Wales No: 2574299; VAT No: 818302250
[RDA-L] Names of conferences as title proper, other title information or statement of responsiblity
I'm rather unsure about what the title and statement of responsibility area should look like if there is both a formal name of the conference and a specific title of a conference on the preferred source of information. Let's consider the following example (which I've translated from German to English; in German it reads 100. Deutscher Bibliothekartag in Berlin 2011 and Bibliotheken für die Zukunft - Zukunft für die Bibliotheken). The t.p. looks like this: --- 100th CONFERENCE OF GERMAN LIBRARIANS IN BERLIN 2011 LIBRARIES FOR THE FUTURE - FUTURE FOR THE LIBRARIES [this is printed slightly smaller than the name of the conference above, but still in capitals] edited by Ulrich Hohoff and Daniela Luelfing -- According to the German cataloging rules RAK, the name of the conference here would be given as a statement of responsibility, i.e. (in ISBD): Libraries for the future - future for the libraries / 100th Conference of German Librarians ; edited by Ulrich Hohoff and Daniela Lülfing Note that for RAK, it doesn't matter which of the statements is most prominent and in which order the statements are presented on the t.p. - you would always take the specific title of the conference as title proper and the name of the conference as s-o-r. How would this case be treated according to the Anglo-American tradition? In WorldCat, I've found my example with the name of the conference as other title information, like this (again, I'm using the translated version): Libraries for the future - future for the libraries : 100th Conference of German Librarians / edited by Ulrich Hohoff and Daniela Lülfing Looking at LC's catalog, I've found no less than three different ways of handling similar cases - with the name of the conference either given as title proper, as other title information, or as a statement of responsibility. Examples: In http://lccn.loc.gov/98209348 (where the t.p. should look quite similar to the one in my example), the name of the conference has been given as the title proper, and the specific title of the conference (From Gutenberg to the internet) is given as other title information. In http://lccn.loc.gov/97152273, the specific title of the conference is given as title proper and first part of other title information (The new library : claim and reality), and the the name of the conference (31st Conference of Austrian Librarians Innsbruck 2011) has been treated as a second bit of other title information. I imagine this is due to the layout of the t.p., which gives prominence to the specific title. Have a look at the cover here: http://www.univie.ac.at/voeb/publikationen/schriften-der-voeb/band-11-die-neue-bibliothek/ But I've also come across examples where the name of the conference is treated as a statement of responsibility, e.g. in another of the Austrian Librarians' conferences: http://lccn.loc.gov/99185606 So I wonder: Is this a matter of cataloger's judgment, triggered mainly by the presentation and layout of the preferred source of information? Or is there some deeper rule which I haven't worked out yet? Personally, I think that it would make sense to give the name of the conference as a statement of responsibility: The congress is seen as the creator of the work according to RDA 19.2.1.1.1, and a statement of responsibility is defined as a statement relating to the identification and/or function of any persons, families, or corporate bodies responsible for the creation of, or contributing to the realization of, the intellectual or artistic content of a resource. As always: Many thanks for your help! Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Difference between Introduction and Preface
And what about writer of afterword, while we're at it? I've just have such a case in front of me: A novel, where the translator has also provided notes and the said afterword. It gives information about the author and her work. What is here presented as an afterword might, in other cases, just as well be presented as an introduction. Sometimes I think RDA makes too many distinctions. It would be far more sensible to have only one relationship designator covering writers of things like prefaces, introductions, forewords and afterwords. Then we wouldn't have to wreck our brains about the differences. Writer of added text would do the trick, if it wasn't restricted to primarily non-textual work. Heidrun On 05.08.2013 11:29, Duncan Chalmers wrote: I see that the relationship designators “writer of introduction” and “writer of preface” have been fast tracked into RDA Appendix I. However, nowhere in RDA can I see an explanation of what an “introduction” is and what a “preface” is. It may be that the unwritten assumption is that a preface is by the author of a book and an introduction by a second party, but I’m speculating. As publishers use “foreword”, “introductory”, “preface” etc. according to ad hoc considerations of marketing, taking the path of least resistance here and following title page usage would result in the same relationship having two different designators, and two different relationships (if indeed the relationships “writer of introduction” and “writer of preface” can be said to be different) potentially being expressed with the same designator. I’d be grateful if anyone could elucidate this, and apologies if it’s already been covered on the list. *Duncan Chalmers* Cataloguer, Ingram Content Group Coutts Information Services Avon House, Headlands Business Park, Ringwood, Hampshire, BH24 3PB p: +44 (0) 1425 485848 *| *f: +44 (0) 1425 471525. duncan.chalm...@ingramcontent.com mailto:name.lastn...@ingramcontent.com *www.ingramcontent.com* http://www.ingramcontent.com* **Registered Office: 5 New Street Square, London, EC4A 3TW. Registered in England and Wales No: 2574299; VAT No: 818302250* -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Difference between Introduction and Preface
Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: Sometimes I think RDA makes too many distinctions. It would be far more sensible to have only one relationship designator covering writers of things like prefaces, introductions, forewords and afterwords. Then we wouldn't have to wreck our brains about the differences. Writer of added text would do the trick, if it wasn't restricted to primarily non-textual work. I agree!! Mary L. Mastraccio Cataloging Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78265 1-800-531-7678
[RDA-L] JSC web site: additional proposals
I've just posted the following proposals for the November 2013 JSC meeting on the public web site (http://www.rda-jsc.org/workingnew.html): -- 6JSC/ACOC/7 (Compilers and editors of compilations – Amendments to RDA 20.2.1) -- 6JSC/ACOC/8 (Addition of the Copyright holder relationship - Amendments to RDA 21.6.1.1 and Appendix I) -- 6JSC/ACOC/9 (Qualifications after an identifier - Amendments to RDA 2.15.1.7) -- 6JSC/BL/14/rev (Revision of RDA 11.13.1.8.20) [replaces 6JSC/BL/14 withdrawn earlier by BL] Regards, Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary
Re: [RDA-L] Difference between Introduction and Preface
You can choose the higher-level designator writer of supplementary textual content if you don't want to or cannot identify a more specific relationship. Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Mary Mastraccio ma...@marcive.com wrote: ** Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: Sometimes I think RDA makes too many distinctions. It would be far more sensible to have only one relationship designator covering writers of things like prefaces, introductions, forewords and afterwords. Then we wouldn't have to wreck our brains about the differences. Writer of added text would do the trick, if it wasn't restricted to primarily non-textual work. I agree!! Mary L. Mastraccio Cataloging Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78265 1-800-531-7678
Re: [RDA-L] Difference between Introduction and Preface
I think the point that was being made--and with which I was agreeing--is that sometimes too much specificity isn't really that helpful. In other words, it is nice there is a higher-level designator but have we gone too far in some lower-level designators? In most cases the very specific relationship designators is/will be very helpful but when it comes to introduction, preface, afterwords, forewords it might be more helpful to have them all lumped together. Just how some of us see it. But as Adam Schiff said --in another setting--some of us are lumpers and some are splitters. In a shared cataloging environment this difference of viewpoint can cause unexpected results in our catalogs. At least the lumpers can make global changes to move terms to the higher-level designators to improve search results. Mary L. Mastraccio Cataloging Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78265 1-800-531-7678 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of JSC Secretary Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 9:04 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Difference between Introduction and Preface You can choose the higher-level designator writer of supplementary textual content if you don't want to or cannot identify a more specific relationship. Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Mary Mastraccio ma...@marcive.commailto:ma...@marcive.com wrote: Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: Sometimes I think RDA makes too many distinctions. It would be far more sensible to have only one relationship designator covering writers of things like prefaces, introductions, forewords and afterwords. Then we wouldn't have to wreck our brains about the differences. Writer of added text would do the trick, if it wasn't restricted to primarily non-textual work. I agree!! Mary L. Mastraccio Cataloging Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78265 1-800-531-7678tel:1-800-531-7678
Re: [RDA-L] Difference between Introduction and Preface
05.08.2013 16:04, JSC Secretary: You can choose the higher-level designator writer of supplementary textual content if you don't want to or cannot identify a more specific relationship. This leaves me wondering whether or not the relationship designators are a D aspect or (also) an A aspect. To qualify as the latter, the rules should make that clear AND specify a hierarchy which would, for instance, make it algorithmically clear that writer of supplementary textual content covers Introduction, Preface, Forword, and Afterword. (And wouldn't it be useful indeed to be able to search for Noam Chomsky as a writer of supplementary textual content but specifically not prefaces? ) Alas, zillions of our records exist and will remain without designators, which casts some doubt on the usefulness of this element. If however, the designator is regarded as solely a D aspect, then why bother? Wouldn't the Statement of responsibility do the job nicely enough? B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] Good news re RDA guidance
Mac,
Would you please post the bibliographic citations and how to
order the two RDA guidance aids by Weihs and Fritz? Thank you
for your valuable guidance on the RDA listserv.
