Re: [RDA-L] Bibliography and index

[Mark Ehlert]

J. McRee Elrod  wrote:
> RDA 7.16.1.1 (earlier draft) shows the examples:
>
> Includes index.
> Bibliography: pages 859-910.
>
> There is no indication of wording to use for footnotes, still "Includes
> bibliographic references"?

Wording isn't prescribed, nor is any reference(!) made to approaches
between recording footnotes and recording bibliographies.  Judging
from RDA's very general guidelines, such distinctions may be made at
the local or community level.


> Will most of us be willing to give up the handy:
>
> 504  $aIncludes bibliograhic references (p. 859-910) and index.?

Doubtful.


> But isn't that an LC practice as opposed to AACR2?  Will they continue
> that practice?

Quoting from the LCPS 7.16.1.3 (essentially unchanged from LCRI 2.7B18):

 BIBLIOGRAPHY NOTE
 If a publication contains bibliographical citations in any form,
generally use the following note:

   504 ## $a Includes bibliographical references.

 If there is a single bibliography, add the foliation/pagination to the note.

   504 ## $a Includes bibliographical references (pages 310-325).

 With respect to bibliographic citations and bibliographies, interpret
the phrase "bibliographical references" to include all kinds of
resources, including electronic resources; do not give any special
treatment to, or provide special mention of, the latter if using this
general bibliographical reference note.

 INDEXES
 If the publication contains an index to its own contents, use one of
the following notes:

   500 ## $a Includes index.
   500 ## $a Includes indexes.

 The bibliography note and the index note may be combined.

   504 ## $a Includes bibliographical references and index.


> Doesn't spelling out pages here depart from practice for citations in the
> scholarly community?

Probably, judging from the few popular style manual instructions I know.


> This would presumably return "Includes index" to 500?

You mean when also recording the presence of a bibliography?  RDA
couldn't care less if the bibliography and index notes are in the same
field or not, just as long as they fall under the umbrella of "7.16
Supplementary Content."  Outside of LC's interpretation, MARC
practice, as you know, allows for encoding the combination in a single
field: "When the presence of an index is also mentioned in a
bibliography note, field 504 is used"
().

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert                 Minitex
Coordinator                    University of Minnesota
Bibliographic & Technical      15 Andersen Library
  Services (BATS) Unit        222 21st Avenue South
Phone: 612-624-0805            Minneapolis, MN 55455-0439

Re: [RDA-L] Bibliography and index

[Gene Fieg]

I was a reader for RDA and I remember reading the example you cite.

LC used "Includes bibliographical references to cover all types of
citations.  I remember when I asked a cataloger back in the 80s about using
the term "bibliography" for endnotes; to my mind then they were not
bibliographies.

We do include the pagination of bibliographical references to give
researchers an idea of how many citations there are and how profitable it
would be for them to to look at those bibliographical references.

On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 10:44 AM, J. McRee Elrod  wrote:

> RDA 7.16.1.1 (earlier draft) shows the examples:
>
> Includes index.
> Bibliography: pages 859-910.
>
> There is no indication of wording to use for footnotes, still "Includes
> bibliographic references"?
>
> Will most of us be willing to give up the handy:
>
> 504  $aIncludes bibliograhic references (p. 859-910) and index.?
>
> But isn't that an LC practice as opposed to AACR2?  Will they continue
> that practice?
>
> Doesn't spelling out pages here depart from practice for citations in the
> scholarly community?
>
> This would presumably return "Includes index" to 500?
>
>
>   __   __   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

[RDA-L] Bibliography and index

[J. McRee Elrod]

RDA 7.16.1.1 (earlier draft) shows the examples:

Includes index. 
Bibliography: pages 859-910.

There is no indication of wording to use for footnotes, still "Includes
bibliographic references"?

Will most of us be willing to give up the handy:
 
504  $aIncludes bibliograhic references (p. 859-910) and index.?
  
But isn't that an LC practice as opposed to AACR2?  Will they continue
that practice?

Doesn't spelling out pages here depart from practice for citations in the 
scholarly community?

This would presumably return "Includes index" to 500?


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] Time and effort

[Jonathan Rochkind]

That's pretty neat stuff Jim.  My Umlaut software approaches from a different 
direction, taking known items (rather than searches) and trying to find 
supplementary in other specific databases; for now mostly focusing on finding 
electronic full-text or searching (which is useful even without full text), but 
also including some actual supplementary info like 'cited by' information for 
journal articles. More sources of supplementary info could be found later. 

