Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records?
Mac, et al.,
I certainly agree that the changes will be more dramatic, and to be honest, in
some cases not welcome (to my mind, at least). What also has changed since
AACR2 came along is the number of staff members we have supporting the
cataloging, and the willingness of our administration to devote resources to
things like retrospective conversion of existing bibliographic records. In a
world of batch-loading recordsets, outsourcing, and Google Books, it is just
not a priority for the people who make these decisions. Let me emphasize this
is not a change I am overjoyed with, but it is what it is.
That said, I am certainly interested in whatever automated conversion options
might be available.
--Ben
From: J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 4:01 PM
To: Benjamin A Abrahamse
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records?
Benjamin accurately said:
>I would just point out that, for most if not all of us, a hybrid catalog is=
> already the norm. For example, plenty of pre-AACR2 records persist (parti=
>cularly for serials) in our catalog as in LC's and the like.
The differences between the red and green books, AACR1, and AACR2
records were not as dramatic as those between AACR and RDA. I doubt
if many patrons notice 2d vs., 2nd, ill. vs. illus., nor ISBD
punctuation. Spelled out abbreviations is a greater change. There
were no main entry changes for monographs as dramatic as the dropping
of the rule of three.
For me, the most difficult earlier change was entry for serials and
series. I had spent years with "Journal of chemistry" being entered
under title, and "Journal of the Chemical Association" being entered
under the association. But that pales in comparison with the end of
GMD, unjustified added entries, no standard for number of authors to
be transcribed or traced, no defined standard for title
capitalization, no indication of typos in situ, imprint place
jurisdiction not being supplied if lacking, and *long* phrases
replacing ISBD inclusions.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records?
J. McRee Elrod wrote: There were no main entry changes for monographs as dramatic as the dropping of the rule of three. For me, the most difficult earlier change was entry for serials and series. I had spent years with "Journal of chemistry" being entered under title, and "Journal of the Chemical Association" being entered under the association. Sorry Mac, but I would disagree. The changes incumbent with respect to: - form of entry for pseudonyms, - form of entry of corporate bodies, - editors as main entry, and - corporate bodies as main entry were substantial. I am blessedly too young to have been involved in the actual changes instituted by AACR2, but can still see the after effects in the remnants of the card catalogs I have seen. And I have run across the literature from that era regarding the formidable questions surrounding what to do with card catalogs as that divide was crossed. The rule of three is an intellectual and pragmatic construct on the part of catalogers that I maintain very few users care about or for. I certainly would never have noticed it in the years preceding my cataloging education. If I had, I would likely have wondered, why isn't the author in the same position as the authors of other books?, why aren't all the authors listed? (And yes, I would have made those observations eventually. I still remember the distrust I felt over seeing a full statement of responsibility on new cards in the catalog -- at that point, I far preferred the truncated versions rendered by earlier codes, which better matched the citation format I needed for bibliographies. As a second career, it took a while to get to cataloging, but obviously the die was cast early if I was making those kinds of distinctions.) John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian Schaffer Library, Union College 807 Union St. Schenectady NY 12308 518-388-6623 mye...@union.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records?
Agreed [though I'm not sure that's the specific issue Mac was addressing] -- the Task Force on the Rule of 3 final report (2001) reads: The "rule of three" was certainly not based on the functions of the catalog as stated in the basic principles cited above [the Paris Principles, etc.]; when access is deliberately left out of the record for a given author, then the catalog will not be an "efficient instrument" to find out "which works by a particular author ... are in the library"; the user will not find all of "the works for which a given person or corporate body is responsible" which the library owns or has access to. On the contrary, the "rule of three" is inconsistent with some of the most fundamental principles of cataloging theory. /Jennifer Erica Sweda Social Sciences Cataloging Librarian Univ. of Pennsylvania Libraries and Member of the Task Force on the Rule of 3 / On 5/19/2011 10:16 AM, Myers, John F. wrote: The rule of three is an intellectual and pragmatic construct on the part of catalogers that I maintain very few users care about or for. I certainly would never have noticed it in the years preceding my cataloging education. If I had, I would likely have wondered, why isn't the author in the same position as the authors of other books?, why aren't all the authors listed? John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian Schaffer Library, Union College 807 Union St. Schenectady NY 12308 518-388-6623 mye...@union.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Changes between rules (was: Plans for Existing Bib Records)
John Myers listed earlier rule changes:
>The changes incumbent with respect to:
1. >- form of entry for pseudonyms,
2. >- form of entry of corporate bodies,
3. >- editors as main entry, and
4. >- corporate bodies as main entry
>were substantial.
1. Yes, moving Clemens to Twain was a major one, and very welcome. I
hope RDA brings us Chilton and Dalai Lama.
2. Changes in form of entry for corporate bodies was largely unnoticed
in my experience. I suspect the removal of O.T. and N.T. will be as
little noticed.
3. The departure from scholarly practice in not using compilers as
main entry *was* noticed, and unfortunately, RDA continues that
mistake.
4. The reduction in corporate main entries went largely unnoticed as
well, with the exception of the inconsistency for law reform
commission reports. Supposedly, main entry remained by the commission
only if official recommendations were included, but changed to
personal author or title if informational. Inconsistencies resulted
in legal collections, due to failure to grasp this distinction. Most
felt law reform commission reports were law reform commission reports.