Lynne
J. LaBare
Senior
Librarian,
Cataloger
Provo Library
at Academy
Square
550 North
University
Avenue Provo,
Utah
84601-1618
801.852.7672
801.852.6670
(fax)
Email: lyn...@provo.lib.ut.us
On 8/4/2013 6:28 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Autocatters and RDA-Lers,
Help is on the way.
Excellent author Jean Riddle Weihs and another capable cataloguer are
working on an RDA/MARC21 manual for school libraries. Like Deborah
Fritz' helpful binder, it will combine the two not very harmonious
cataloguing and coding standards.
Although it is aimed at the school library, I suspect it will be
helpful to public libraries, college libraries, and even copy
cataloguers in academic libraries.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
attachment: lynnel.vcf
Re: [RDA-L] Good news re RDA guidance
I'm with Lynn. How do we order?
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 5:28 PM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
Autocatters and RDA-Lers,
Help is on the way.
Excellent author Jean Riddle Weihs and another capable cataloguer are
working on an RDA/MARC21 manual for school libraries. Like Deborah
Fritz' helpful binder, it will combine the two not very harmonious
cataloguing and coding standards.
Although it is aimed at the school library, I suspect it will be
helpful to public libraries, college libraries, and even copy
cataloguers in academic libraries.
__ __ 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.
Re: [RDA-L] Difference between Introduction and Preface
The MARC Code List for Relators does lump some of them together: Author of afterword, colophon, etc. [aft] A person or organization responsible for an afterword, postface, colophon, etc. but who is not the chief author of a work Author of introduction, etc. [aui] A person or organization responsible for an introduction, preface, foreword, or other critical introductory matter, but who is not the chief author This has come up before, but not sure why there are MARC relators for terms which dont exist in RDA. Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mary Mastraccio Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 10:17 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Difference between Introduction and Preface I think the point that was being made--and with which I was agreeing--is that sometimes too much specificity isn't really that helpful. In other words, it is nice there is a higher-level designator but have we gone too far in some lower-level designators? In most cases the very specific relationship designators is/will be very helpful but when it comes to introduction, preface, afterwords, forewords it might be more helpful to have them all lumped together. Just how some of us see it. But as Adam Schiff said --in another setting--some of us are lumpers and some are splitters. In a shared cataloging environment this difference of viewpoint can cause unexpected results in our catalogs. At least the lumpers can make global changes to move terms to the higher-level designators to improve search results. Mary L. Mastraccio Cataloging Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78265 1-800-531-7678 _ From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of JSC Secretary Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 9:04 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Difference between Introduction and Preface You can choose the higher-level designator writer of supplementary textual content if you don't want to or cannot identify a more specific relationship. Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Mary Mastraccio ma...@marcive.com wrote: Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: Sometimes I think RDA makes too many distinctions. It would be far more sensible to have only one relationship designator covering writers of things like prefaces, introductions, forewords and afterwords. Then we wouldn't have to wreck our brains about the differences. Writer of added text would do the trick, if it wasn't restricted to primarily non-textual work. I agree!! Mary L. Mastraccio Cataloging Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78265 1-800-531-7678
Re: [RDA-L] Names of conferences as title proper, other title information or statement of responsiblity
I am not speaking for every American cataloger here, but we would have the m.e as the conference since it is a named conference. A parallel to this would be if you had the title followed by statement of responsibility with a personal name and did not make the personal name the main entry or preferred entry. On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote: I'm rather unsure about what the title and statement of responsibility area should look like if there is both a formal name of the conference and a specific title of a conference on the preferred source of information. Let's consider the following example (which I've translated from German to English; in German it reads 100. Deutscher Bibliothekartag in Berlin 2011 and Bibliotheken für die Zukunft - Zukunft für die Bibliotheken). The t.p. looks like this: --- 100th CONFERENCE OF GERMAN LIBRARIANS IN BERLIN 2011 LIBRARIES FOR THE FUTURE - FUTURE FOR THE LIBRARIES [this is printed slightly smaller than the name of the conference above, but still in capitals] edited by Ulrich Hohoff and Daniela Luelfing -- According to the German cataloging rules RAK, the name of the conference here would be given as a statement of responsibility, i.e. (in ISBD): Libraries for the future - future for the libraries / 100th Conference of German Librarians ; edited by Ulrich Hohoff and Daniela Lülfing Note that for RAK, it doesn't matter which of the statements is most prominent and in which order the statements are presented on the t.p. - you would always take the specific title of the conference as title proper and the name of the conference as s-o-r. How would this case be treated according to the Anglo-American tradition? In WorldCat, I've found my example with the name of the conference as other title information, like this (again, I'm using the translated version): Libraries for the future - future for the libraries : 100th Conference of German Librarians / edited by Ulrich Hohoff and Daniela Lülfing Looking at LC's catalog, I've found no less than three different ways of handling similar cases - with the name of the conference either given as title proper, as other title information, or as a statement of responsibility. Examples: In http://lccn.loc.gov/98209348 (where the t.p. should look quite similar to the one in my example), the name of the conference has been given as the title proper, and the specific title of the conference (From Gutenberg to the internet) is given as other title information. In http://lccn.loc.gov/97152273, the specific title of the conference is given as title proper and first part of other title information (The new library : claim and reality), and the the name of the conference (31st Conference of Austrian Librarians Innsbruck 2011) has been treated as a second bit of other title information. I imagine this is due to the layout of the t.p., which gives prominence to the specific title. Have a look at the cover here: http://www.univie.ac.at/voeb/**publikationen/schriften-der-** voeb/band-11-die-neue-**bibliothek/http://www.univie.ac.at/voeb/publikationen/schriften-der-voeb/band-11-die-neue-bibliothek/ But I've also come across examples where the name of the conference is treated as a statement of responsibility, e.g. in another of the Austrian Librarians' conferences: http://lccn.loc.gov/99185606 So I wonder: Is this a matter of cataloger's judgment, triggered mainly by the presentation and layout of the preferred source of information? Or is there some deeper rule which I haven't worked out yet? Personally, I think that it would make sense to give the name of the conference as a statement of responsibility: The congress is seen as the creator of the work according to RDA 19.2.1.1.1, and a statement of responsibility is defined as a statement relating to the identification and/or function of any persons, families, or corporate bodies responsible for the creation of, or contributing to the realization of, the intellectual or artistic content of a resource. As always: Many thanks for your help! Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi -- 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.
[RDA-L] Job Posting: Catalog Management Librarian (Daytona Beach, FL)
Catalog Management Librarian – IRC54107 Embry-Riddle AeronauticalUniversity (ERAU) seeks a Catalog Management Librarian to be responsible forthe day-to-day operation of the cataloging unit. This position will provideexpertise and leadership to a cataloging unit of one professional cataloger,one support staff member, and a number of student assistants. Responsibilities include supervising originaland copy cataloging activities following nationally accepted standards,performing some cataloging of regular and special collection materials, workingwith vendors to determine efficient catalog maintenance methods, handling unitstatistics, ensuring a current unit procedures manual, and maintaining theintegrity of the catalog, including the authority files. The successfulcandidate will have an understanding of all aspects of technical services,maintain an awareness of current issues and trends, including new catalogingrules, communicate with other library departments to ensure materialaccessibility, and serve on the ILS team. This position reports to theAssociate Director for Electronic and Technical Services. Hunt Library, located at theDaytona Beach campus of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, provides libraryservices to 5,000 residential students at this campus as well as to over 10,000distance learning students through Embry-Riddle Worldwide. A leader inthe provision of higher education in the fields of aviation and aerospace, ERAUoffers regionally accredited bachelors’ and masters’ degrees as well as three doctoralprograms, one of which (aviation science) is the first of its kind in theworld. For more information on ERAU, see http://www.erau.edu/about/l-about.html. For more information on the Hunt Library, go to http://library.erau.edu/. RequiredQualifications: - ALA-accreditedmaster’s degree - knowledgeof nationally accepted standards used in cataloging -knowledge of OCLC procedures - relevantexperience with an ILS - knowledgeof LC subject headings and classification schedules and authority control -analytical skills -excellent interpersonal and communication skills - experiencein a supervisory position - demonstratedability to work in a team environment - adeptnesswith Microsoft Access and query formation - excellentorganization skills and attention to detail PreferredQualifications: - experiencewith Voyager ILS, Serials Solutions, RDA Toolkit, Cataloger’s Desktop, OCLCConnextion, MarcEdit, and MacroExpress - experiencewith cataloging special collections and archival materials - experiencein an academic library - experiencewith a discovery tool Please reference IRC54107 and applyonline at http://www.erau.edu/jobs.Please upload a cover letter, resume, and three professional references(including email addresses). A review of applications will begin On September9, 2013, and continue until an appropriate candidate is found. Embry-RiddleAeronautical University is an affirmative action/equal opportunity employer anddoes not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, age,national origin, handicap, veteran status, or sexual orientation.