Here are some examples. Oh, it's also worth noting that what makes it more 
feasible to do this kind of thing is the numeric identifiers in our records: 
ISBN, ISSN, LCCN, OCLCnum.  And supplementary databases that use those same 
identifiers -- Google Books even has LCCN and OCLCnum in it, for matching. 
Every time somebody cataloging workflow removes useful identifiers like this 
from the record because "we don't need them", or 'our system can't handle 
them', it saddens me.  Likewise, when actual offiial cataloging 'standards' put 
such useful identifiers in uselessly ambiguous places (like sticking valid 
alternate-version ISBNs or ISSNs in a $z subfield!). 

http://findit.library.jhu.edu/go/2133277
http://findit.library.jhu.edu/go/2133279
http://findit.library.jhu.edu/go/2133280


From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Weinheimer Jim 
[j.weinhei...@aur.edu]
Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2010 8:58 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Time and effort

Hal Cain wrote:

Meanwhile the most vexing problem I encounter is not the structure of
the data and how it's encoded, it's the endless duplicate records in
the databases -- and in OCLC's case the non-AACR2 foreign records
which often are the only ones for materials I'm dealing with -- and I
can assure Jim, that those I've already entered are beginning to
attract requests from users.  We must be doing something right.

[and]

I wonder how documents figure in the economy of Jim's library?  Not
every information need can be met from documentary resources, but if
the documents don't any longer matter then what's the purpose of the
library to make it different from any other kind of instructional
support?


I guess I am coming off as anti-book, or at least anti-physical resource and 
wildly pro-virtual anything. Actually, I like to think that I am 
"pro-everything", or at least, that I do not want to prefer one format over any 
other. Anybody who comes to my apartment, filled to bursting with books of all 
sorts, with print outs, etc. immediately sees that I am anything except 
anti-book, and I openly declare myself to be an addict.

But, when I, or one of my patrons, or anyone, is reading a book, they need to 
be aware of all sorts of other information around that book. There has always 
been this information, and some of it has been organized, but much more has not 
been, or at least it has been so difficult to find and access that it hasn't 
been worth the trouble.

Here is a concrete example of what I mean: Here is a record for a book "A war 
like no other : how the Athenians and Spartans fought the Peloponnesian War / 
Victor Davis Hanson." http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/57211303. In this record, we 
can see links from his heading and the subject to other records that are *only 
within the OCLC database*. That is useful to *those who understand,* but it 
turns out that this fact, which seems very simple, is not understood by many 
people.

But avoiding this difficulty for the moment, these links are far from what is 
out there that people "want or need". One very important resource is a video of 
a lecture he gave about his book that can be watched at 
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/189156-1. But there are book reviews, blog 
entries by academics, and it goes on and on and on. The moment someone enters 
into this microcosm of materials surrounding this book, the interested "reader" 
(for lack of any other word) suddenly steps into a far different world of 
debates, differences of opinion, differences of interpretation, subtleties 
etc., which is incomparably more interesting than the single book he or she 
happens to be holding, where everything is more or less cut and dried. The part 
that goes beyond the book itself is very human, where the authors have to 
answer difficult questions, explain further, change their ideas, etc., and the 
physical book suddenly appears much more limiting and sterile.

Such debates and this "context beyond the item you are holding" has always 
existed, but it was exceptionally difficult to enter into and took a great deal 
of time and money--in fact, so much time and money that people needed to devote 
almost their entire careers to enter it. For example, you could see and 
participate in a debate on such a topic only physically at conferences, and 
this meant, for all practical purposes, that you had to be a professor with 
peo

Re: [RDA-L] Time and effort

[Weinheimer Jim]

Hal Cain wrote:

Meanwhile the most vexing problem I encounter is not the structure of
the data and how it's encoded, it's the endless duplicate records in
the databases -- and in OCLC's case the non-AACR2 foreign records
which often are the only ones for materials I'm dealing with -- and I
can assure Jim, that those I've already entered are beginning to
attract requests from users.  We must be doing something right.

[and]

I wonder how documents figure in the economy of Jim's library?  Not
every information need can be met from documentary resources, but if
the documents don't any longer matter then what's the purpose of the
library to make it different from any other kind of instructional
support?