Re: [RDA-L] Names of conferences as title proper, other title information or statement of responsiblity
Gene, Thanks, but perhaps I didn't explain my problem clearly enough. It's not about the main entry - I had indeed assumed that the conference would be creator according to 19.2.1.1.1 d). My problem is about the bibliographical description of such an item. Where does the name of the conference go - main title, other title information or s-o-r? Heidrun On 05.08.2013 17:25, Gene Fieg wrote: I am not speaking for every American cataloger here, but we would have the m.e as the conference since it is a named conference. A parallel to this would be if you had the title followed by statement of responsibility with a personal name and did not make the personal name the main entry or preferred entry. On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de mailto:wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote: I'm rather unsure about what the title and statement of responsibility area should look like if there is both a formal name of the conference and a specific title of a conference on the preferred source of information. Let's consider the following example (which I've translated from German to English; in German it reads 100. Deutscher Bibliothekartag in Berlin 2011 and Bibliotheken für die Zukunft - Zukunft für die Bibliotheken). The t.p. looks like this: --- 100th CONFERENCE OF GERMAN LIBRARIANS IN BERLIN 2011 LIBRARIES FOR THE FUTURE - FUTURE FOR THE LIBRARIES [this is printed slightly smaller than the name of the conference above, but still in capitals] edited by Ulrich Hohoff and Daniela Luelfing -- According to the German cataloging rules RAK, the name of the conference here would be given as a statement of responsibility, i.e. (in ISBD): Libraries for the future - future for the libraries / 100th Conference of German Librarians ; edited by Ulrich Hohoff and Daniela Lülfing Note that for RAK, it doesn't matter which of the statements is most prominent and in which order the statements are presented on the t.p. - you would always take the specific title of the conference as title proper and the name of the conference as s-o-r. How would this case be treated according to the Anglo-American tradition? In WorldCat, I've found my example with the name of the conference as other title information, like this (again, I'm using the translated version): Libraries for the future - future for the libraries : 100th Conference of German Librarians / edited by Ulrich Hohoff and Daniela Lülfing Looking at LC's catalog, I've found no less than three different ways of handling similar cases - with the name of the conference either given as title proper, as other title information, or as a statement of responsibility. Examples: In http://lccn.loc.gov/98209348 (where the t.p. should look quite similar to the one in my example), the name of the conference has been given as the title proper, and the specific title of the conference (From Gutenberg to the internet) is given as other title information. In http://lccn.loc.gov/97152273, the specific title of the conference is given as title proper and first part of other title information (The new library : claim and reality), and the the name of the conference (31st Conference of Austrian Librarians Innsbruck 2011) has been treated as a second bit of other title information. I imagine this is due to the layout of the t.p., which gives prominence to the specific title. Have a look at the cover here: http://www.univie.ac.at/voeb/publikationen/schriften-der-voeb/band-11-die-neue-bibliothek/ But I've also come across examples where the name of the conference is treated as a statement of responsibility, e.g. in another of the Austrian Librarians' conferences: http://lccn.loc.gov/99185606 So I wonder: Is this a matter of cataloger's judgment, triggered mainly by the presentation and layout of the preferred source of information? Or is there some deeper rule which I haven't worked out yet? Personally, I think that it would make sense to give the name of the conference as a statement of responsibility: The congress is seen as the creator of the work according to RDA 19.2.1.1.1, and a statement of responsibility is defined as a statement relating to the identification and/or function of any persons, families, or corporate bodies responsible for the creation of, or contributing to the realization of, the intellectual or artistic content of a resource. As always: Many thanks for your help! Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi http://www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi -- Gene
Re: [RDA-L] Names of conferences as title proper, other title information or statement of responsiblity
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am 05.08.2013 17:56, schrieb Heidrun Wiesenmüller: --- 100th CONFERENCE OF GERMAN LIBRARIANS IN BERLIN 2011 LIBRARIES FOR THE FUTURE - FUTURE FOR THE LIBRARIES [this is printed slightly smaller than the name of the conference above, but still in capitals] edited by Ulrich Hohoff and Daniela Luelfing -- According to the German cataloging rules RAK, the name of the conference here would be given as a statement of responsibility, i.e. (in ISBD): Libraries for the future - future for the libraries / 100th Conference of German Librarians ; edited by Ulrich Hohoff and Daniela Lülfing That would be Libraries for the future - future for the libraries / 100th Conference of German Librarians. Edited by Ulrich Hohoff and Daniela Lülfing by virtue of RAK §140,2 (assuming that the conference induced and maybe issued the work but did not edit it). viele Gruesse Thomas Berger -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (Cygwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iJwEAQECAAYFAlH/zd4ACgkQYhMlmJ6W47PU4QP+Ndq8QU0I5GTf/VZkJY49ylg7 /gqhLGr8agDoMCMehY10+PnLnHYJKUnznCpFX24f4WhbgY7LY6Y56FQC/Hgy84KP 6qa5ky8gqJRqC4l+Qh2NCdZcQ28Rjn7BmYy9NC4nJvStiyofbJ8IB44Ay/LOLix8 wY6Eume5Pn7ERraLxUc= =57Mt -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [RDA-L] Names of conferences as title proper, other title information or statement of responsiblity
Without seeing the actual item, I would place it in the area of resp. On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote: Gene, Thanks, but perhaps I didn't explain my problem clearly enough. It's not about the main entry - I had indeed assumed that the conference would be creator according to 19.2.1.1.1 d). My problem is about the bibliographical description of such an item. Where does the name of the conference go - main title, other title information or s-o-r? Heidrun On 05.08.2013 17:25, Gene Fieg wrote: I am not speaking for every American cataloger here, but we would have the m.e as the conference since it is a named conference. A parallel to this would be if you had the title followed by statement of responsibility with a personal name and did not make the personal name the main entry or preferred entry. On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote: I'm rather unsure about what the title and statement of responsibility area should look like if there is both a formal name of the conference and a specific title of a conference on the preferred source of information. Let's consider the following example (which I've translated from German to English; in German it reads 100. Deutscher Bibliothekartag in Berlin 2011 and Bibliotheken für die Zukunft - Zukunft für die Bibliotheken). The t.p. looks like this: --- 100th CONFERENCE OF GERMAN LIBRARIANS IN BERLIN 2011 LIBRARIES FOR THE FUTURE - FUTURE FOR THE LIBRARIES [this is printed slightly smaller than the name of the conference above, but still in capitals] edited by Ulrich Hohoff and Daniela Luelfing -- According to the German cataloging rules RAK, the name of the conference here would be given as a statement of responsibility, i.e. (in ISBD): Libraries for the future - future for the libraries / 100th Conference of German Librarians ; edited by Ulrich Hohoff and Daniela Lülfing Note that for RAK, it doesn't matter which of the statements is most prominent and in which order the statements are presented on the t.p. - you would always take the specific title of the conference as title proper and the name of the conference as s-o-r. How would this case be treated according to the Anglo-American tradition? In WorldCat, I've found my example with the name of the conference as other title information, like this (again, I'm using the translated version): Libraries for the future - future for the libraries : 100th Conference of German Librarians / edited by Ulrich Hohoff and Daniela Lülfing Looking at LC's catalog, I've found no less than three different ways of handling similar cases - with the name of the conference either given as title proper, as other title information, or as a statement of responsibility. Examples: In http://lccn.loc.gov/98209348 (where the t.p. should look quite similar to the one in my example), the name of the conference has been given as the title proper, and the specific title of the conference (From Gutenberg to the internet) is given as other title information. In http://lccn.loc.gov/97152273, the specific title of the conference is given as title proper and first part of other title information (The new library : claim and reality), and the the name of the conference (31st Conference of Austrian Librarians Innsbruck 2011) has been treated as a second bit of other title information. I imagine this is due to the layout of the t.p., which gives prominence to the specific title. Have a look at the cover here: http://www.univie.ac.at/voeb/publikationen/schriften-der-voeb/band-11-die-neue-bibliothek/ But I've also come across examples where the name of the conference is treated as a statement of responsibility, e.g. in another of the Austrian Librarians' conferences: http://lccn.loc.gov/99185606 So I wonder: Is this a matter of cataloger's judgment, triggered mainly by the presentation and layout of the preferred source of information? Or is there some deeper rule which I haven't worked out yet? Personally, I think that it would make sense to give the name of the conference as a statement of responsibility: The congress is seen as the creator of the work according to RDA 19.2.1.1.1, and a statement of responsibility is defined as a statement relating to the identification and/or function of any persons, families, or corporate bodies responsible for the creation of, or contributing to the realization of, the intellectual or artistic content of a resource. As always: Many thanks for your help! Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln
Re: [RDA-L] Names of conferences as title proper, other title information or statement of responsiblity
Gene, Without seeing the actual item, I would place it in the area of resp. Sorry, that was too much shorthand for a non-native speaker: Does resp here mean the same as depends? If so, on what - the layout? If you want to have a closer look, here's a scan of the title page: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2aFdx26Qi9sMDhIb1lZMFE2SlU/edit It's a typical case of conference proceedings, a collection of papers given at the so-called Bibliothekartag (the German equivalent to the ALA conference, with about 4.000 participants). My reading is that such proceedings originate with the conference, and therefore that the conference is seen as the creator. I apologize for being so insistent. But it's an example from my teaching collection, and I would very much like to get a sound RDA solution for it (or perhaps several acceptable solutions, if that's how it is). Thanks again, Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Names of conferences as title proper, other title information or statement of responsiblity
I meant area of responsibility. The 245 line would read [title] / |c [name of conference] On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote: Gene, Without seeing the actual item, I would place it in the area of resp. Sorry, that was too much shorthand for a non-native speaker: Does resp here mean the same as depends? If so, on what - the layout? If you want to have a closer look, here's a scan of the title page: https://docs.google.com/file/**d/**0B2aFdx26Qi9sMDhIb1lZMFE2SlU/**edithttps://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2aFdx26Qi9sMDhIb1lZMFE2SlU/edit It's a typical case of conference proceedings, a collection of papers given at the so-called Bibliothekartag (the German equivalent to the ALA conference, with about 4.000 participants). My reading is that such proceedings originate with the conference, and therefore that the conference is seen as the creator. I apologize for being so insistent. But it's an example from my teaching collection, and I would very much like to get a sound RDA solution for it (or perhaps several acceptable solutions, if that's how it is). Thanks again, Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi -- 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.