I guess I am coming off as anti-book, or at least anti-physical resource and 
wildly pro-virtual anything. Actually, I like to think that I am 
"pro-everything", or at least, that I do not want to prefer one format over any 
other. Anybody who comes to my apartment, filled to bursting with books of all 
sorts, with print outs, etc. immediately sees that I am anything except 
anti-book, and I openly declare myself to be an addict.

But, when I, or one of my patrons, or anyone, is reading a book, they need to 
be aware of all sorts of other information around that book. There has always 
been this information, and some of it has been organized, but much more has not 
been, or at least it has been so difficult to find and access that it hasn't 
been worth the trouble. 

Here is a concrete example of what I mean: Here is a record for a book "A war 
like no other : how the Athenians and Spartans fought the Peloponnesian War / 
Victor Davis Hanson." http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/57211303. In this record, we 
can see links from his heading and the subject to other records that are *only 
within the OCLC database*. That is useful to *those who understand,* but it 
turns out that this fact, which seems very simple, is not understood by many 
people. 

But avoiding this difficulty for the moment, these links are far from what is 
out there that people "want or need". One very important resource is a video of 
a lecture he gave about his book that can be watched at 
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/189156-1. But there are book reviews, blog 
entries by academics, and it goes on and on and on. The moment someone enters 
into this microcosm of materials surrounding this book, the interested "reader" 
(for lack of any other word) suddenly steps into a far different world of 
debates, differences of opinion, differences of interpretation, subtleties 
etc., which is incomparably more interesting than the single book he or she 
happens to be holding, where everything is more or less cut and dried. The part 
that goes beyond the book itself is very human, where the authors have to 
answer difficult questions, explain further, change their ideas, etc., and the 
physical book suddenly appears much more limiting and sterile.

Such debates and this "context beyond the item you are holding" has always 
existed, but it was exceptionally difficult to enter into and took a great deal 
of time and money--in fact, so much time and money that people needed to devote 
almost their entire careers to enter it. For example, you could see and 
participate in a debate on such a topic only physically at conferences, and 
this meant, for all practical purposes, that you had to be a professor with 
people paying your expenses. As a consequence, many, many people who may have 
been very interested, were left out completely, but today it is possible for 
each person to enter such microcosms, from the Oxford don to the high school 
student in Ghana.  

Can libraries help create these "little microcosms" for people to enter? No, 
not if they insist on doing it alone because it is obviously far too much work. 
But I think we can become a very, very important part of something like this 
that may make a substantive positive difference in people's lives and minds. 

How can we do it? There are undoubtedly many ways and at the risk of 
self-advertisement, I will share something I have built. I have tried in my own 
small way to do something like this through my "Extend Search". To see it in 
action, look at the record in my catalog at 
http://www.galileo.aur.it/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?bib=1249, and then select 
or highlight the title information and author in the record and a small box 
will pop-up that says Extend Search. Click on that box and you will see a new 
window that has taken your search and you can now apply it to different groups 
of databases I have selected.

Click on "Videos" and you will see some explanation, and continue with the 
search, and your search will be done automatically in Google Video, Internet 
Archive and other places, and you can try some of those. When you click on 
"Educational Videos", you will go to yet another page, where you can click on 
various projects, TED, Fora.tv, etc., and when you click on BookTV, a men

Re: [RDA-L] Time and effort

[hecain]

Quoting Weinheimer Jim :

It is my own opinion that whatever we produce cannot ever be  
"Enough" for what people want and need from information. (Thanks for  
putting it that way, June!) Those ways of thinking about the catalog  
are over, and I think, forever. While this may be sad and  
regrettable, I think it is part of growing up and it is just as well  
if those ideas are buried.


Nevertheless, most of us remain in  the struggle to record what we are  
providing for our users.


It seems to me that it is all very well to explore ideas about future  
data structures and how they might support services that would meet  
our users' needs.


But my real-life difficulty in serving the users of the library I  
worked for (and still help out from time to time, now I'm retired) is  
to put records for new and old (unrecorded) resources into the  
catalogue, consistently with the resources already recorded there, so  
that people can find what we have, and using the facilities on the  
catalogue navigate from one to another to get the best match between  
what they're looking for and what we can provide.  Our catalogue lacks  
bells and whistles, but it serves the purposes of both staff and  
end-users, not to mention the groups who are our proprietors,  
reasonably well.  The changes RDA (if implemented!) will bring will  
make at least a superficial difference, but probably not much more  
than that.  If we want to pursue FRBR-type clustering (beyond the  
linking fields and hyperlinked headings of our present cataloguing)  
then we can turn to Open Worldcat and/or to the National Library of  
Australia's Trove service (which piggypacks on the Libraries Australia  
database and clusters records by their distinctive characteristics).