Re: [RDA-L] Names of conferences as title proper, other title information or statement of responsiblity
Thanks, Gene. Now all is revealed (actually, I should have been able to work that one out myself...) I'm quite happy to hear that. German catalogers will have to get used to so many new things; it's rather nice if some things stay the same. Heidrun On 05.08.2013 19:46, Gene Fieg wrote: I meant area of responsibility. The 245 line would read [title] / |c [name of conference] On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de mailto:wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote: Gene, Without seeing the actual item, I would place it in the area of resp. Sorry, that was too much shorthand for a non-native speaker: Does resp here mean the same as depends? If so, on what - the layout? If you want to have a closer look, here's a scan of the title page: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2aFdx26Qi9sMDhIb1lZMFE2SlU/edit It's a typical case of conference proceedings, a collection of papers given at the so-called Bibliothekartag (the German equivalent to the ALA conference, with about 4.000 participants). My reading is that such proceedings originate with the conference, and therefore that the conference is seen as the creator. I apologize for being so insistent. But it's an example from my teaching collection, and I would very much like to get a sound RDA solution for it (or perhaps several acceptable solutions, if that's how it is). Thanks again, Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi http://www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu mailto: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. -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Names of conferences as title proper, other title information or statement of responsiblity
Based on the layout in the scan, I would have transcribed the 100. Deutscher Bibliothekartag as the title proper, Bibliotheken fur die Zukunft as the other title, and Herausgaben von Ulrich Hohoff etc as the statement of responsibility. I would have provided variant access for the other title. I think the user in the U.S. who has seen the title page but who isn't relying on keyword is going to search 100. Deutscher ... and Bibliotheken fur die ... as left anchor titles. Since the conference is going to be the main entry, it should be retrievable on a name search if it occurs to anyone that it's a name. I don't see how this changes significantly in RDA. If the title page was in the form Future of libraries proceedings of the 100. German Library Conference there would be a better case for entering proceedings of ... etc in MARC 245 $c. But in my judgment the search is more likely to be on title keyword, so I would have entered proceedings of the ... in MARC 245 $b. Or, if the name of the conference was searched just as keyword, with a large number of hits, I think the user would be more likely to select the title facet rather than the author facet to refine the search, another reason to enter the name of the conference in a field indexed as title. In RDA one can add a relationship designator author or creator to a conference AAP, but that doesn't mean the non-cataloger will search as if the conference was an author on the first couple of tries. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metada Services Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 1:33 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Names of conferences as title proper, other title information or statement of responsiblity Gene, Without seeing the actual item, I would place it in the area of resp. Sorry, that was too much shorthand for a non-native speaker: Does resp here mean the same as depends? If so, on what - the layout? If you want to have a closer look, here's a scan of the title page: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2aFdx26Qi9sMDhIb1lZMFE2SlU/edit It's a typical case of conference proceedings, a collection of papers given at the so-called Bibliothekartag (the German equivalent to the ALA conference, with about 4.000 participants). My reading is that such proceedings originate with the conference, and therefore that the conference is seen as the creator. I apologize for being so insistent. But it's an example from my teaching collection, and I would very much like to get a sound RDA solution for it (or perhaps several acceptable solutions, if that's how it is). Thanks again, Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Names of conferences as title proper, other title information or statement of responsibility
I don't think there is any principle or rule at work; it seems to be mostly a matter of cataloger's judgment. Such statements often give additional information like the place and date of a conference, which might make them seem less like a statement of responsibility. Some might include a phrase like proceedings of the 100th conference ... which sounds more like other title information. RDA 2.3.4.3 has an example of a similar statement given as other title information (the fourteenth exhibition of the Council of Europe) (http://lccn.loc.gov/73153460) . There is an OCLC record that gave the same statement as an at head of title note (#312366060). One problem with such conference statements is that they don't have a verb form to indicate what the responsibility is, whereas a statement like herausgegeben von is clearly a statement of responsibility. In the case of Bibliotheken für die Zukunft, I would probably use a statement of responsibility for the conference name. -- John Hostage Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger // Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services // Langdell Hall 194 // Cambridge, MA 02138 host...@law.harvard.edu +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax) -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 07:26 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Names of conferences as title proper, other title information or statement of responsiblity I'm rather unsure about what the title and statement of responsibility area should look like if there is both a formal name of the conference and a specific title of a conference on the preferred source of information. Let's consider the following example (which I've translated from German to English; in German it reads 100. Deutscher Bibliothekartag in Berlin 2011 and Bibliotheken für die Zukunft - Zukunft für die Bibliotheken). The t.p. looks like this: --- 100th CONFERENCE OF GERMAN LIBRARIANS IN BERLIN 2011 LIBRARIES FOR THE FUTURE - FUTURE FOR THE LIBRARIES [this is printed slightly smaller than the name of the conference above, but still in capitals] edited by Ulrich Hohoff and Daniela Luelfing -- According to the German cataloging rules RAK, the name of the conference here would be given as a statement of responsibility, i.e. (in ISBD): Libraries for the future - future for the libraries / 100th Conference of German Librarians ; edited by Ulrich Hohoff and Daniela Lülfing Note that for RAK, it doesn't matter which of the statements is most prominent and in which order the statements are presented on the t.p. - you would always take the specific title of the conference as title proper and the name of the conference as s-o-r. How would this case be treated according to the Anglo-American tradition? In WorldCat, I've found my example with the name of the conference as other title information, like this (again, I'm using the translated version): Libraries for the future - future for the libraries : 100th Conference of German Librarians / edited by Ulrich Hohoff and Daniela Lülfing Looking at LC's catalog, I've found no less than three different ways of handling similar cases - with the name of the conference either given as title proper, as other title information, or as a statement of responsibility. Examples: In http://lccn.loc.gov/98209348 (where the t.p. should look quite similar to the one in my example), the name of the conference has been given as the title proper, and the specific title of the conference (From Gutenberg to the internet) is given as other title information. In http://lccn.loc.gov/97152273, the specific title of the conference is given as title proper and first part of other title information (The new library : claim and reality), and the the name of the conference (31st Conference of Austrian Librarians Innsbruck 2011) has been treated as a second bit of other title information. I imagine this is due to the layout of the t.p., which gives prominence to the specific title. Have a look at the cover here: http://www.univie.ac.at/voeb/publikationen/schriften-der-voeb/band-11- die-neue-bibliothek/ But I've also come across examples where the name of the conference is treated as a statement of responsibility, e.g. in another of the Austrian Librarians' conferences: http://lccn.loc.gov/99185606 So I wonder: Is this a matter of cataloger's judgment, triggered mainly by the presentation and layout of the preferred source of information? Or is there some deeper rule which I haven't worked out yet? Personally, I think that it would make sense to give the name of the conference as a statement of responsibility: The congress is seen as the creator of the work
Re: [RDA-L] Difference between Introduction and Preface
Heidrun said:
Sometimes I think RDA makes too many distinctions.
They certainly do. In the cases you cite, I would use $econtributor.
In most cases, a single word should be used, not a phrase, in order
not to over clutter the display.
Take the distinction between 2-D and 3-D moving images. The ISBD Area
0 modified single word image (moving) seems better to me.
On the other hand, there are no RDA media terms for large print, kits,
or equipment. Nor a very good relator term for conferences.
Someone asked why there are more MARC relator codes than RDA terms.
That's because the MARC codes are superior. Rather than reinventing
that wheel, JSC should have just taken the meanings following the MARC
codes, plus perhaps ISBD Area 0 terms not already in the code list.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Good news re RDA guidance
Lynn eBare requested:
Would you please post the bibliographic citations and how to order the
two RDA guidance aids by Weihs and Fritz?
The Weihs aid is still being written. I'm copying to the Jean and
Sheila, the authors.
The Fritz binder was AACR2, not RDA. I haven't heard if Deborah is
planning an RDA version.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Names of conferences as title proper, other title information or statement of responsiblity
Ben, your two cents are, as usual, worth a lot more than that ;-) I hadn't realized that RDA has brought a change here. Now I understand why I found so many cases of the conference name as other title information in the catalogs. Thanks also for pointing out the subtle difference in the wording here. Up to now, although of course I had noticed the changed wording, I hadn't really thought about the implications. Heidrun On 05.08.2013 20:04, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote: Under AACR2 and perhaps even earlier practice, it was quite common to treat the conference name as other title information and so put it in $b: $a Biblitheken für die Zukunft, Zukunft für die Bibliotheken : $b 100. deutscher Bibliothekartag in Berlin 2011 / $c herausgegeben von Ulrich hohff und Daniel Lülfing. Since Main Entry was understood as a simply cataloging device for collocating resources in a useful fashion, the fact that what appeared in the 1xx (the conference) was not in the statement of responsibility did not seem to trouble anyone. But with RDA having banished Main Entry in favor of relationships, and having declared (19.2.1.1.1.d) a conference proceedings the creation of a conference (note how, in the AACR2 equivalent, 21.1B2, the phrase is a work emanating from one or more corporate bodies, whereas as RDA says, Corporate bodies are considered to be creators) there seems to be an (unspoken?) re-evaluation of this practice in favor of putting the conference in the $c: $a Biblitheken für die Zukunft, Zukunft für die Bibliotheken / $c 100. deutscher Bibliothekartag in Berlin 2011 ; herausgegeben von Ulrich hohff und Daniel Lülfing. I don't think there is a specific chapter and verse where this is stated but it's what I've been seeing in OCLC lately. Of course the real question is: is 100. deutscher Bibliothekartag in Berlin 2011 other title information, or a statement of responsibility? I think the answer is likely, Both, so I'm afraid we probably shouldn't expect to see consistency in the way catalogers treat it. My .02, --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 *From:*Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] *On Behalf Of *Gene Fieg *Sent:* Monday, August 05, 2013 1:46 PM *To:* RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Names of conferences as title proper, other title information or statement of responsiblity I meant area of responsibility. The 245 line would read [title] / |c [name of conference] On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de mailto:wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote: Gene, Without seeing the actual item, I would place it in the area of resp. Sorry, that was too much shorthand for a non-native speaker: Does resp here mean the same as depends? If so, on what - the layout? If you want to have a closer look, here's a scan of the title page: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2aFdx26Qi9sMDhIb1lZMFE2SlU/edit It's a typical case of conference proceedings, a collection of papers given at the so-called Bibliothekartag (the German equivalent to the ALA conference, with about 4.000 participants). My reading is that such proceedings originate with the conference, and therefore that the conference is seen as the creator. I apologize for being so insistent. But it's an example from my teaching collection, and I would very much like to get a sound RDA solution for it (or perhaps several acceptable solutions, if that's how it is). Thanks again, Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi http://www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu mailto: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. -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
[RDA-L] honouree vs. honoree
Still seeking info. on this, especially now as I see that the MARC Code List for Relators (http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html) advises to use the spelling Honoree rather than Honouree. Anyone from LC or PCC know if there is anything in the works to create a PS stating to use the spelling Honoree for RDA? Thanks, Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Dana Van Meter Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 1:18 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] honouree vs. honoree I know there is an LC-PCC PS stating to use the American spelling of color, but don't see any such LC-PCC PS for the spelling of the relationship designator honouree. Doing a keyword search for rda and honouree in a personal name yields 282 hits in LC's catalog, but doing the same search with honoree yields 24 hits. Most of the 24 records have an 040 with only DLC in it, however many of these are In Process. We get a lot of Feschrifts at my institution, so while it appears honouree is the predominately used spelling (and indeed the spelling in RDA), I'm just wondering if anyone knows if LC or PCC has looked at the spelling of honouree and if there might be a PS in the future saying to use the spelling honoree. Thanks, Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Good news re RDA guidance
I emailed Deborah Fritz to see if she was going to do an RDA version. She said
she was not at this time. I am hoping she will change her mind. I usded her
AACR2 ver daily.
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access on
behalf of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Mon 8/5/2013 10:59 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Good news re RDA guidance
Lynn eBare requested:
Would you please post the bibliographic citations and how to order the
two RDA guidance aids by Weihs and Fritz?
The Weihs aid is still being written. I'm copying to the Jean and
Sheila, the authors.
The Fritz binder was AACR2, not RDA. I haven't heard if Deborah is
planning an RDA version.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Names of conferences as title proper, other title information or statement of responsiblity
I meant, of course, Bibliotheken not Biblitheken. --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 2:05 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Names of conferences as title proper, other title information or statement of responsiblity Under AACR2 and perhaps even earlier practice, it was quite common to treat the conference name as other title information and so put it in $b: $a Biblitheken für die Zukunft, Zukunft für die Bibliotheken : $b 100. deutscher Bibliothekartag in Berlin 2011 / $c herausgegeben von Ulrich hohff und Daniel Lülfing. Since Main Entry was understood as a simply cataloging device for collocating resources in a useful fashion, the fact that what appeared in the 1xx (the conference) was not in the statement of responsibility did not seem to trouble anyone. But with RDA having banished Main Entry in favor of relationships, and having declared (19.2.1.1.1.d) a conference proceedings the creation of a conference (note how, in the AACR2 equivalent, 21.1B2, the phrase is a work emanating from one or more corporate bodies, whereas as RDA says, Corporate bodies are considered to be creators) there seems to be an (unspoken?) re-evaluation of this practice in favor of putting the conference in the $c: $a Biblitheken für die Zukunft, Zukunft für die Bibliotheken / $c 100. deutscher Bibliothekartag in Berlin 2011 ; herausgegeben von Ulrich hohff und Daniel Lülfing. I don't think there is a specific chapter and verse where this is stated but it's what I've been seeing in OCLC lately. Of course the real question is: is 100. deutscher Bibliothekartag in Berlin 2011 other title information, or a statement of responsibility? I think the answer is likely, Both, so I'm afraid we probably shouldn't expect to see consistency in the way catalogers treat it. My .02, --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 1:46 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.camailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Names of conferences as title proper, other title information or statement of responsiblity I meant area of responsibility. The 245 line would read [title] / |c [name of conference] On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.demailto:wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote: Gene, Without seeing the actual item, I would place it in the area of resp. Sorry, that was too much shorthand for a non-native speaker: Does resp here mean the same as depends? If so, on what - the layout? If you want to have a closer look, here's a scan of the title page: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2aFdx26Qi9sMDhIb1lZMFE2SlU/edit It's a typical case of conference proceedings, a collection of papers given at the so-called Bibliothekartag (the German equivalent to the ALA conference, with about 4.000 participants). My reading is that such proceedings originate with the conference, and therefore that the conference is seen as the creator. I apologize for being so insistent. But it's an example from my teaching collection, and I would very much like to get a sound RDA solution for it (or perhaps several acceptable solutions, if that's how it is). Thanks again, Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bihttp://www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edumailto: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.
Re: [RDA-L] Correct use of relationship designators for corporate bodies
What about liturgical works? The main entry (i.e., the name in a
name-title AAP) is the associated church or denomination, but this is
nevertheless categorised as 'other corporate body associated with the
work', in which case 'issuing body' is correct.
'issuing body' could also be used as a second relator in 1XX if the
entity had multiple roles; and if no creator-relator could be assigned
because RDA offered no suitable relator for the entity's creator role
(and arguably in the case of conferences it does not), it might by
default end up as the only relator.