Meanwhile the most vexing problem I encounter is not the structure of  
the data and how it's encoded, it's the endless duplicate records in  
the databases -- and in OCLC's case the non-AACR2 foreign records  
which often are the only ones for materials I'm dealing with -- and I  
can assure Jim, that those I've already entered are beginning to  
attract requests from users.  We must be doing something right.


I confess to a bias: I tend to treat the tangible printed document as  
the norm; however I recognize that I belong to an age that's passing.   
However it affects my outlook on the purposes of libraries and the  
role of the catalogue as a key to resources presented to library  
users.  As I see it, libraries are primarily about *documents*: things  
that can be described, summarized, organized, stored and retrieves --  
and, most importantly, used and cited and put away and then called up  
again for people to verify what they tell us.  Moreover, nobody else  
in the information universe is going to keep track of documents so  
that another person can retrieve what another author used as a  
resource in creating what she or he wrote.  I don't yet see how linked  
data structures contribute to this endeavour, and it seems to me quite  
possible that they may undermine the recording of documents in terms  
of distinguishing characteristics, responsibility and associations,  
content, likeness and difference.


Libraries are of course in the information game.  But unless they pay  
attention first to the documents that contain the information, there  
is nothing at all to distinguish them from any other kind of  
information agency and we might as will turn the whole enterprise over  
to the information scientists.


I wonder how documents figure in the economy of Jim's library?  Not  
every information need can be met from documentary resources, but if  
the documents don't any longer matter then what's the purpose of the  
library to make it different from any other kind of instructional  
support?


Hal Cain
Melbourne, Australia
hec...@dml.vic.edu.au


This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

Re: [RDA-L] Time and effort

[Weinheimer Jim]

Abbas, June M. wrote:

But, in light of all of these insightful discussions, is linked data even going 
far enough? Is it really providing users with useful representations of the 
objects in our collections? Is MARC + FRBR (encoded by whichever standard the 
community settles for) BUT released from relational database structure 
constraints = Enough? Are we yet capturing attributes that our users search 
for? that they naturally use to organize their own collections (see Flickr, 
YouTube, LibraryThing Common Knowledge project)? I humbly submit, NO. Throw in 
years of user behavior research with an emphasis on the newer research on Web 
2.0 and libraries and user-centered design with these users in mind, and what 
do we have?


These are some excellent and forward-looking questions. I completely agree with 
Karen Coyle about the primary importance of linked data. For a nice overview of 
at least a lot of my own views, you can see the blog posting of a long thread 
at NGC4LIB at 
http://celeripedean.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/ngc4lib-on-tim-berners-lee-and-the-semantic-web/,
 but it is more important for everyone to watch the interview with Tim 
Berners-Lee at 
http://fora.tv/2009/10/08/Next_Decade_Technologies_Changing_the_World-Tim-Berners-Lee,
 which I found inspiring and demonstrates some of the areas where I believe we 
could participate as very important players. For some other, very good ideas, 
see Eric Morgan's post on NGC4LIB at 
https://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=NGC4LIB;mvatdw;20100831080151-0400 and 
the thread (which does get technical in some places).

It is my own opinion that whatever we produce cannot ever be "Enough" for what 
people want and need from information. (Thanks for putting it that way, June!) 
Those ways of thinking about the catalog are over, and I think, forever. While 
this may be sad and regrettable, I think it is part of growing up and it is 
just as well if those ideas are buried.

Once that is accepted, then we can figure out the best ways of fitting into the 
new structures, and provide the very best that we can, and then link into the 
best of the other "things" that others out there are producing, and will 
continue to produce; then the synergisms produced *cooperatively* can be 
something completely and totally new. When the idea of linked data is really 
understood, you realize that the sky really is the limit, and while some things 
produced may not be so positive in some people's opinion, other things will pop 
up that will be beyond anything we can imagine right now, and can quite 
literally blow everyone's minds, as Berners-Lee described so well. 

This is an idea of the future that I would be proud to be a part of.

James L. Weinheimer  j.weinhei...@aur.edu
Director of Library and Information Services
The American University of Rome
Rome, Italy
First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/