Best wishes,
Bernadette
***
Bernadette O'Reilly
Catalogue Support Librarian
01865 2-77134
Bodleian Libraries,
Osney One Building
Osney Mead
Oxford OX2 0EW.
***
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: 02 August 2013 19:42
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Correct use of relationship designators for
corportate bodies
Using issuing body in a 1XX field would not be a correct use of RDA,
since issuing bodies are not defined as creators. The only designator
that I see in I.2.2 that can for sure be used with a 1XX access point is
defendant, since RDA allows you to name legal works with a defendant's
name.
On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 11:15:26 -0700
From: J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca
Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
Access
RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Correct use of relationship designators for
corportate
bodies
Cathy Crum asked:
I have questions about the correct use of the relationship
designators, is= suing body and author, especially for corporate
bodies.
We would limit the use of author with a corporate body, to resources
entered under the corporate body, i.e., administrative resources about
the body such as annual reports.
We plan to use issuing body for conference names, in the absence of
anything better.
We assume commercial publishers would not be issuing bodies, but
rather private and government agencies. Often the publisher differs
from the issuing body, e.g., a government publications office may be
the publisher, while an agency is the issuing body.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~
Re: [RDA-L] Names of conferences as title proper, other title information or statement of responsiblity
Heidrun posted:
100th CONFERENCE OF GERMAN LIBRARIANS
IN BERLIN 2011
LIBRARIES FOR THE FUTURE -
FUTURE FOR THE LIBRARIES
[this is printed slightly smaller than the name of the conference above,
but still in capitals]
edited by
Ulrich Hohoff and Daniela Luelfing
--
245 10 $aLibraries for the future :$bfuture for the libraries /$c100th
Conference of German Libraries ; edited by Ulrich Hohoff and Daniela
Luelfing.
246 30 $aFuture for the libraries.
518 $aBerlin 2011.
Notice the ; before edited and the lower case e, as opposed to
a posted suggestion.
I agree that in AACR2 the conference could be in 245 $a or $b, perhaps:
245 10 $a100th Conference of German Libraries in Belin 2011 :$blibraries
for the future, future for the libraries /$cedited by Ulrich Hohoff and
Daniela Luelfing.
246 3 $aOne Hundreth Conference of German Libraries.
246 30 $aLibraries for the future.
246 30 $aFuture for the libraries.
The difference would have little effect on access.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
[RDA-L] Main series subseries
I have a book which is issued in both a main series: Champs (Flammarion (Firm)), which is numbered, and in a subseries: Champs (Flammarion (Firm)).|p Essais, which is unnumbered. My book is a paperback. The subseries appears at the bottom of the front cover of my book as Champs essais. The subseries also appears at the bottom of the t.p. as Champs essais. The main series does not appear in name by itself anywhere on the book, but the numbering for the main series does appear at the bottom of the spine. My question is, as Champs does not appear alone anywhere, but only appears with the subseries title Essais following it, it seems that I would need a second 490: 490 1_ [Champs] ;|v 988, with Champs in square brackets, as Champs never appears by itself. I hesitate to do a single 490-490 1_ Champs ;|v 988. |aEssais, as the numbering appears by itself on the spine, it does not appear alongside Champs essais. I know that in RDA one is only supposed to use [ ] when the information doesn't appear anywhere on the book, and is being taken from elsewhere. In my case Champs does appear, but it does not appear by itself with the numbering, it appears only followed by the subseries title. The way I see it, the name of the main series doesn't appear anywhere by itself, or in conjunction with both its (the main series) numbering and the subseries title, so I need to supply it in a separate 490 and in square brackets. I'm wondering if anyone would consider that the square brackets are unnecessary as Champs appears on the publication followed by the subseries title? Thanks very much for your advice. Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Main series subseries
I fully agree with Dana's initial determination that the main series title should be recorded in brackets. As described below, the word Champs appearing on the resource seems to be clearly referring to the subseries title. I suppose it's possible that the two words could be presented in different ways graphically, giving the sense of the statement referring to the two separate entities: Champs and Essais. But if it reads as as single phrase Champs essais, then the main series is only implicit, and should be given in brackets. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edumailto:k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Dana Van Meter Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 2:46 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Main series subseries I have a book which is issued in both a main series: Champs (Flammarion (Firm)), which is numbered, and in a subseries: Champs (Flammarion (Firm)).|p Essais, which is unnumbered. My book is a paperback. The subseries appears at the bottom of the front cover of my book as Champs essais. The subseries also appears at the bottom of the t.p. as Champs essais. The main series does not appear in name by itself anywhere on the book, but the numbering for the main series does appear at the bottom of the spine. My question is, as Champs does not appear alone anywhere, but only appears with the subseries title Essais following it, it seems that I would need a second 490: 490 1_ [Champs] ;|v 988, with Champs in square brackets, as Champs never appears by itself. I hesitate to do a single 490-490 1_ Champs ;|v 988. |aEssais, as the numbering appears by itself on the spine, it does not appear alongside Champs essais. I know that in RDA one is only supposed to use [ ] when the information doesn't appear anywhere on the book, and is being taken from elsewhere. In my case Champs does appear, but it does not appear by itself with the numbering, it appears only followed by the subseries title. The way I see it, the name of the main series doesn't appear anywhere by itself, or in conjunction with both its (the main series) numbering and the subseries title, so I need to supply it in a separate 490 and in square brackets. I'm wondering if anyone would consider that the square brackets are unnecessary as Champs appears on the publication followed by the subseries title? Thanks very much for your advice. Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edumailto:vanme...@ias.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Main series subseries
You could have a 490 for Champs essais or Champs. Essais and give the number from the spine in a quoted note. Then you could have two 830s: one for the main series with number and one for the subseries. -- John Hostage Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger // Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services // Langdell Hall 194 // Cambridge, MA 02138 host...@law.harvard.edumailto:host...@law.harvard.edu +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax) From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Dana Van Meter Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 15:46 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Main series subseries I have a book which is issued in both a main series: Champs (Flammarion (Firm)), which is numbered, and in a subseries: Champs (Flammarion (Firm)).|p Essais, which is unnumbered. My book is a paperback. The subseries appears at the bottom of the front cover of my book as Champs essais. The subseries also appears at the bottom of the t.p. as Champs essais. The main series does not appear in name by itself anywhere on the book, but the numbering for the main series does appear at the bottom of the spine. My question is, as Champs does not appear alone anywhere, but only appears with the subseries title Essais following it, it seems that I would need a second 490: 490 1_ [Champs] ;|v 988, with Champs in square brackets, as Champs never appears by itself. I hesitate to do a single 490-490 1_ Champs ;|v 988. |aEssais, as the numbering appears by itself on the spine, it does not appear alongside Champs essais. I know that in RDA one is only supposed to use [ ] when the information doesn't appear anywhere on the book, and is being taken from elsewhere. In my case Champs does appear, but it does not appear by itself with the numbering, it appears only followed by the subseries title. The way I see it, the name of the main series doesn't appear anywhere by itself, or in conjunction with both its (the main series) numbering and the subseries title, so I need to supply it in a separate 490 and in square brackets. I'm wondering if anyone would consider that the square brackets are unnecessary as Champs appears on the publication followed by the subseries title? Thanks very much for your advice. Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edumailto:vanme...@ias.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Correct use of relationship designators for corporate bodies
A question on relationship designators and corporate bodies that perhaps
someone with more expertise can explain.
Appendix I, I.2. is divided into 2 sections. I.2.1. Relationship designators
for creators and I.2.2. Relationship designators for other persons, families or
corporate bodies associated with a work. My understanding has been that the RDs
in I.2.1. are used for the creator with the primary relationship to the work,
what we used to call main entry. In I.2.1., the definitions usually begin with
the phrase A person, body, or family responsible for ... Corporate bodies
are identified as the primary creator under a limited set of circumstances
listed in 19.2.1., not all that different from the AACR2 rules for choice of
entry. But not all of the RDs listed in I.2.1. fit into the 19.2.1. criteria.
For example, 19.2.1 does not have a category for designers, yet corporate
bodies are included in the definitions for architect and designer. I understand
that we can have artists as corporate bodies and creators (19.2.1.1.1.,
category h, e.g. Gilbert and George) but I don't see the extension to
architectural firms, choreographers, designers, photographers, or composers. In
ordinary discourse, architectural firms are often credited with the design of
buildings; it's just that the scope of the rules in 19.2.1. does not allow for
such a relationship at the creator level. A photography archive can be
responsible for a collection of photographs, but the relationship is
administrative (19.2.1.1.1. category a), not the relationship of photographer
to work. Can someone explain this?
Steven Arakawa
Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation
Catalog Metada Services
Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University
P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240
(203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Bernadette Mary O'Reilly
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 2:54 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Correct use of relationship designators for corporate
bodies
What about liturgical works? The main entry (i.e., the name in a name-title
AAP) is the associated church or denomination, but this is nevertheless
categorised as 'other corporate body associated with the work', in which case
'issuing body' is correct.
'issuing body' could also be used as a second relator in 1XX if the entity had
multiple roles; and if no creator-relator could be assigned because RDA offered
no suitable relator for the entity's creator role (and arguably in the case of
conferences it does not), it might by default end up as the only relator.
Best wishes,
Bernadette
***
Bernadette O'Reilly
Catalogue Support Librarian
01865 2-77134
Bodleian Libraries,
Osney One Building
Osney Mead
Oxford OX2 0EW.
***
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: 02 August 2013 19:42
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Correct use of relationship designators for corportate
bodies
Using issuing body in a 1XX field would not be a correct use of RDA, since
issuing bodies are not defined as creators. The only designator that I see in
I.2.2 that can for sure be used with a 1XX access point is defendant, since
RDA allows you to name legal works with a defendant's name.
On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 11:15:26 -0700
From: J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca
Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
Access
RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Correct use of relationship designators for
corportate
bodies
Cathy Crum asked:
I have questions about the correct use of the relationship
designators, is= suing body and author, especially for corporate
bodies.
We would limit the use of author with a corporate body, to resources
entered under the corporate body, i.e., administrative resources about
the body such as annual reports.
We plan to use issuing body for conference names, in the absence of
anything better.
We assume commercial publishers would not be issuing bodies, but
rather private and government agencies. Often the publisher differs
from the issuing body, e.g., a government publications office may be
the publisher, while an agency is the issuing body.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Main series subseries
I agree with John. Consider each element separately: Title Proper of Series (2.12.2) Source: a source within the resource-good Enter it exactly as found, except for 1.7: Champs Numbering within Series (2.12.9) Source: a source within the resource-good Enter exactly as found, except for 1.7 and 1.8: 988 Title Proper of Subseries (2.12.10) Source: a source within the resource; with an LC PCC PS that points us to 2.3.1.7 where the common title and part title are on the same source, not grammatically connected-so it is good that the main title and the subseries title are presented together, as you found them. Enter it exactly as found, except for 1.7: Essais Then it does seem that it would be useful to give the authorized access points for the series relationship for both the main series, with its number, and the subseries. There is, of course, nothing in RDA about how to enter this in MARC/ISBD. So, you could turn to ISBD if you have a copy. Under 6.6.2 we are told When the title proper consists of a common title or a series title and a dependent title, the numbering of the common title or series title is omitted. An appropriate note or the collocation of the numbering of the series and subseries may be given in area 7 (note). And an example is: Geological research reports. Map series ; no. 3 Note: Numbering in the main series: 135. Then give series relationships for both the main series with the number and the subseries in separate 830. So: 490$aChamps. Essais 500$aNumbering in the main series: 988 830 0 $aChamps (Flammarion (Firm)) ;$v988 830 0 $aChamps (Flammarion (Firm)).$pEssais Both 830 will verify against the NACO Authority File. Deborah - - - - - - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. mailto:debo...@marcofquality.com debo...@marcofquality.com http://www.marcofquality.com www.marcofquality.com From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of John Hostage Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 5:10 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Main series subseries You could have a 490 for Champs essais or Champs. Essais and give the number from the spine in a quoted note. Then you could have two 830s: one for the main series with number and one for the subseries. -- John Hostage Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger // Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services // Langdell Hall 194 // Cambridge, MA 02138 host...@law.harvard.edu +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax) From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Dana Van Meter Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 15:46 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Main series subseries I have a book which is issued in both a main series: Champs (Flammarion (Firm)), which is numbered, and in a subseries: Champs (Flammarion (Firm)).|p Essais, which is unnumbered. My book is a paperback. The subseries appears at the bottom of the front cover of my book as Champs essais. The subseries also appears at the bottom of the t.p. as Champs essais. The main series does not appear in name by itself anywhere on the book, but the numbering for the main series does appear at the bottom of the spine. My question is, as Champs does not appear alone anywhere, but only appears with the subseries title Essais following it, it seems that I would need a second 490: 490 1_ [Champs] ;|v 988, with Champs in square brackets, as Champs never appears by itself. I hesitate to do a single 490-490 1_ Champs ;|v 988. |aEssais, as the numbering appears by itself on the spine, it does not appear alongside Champs essais. I know that in RDA one is only supposed to use [ ] when the information doesn't appear anywhere on the book, and is being taken from elsewhere. In my case Champs does appear, but it does not appear by itself with the numbering, it appears only followed by the subseries title. The way I see it, the name of the main series doesn't appear anywhere by itself, or in conjunction with both its (the main series) numbering and the subseries title, so I need to supply it in a separate 490 and in square brackets. I'm wondering if anyone would consider that the square brackets are unnecessary as Champs appears on the publication followed by the subseries title? Thanks very much for your advice. Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Correct use of relationship designators for corporate bodies
I think it would be better to get all thought of main entry out of mind when working with the RDs in I.2.1. There are two entirely separate determinations going on: the relationships between people/families/corporate bodies and works (chapter 19), and authorized access points for works (chapter 6). The creation of an AAP requires determining those relationships in chapter 19, and most of the names that appear in an AAP for a work are those of creators. But not ALL of the names in AAPs are creators (most notably defendants), and BY FAR not all of the names of creators become part the AAP for a work. We have become too used equating main entry and creator status, and they are not at all equivalent concepts. Even in some PCC training, there have been statements about MARC 100-111 standing for creator, which I bristle at. I have long objected to the placement of many of the guidelines in 19.2.1.1. What seems to be going on there is pretending that certain relationships have a creator status, in order that we can then put those particular names into the AAP for the work. We don't say that a defendant is a creator in order to make that person part of the AAP; instead, we explain in 6.29.1.4 that we use the name of the person or body prosecuted in the AAP. For laws governing a jurisdiction, we're told in 6.29.1.2 to use the name of the jurisdiction in the AAP; this makes some of the pretending in 19.2.1.1 unnecessary. It would just seem to make much more sense to have most of the considered to be creators guidelines be a part of chapter 6, where we make the determination of which names of persons/families/bodies need to be part of the AAP. Of course, it's all stated more *simply* the way it is now. On the one hand, it might require some more significant reorganization to put the guidelines in the more logical place; but on the other hand, it might help lessen some of the confusion between main entry and creator that we have. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Arakawa, Steven Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 4:28 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Correct use of relationship designators for corporate bodies A question on relationship designators and corporate bodies that perhaps someone with more expertise can explain. Appendix I, I.2. is divided into 2 sections. I.2.1. Relationship designators for creators and I.2.2. Relationship designators for other persons, families or corporate bodies associated with a work. My understanding has been that the RDs in I.2.1. are used for the creator with the primary relationship to the work, what we used to call main entry. In I.2.1., the definitions usually begin with the phrase A person, body, or family responsible for ... Corporate bodies are identified as the primary creator under a limited set of circumstances listed in 19.2.1., not all that different from the AACR2 rules for choice of entry. But not all of the RDs listed in I.2.1. fit into the 19.2.1. criteria. For example, 19.2.1 does not have a category for designers, yet corporate bodies are included in the definitions for architect and designer. I understand that we can have artists as corporate bodies and creators (19.2.1.1.1., category h, e.g. Gilbert and George) but I don't see the extension to architectural firms, choreographers, designers, photographers, or composers. In ordinary discourse, architectural firms are often credited with the design of buildings; it's just that the scope of the rules in 19.2.1. does not allow for such a relationship at the creator level. A photography archive can be responsible for a collection of photographs, but the relationship is administrative (19.2.1.1.1. category a), not the relationship of photographer to work. Can someone explain this? Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metada Services Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Main series subseries
Hi Kevin and others, I started writing this message before John Deborah's comments came in, but I'm going to include some further information because it seems that it might change Kevin's decision. Thanks everyone for your thoughts. I'm sorry I didn't include this information in my first message, as it could be useful. On the cover Champs is in red text and it's larger text, essais is in smaller black text in a different font and it appears somewhat in superscript next to Champs. It appears the same way on the t.p., however it's all in black lettering on the t.p. The subtitle essais follows directly after Champs, there is no space in between the two titles. Perhaps Champs being in red text that is larger is to represent/suggest the main series, even though it is immediately followed by essais. I guess I have to get used to the 500 with the numbering and the 830 combination, it seems so foreign to me, although it shouldn't, it was done with Republications in AACR2, although the 830 in question with republications is for the earlier publication. A 490 with Champs in square brackets also seemed odd to do in RDA, but subseries are always a mess due to layout issues by publishers, and I do fairly often have a similar situation to this where series titles appear separately from their numbering and transcribing becomes a bit tricky, so I thought I'd ask for advice sooner rather than later. I didn't know it was acceptable to have an 830 without a paired 490 in RDA, so it is good to know that that is an option. If my above further info. about the color of the text and the differing fonts and superscript text changes anyone's decision please let me know. Thanks everyone for your patience and help. Sincerely, Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu P.S. Thank you Deborah for the rule numbers. I'm wondering if in the 490 if I would do what John suggested, which is to do Champs essais, as it appears with the lower case e in essais on the book, and without a period, and then do it Champs (Flammarion (Firm)). Essais in the 830. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 4:56 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Main series subseries I fully agree with Dana's initial determination that the main series title should be recorded in brackets. As described below, the word Champs appearing on the resource seems to be clearly referring to the subseries title. I suppose it's possible that the two words could be presented in different ways graphically, giving the sense of the statement referring to the two separate entities: Champs and Essais. But if it reads as as single phrase Champs essais, then the main series is only implicit, and should be given in brackets. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Dana Van Meter Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 2:46 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Main series subseries I have a book which is issued in both a main series: Champs (Flammarion (Firm)), which is numbered, and in a subseries: Champs (Flammarion (Firm)).|p Essais, which is unnumbered. My book is a paperback. The subseries appears at the bottom of the front cover of my book as Champs essais. The subseries also appears at the bottom of the t.p. as Champs essais. The main series does not appear in name by itself anywhere on the book, but the numbering for the main series does appear at the bottom of the spine. My question is, as Champs does not appear alone anywhere, but only appears with the subseries title Essais following it, it seems that I would need a second 490: 490 1_ [Champs] ;|v 988, with Champs in square brackets, as Champs never appears by itself. I hesitate to do a single 490-490 1_ Champs ;|v 988. |aEssais, as the numbering appears by itself on the spine, it does not appear alongside Champs essais. I know that in RDA one is only supposed to use [ ] when the information doesn't appear anywhere on the book, and is being taken from elsewhere. In my case Champs does appear, but it does not appear by itself with the numbering, it appears only followed by the subseries title. The way I see it, the name of the main series doesn't appear anywhere by itself, or in conjunction with both its (the main series) numbering and the subseries title, so I need to supply it in a separate 490 and in square brackets. I'm wondering if anyone would consider that the square brackets are unnecessary as Champs appears on the publication
Re: [RDA-L] honouree vs. honoree
The list of designators is a controlled list, and as best as I can say, you must use the term there as found, with the British/Canadian spelling. The records that you've found that don't are, in my opinion, incorrect. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries On Mon, 5 Aug 2013, Dana Van Meter wrote: Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 14:33:59 -0400 From: Dana Van Meter vanme...@ias.edu Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] honouree vs. honoree Still seeking info. on this, especially now as I see that the MARC Code List for Relators (http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html) advises to use the spelling Honoree rather than Honouree. Anyone from LC or PCC know if there is anything in the works to create a PS stating to use the spelling Honoree for RDA? Thanks, Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Dana Van Meter Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 1:18 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] honouree vs. honoree I know there is an LC-PCC PS stating to use the American spelling of color, but don't see any such LC-PCC PS for the spelling of the relationship designator honouree. Doing a keyword search for rda and honouree in a personal name yields 282 hits in LC's catalog, but doing the same search with honoree yields 24 hits. Most of the 24 records have an 040 with only DLC in it, however many of these are In Process. We get a lot of Feschrifts at my institution, so while it appears honouree is the predominately used spelling (and indeed the spelling in RDA), I'm just wondering if anyone knows if LC or PCC has looked at the spelling of honouree and if there might be a PS in the future saying to use the spelling honoree. Thanks, Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~
Re: [RDA-L] Main series subseries
Based on typography, I think you've made a perfectly fine case for doing 490 1 Champs ; $v [no.]. $a Essais ; $v [no.] No bracketing needed for the main series. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries On Mon, 5 Aug 2013, Dana Van Meter wrote: Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 18:18:42 -0400 From: Dana Van Meter vanme...@ias.edu Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Main series subseries Hi Kevin and others, I started writing this message before John Deborah's comments came in, but I'm going to include some further information because it seems that it might change Kevin's decision. Thanks everyone for your thoughts. I'm sorry I didn't include this information in my first message, as it could be useful. On the cover Champs is in red text and it's larger text, essais is in smaller black text in a different font and it appears somewhat in superscript next to Champs. It appears the same way on the t.p., however it's all in black lettering on the t.p. The subtitle essais follows directly after Champs, there is no space in between the two titles. Perhaps Champs being in red text that is larger is to represent/suggest the main series, even though it is immediately followed by essais. I guess I have to get used to the 500 with the numbering and the 830 combination, it seems so foreign to me, although it shouldn't, it was done with Republications in AACR2, although the 830 in question with republications is for the earlier publication. A 490 with Champs in square brackets also seemed odd to do in RDA, but subseries are always a mess due to layout issues by publishers, and I do fairly often have a similar situation to this where series titles appear separately from their numbering and transcribing becomes a bit tricky, so I thought I'd ask for advice sooner rather than later. I didn't know it was acceptable to have an 830 without a paired 490 in RDA, so it is good to know that that is an option. If my above further info. about the color of the text and the differing fonts and superscript text changes anyone's decision please let me know. Thanks everyone for your patience and help. Sincerely, Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu P.S. Thank you Deborah for the rule numbers. I'm wondering if in the 490 if I would do what John suggested, which is to do Champs essais, as it appears with the lower case e in essais on the book, and without a period, and then do it Champs (Flammarion (Firm)). Essais in the 830. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 4:56 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Main series subseries I fully agree with Dana's initial determination that the main series title should be recorded in brackets. As described below, the word Champs appearing on the resource seems to be clearly referring to the subseries title. I suppose it's possible that the two words could be presented in different ways graphically, giving the sense of the statement referring to the two separate entities: Champs and Essais. But if it reads as as single phrase Champs essais, then the main series is only implicit, and should be given in brackets. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Dana Van Meter Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 2:46 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Main series subseries I have a book which is issued in both a main series: Champs (Flammarion (Firm)), which is numbered, and in a subseries: Champs (Flammarion (Firm)).|p Essais, which is unnumbered. My book is a paperback. The subseries appears at the bottom of the front cover of my book as Champs essais. The subseries also appears at the bottom of the t.p. as Champs essais. The main series does not appear in name by itself anywhere on the book, but the numbering for the main series does appear at the bottom of the spine. My question is, as Champs does not appear alone anywhere, but only appears with the subseries title Essais following it, it seems that I would need a second 490: 490 1_ [Champs] ;|v 988, with Champs in square brackets, as Champs never appears by itself. I hesitate to do a single 490-490 1_ Champs ;|v 988. |aEssais, as the numbering appears by itself on the spine, it does not appear alongside Champs essais. I know that in RDA one is only supposed to use [ ] when the information doesn't appear anywhere on the book, and is being taken from
[RDA-L] JSC website: new and replacement document
I've just posted the following document for the November 2013 JSC meeting on the public web site (http://www.rda-jsc.org/workingnew.html): -- 6JSC/ALA rep/6 (Note on manifestation and item) I've replaced the pdf for 6JSC/Music/3 with a different file; the number of pages is different although the content is the same. The vertical marks for alternatives, exceptions, etc., are in the correct positions in the replacement file. Regards, Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary
Re: [RDA-L] Main series subseries
Dana Van Meter posted:
I have a book which is issued in both a main series: Champs (Flammarion
(Firm)), which is numbered, and in a subseries: Champs (Flammarion
(Firm)).|p Essais, which is unnumbered.
It was my understanding that the numbering applied to the main series
only, so it should not be a part of a 490/500/830 for the subseries.
Thank you for the additional tyopgraphy information. It confirms my
earlier advice to not use brackets for the 490 main series title.
It seems to me that for patron convenience, the main series with
number to collocate the issues is the most important 490/830.
Since the main and subseries would file next to each other, I
question the value of a 490/830 for the subseries. Adding it to the
first 490/830 as a $p would upset the collocation of the main series,
and imply that the number applied to the subseries.
Often, particularly for legal series, we move a subseries to a
separate 490/830.
I would consider using only the numbered series in 490/830 (without
brackets), and the unnumbered subseries in a quoted 500 note. It
contains no subject word. While it is possible to base an 830 on a
500, I would not. If you really want to trace the subseries, a second
490/830 would be the way to go.
As I said earlier, you would need to check your OPAC to see what has
been done with other issues in the series.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