>The rule of three is an intellectual and pragmatic construct on the
>part >of catalogers that I maintain very few users care about or for.
You may be right. A former 700 would now becomes 100, as with the
reverse change in corporate main entry you noted, a 110 became a 710.
The change in Cutter was all most noticed. The major problem that
110/710 change raised was when there was no 245/$c, and 260$b said
something like "The Office", due to Lubetsky's dislike of redundancy.
(The deconstruction if the ISBD display in many OPACs makes Lubetsky's
concern moot, as it does the silly bit about a full stop introducing
the following field.)
Through all these changes, however, titles were in sentence
capitalization. (Have you noticed that in pre green book records,
corporate bodies in imprints were sentence capitalization?)
I suspect one thing which *will* be noticed is that there would be a
mix of capitalizations in hitlists. Apart from the difficulty in
reading (which has been noted on list), wouldn't patrons expect that
all caps difference to *mean* something, such as on order, missing,
electronic, or on reserve? It does not even necessarily indicate all
caps in the resource. Reference librarians should have fun explaining
that one. We will not accept it.
I suspect, due to unjustified added entries, patrons will notice
getting a record with no indication in the record of why that search
key produced that record. (Searches on the Web have the found phrase
highlighted). This ranks as a greater change than I have ever
experienced, and a major departure from basic cataloguing best
practice. Margaret Mann would be appalled. We will not accept that
either.
Mac (who began with the green and red books)
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Changes between rules (was: Plans for Existing Bib Records)
On my planet, the change in corporate body entry was quite noticeable. It took
place in a predominant context of card catalogs, prior to large-scale
retrospective conversion, and required users to look under two
headings--typically widely separated in the catalog--for many, many corporate
bodies.
To use just one example:
Michigan. University (and all its subordinate bodies)
For materials cataloged after 1980, search under:
University of Michigan (unless the subordinate body had a distinctive name, in
which case search also under the name)
This change was major, and its implications were sufficiently large to argue
first for superimposition (the decision not to apply AACR1 to existing headings
or new headings based on existing headings [e.g., subordinate bodies]) and then
to the one-year delay in implementing AACR2.
Ed Jones
National University (San Diego, California)
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 8:33 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Changes between rules (was: Plans for Existing Bib Records)
John Myers listed earlier rule changes:
>The changes incumbent with respect to:
1. >- form of entry for pseudonyms,
2. >- form of entry of corporate bodies,
3. >- editors as main entry, and
4. >- corporate bodies as main entry
>were substantial.
1. Yes, moving Clemens to Twain was a major one, and very welcome. I
hope RDA brings us Chilton and Dalai Lama.
2. Changes in form of entry for corporate bodies was largely unnoticed
in my experience. I suspect the removal of O.T. and N.T. will be as
little noticed.
3. The departure from scholarly practice in not using compilers as
main entry *was* noticed, and unfortunately, RDA continues that
mistake.
4. The reduction in corporate main entries went largely unnoticed as
well, with the exception of the inconsistency for law reform
commission reports. Supposedly, main entry remained by the commission
only if official recommendations were included, but changed to
personal author or title if informational. Inconsistencies resulted
in legal collections, due to failure to grasp this distinction. Most
felt law reform commission reports were law reform commission reports.
>The rule of three is an intellectual and pragmatic construct on the
>part >of catalogers that I maintain very few users care about or for.
You may be right. A former 700 would now becomes 100, as with the
reverse change in corporate main entry you noted, a 110 became a 710.
The change in Cutter was all most noticed. The major problem that
110/710 change raised was when there was no 245/$c, and 260$b said
something like "The Office", due to Lubetsky's dislike of redundancy.
(The deconstruction if the ISBD display in many OPACs makes Lubetsky's
concern moot, as it does the silly bit about a full stop introducing
the following field.)
Through all these changes, however, titles were in sentence
capitalization. (Have you noticed that in pre green book records,
corporate bodies in imprints were sentence capitalization?)
I suspect one thing which *will* be noticed is that there would be a
mix of capitalizations in hitlists. Apart from the difficulty in
reading (which has been noted on list), wouldn't patrons expect that
all caps difference to *mean* something, such as on order, missing,
electronic, or on reserve? It does not even necessarily indicate all
caps in the resource. Reference librarians should have fun explaining
that one. We will not accept it.
I suspect, due to unjustified added entries, patrons will notice
getting a record with no indication in the record of why that search
key produced that record. (Searches on the Web have the found phrase
highlighted). This ranks as a greater change than I have ever
experienced, and a major departure from basic cataloguing best
practice. Margaret Mann would be appalled. We will not accept that
either.
Mac (who began with the green and red books)
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records?
Jennifer Sweda quoted the Paris Principles:
>... when access is deliberately left out of the record
>for a given author, then the catalog will not be an "efficient
>instrument" to find out "which works by a particular author ...
RDA requires only the first author and illustrators of children's
books as author mainn or added entry. You can have main entry under
first author, a statement of resonsibility giving that author plus
"[and others]", with no author added entries. There needs to be
a minimum standard number.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records?
On 05/19/2011 07:22 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote: Jennifer Sweda quoted the Paris Principles: ... when access is deliberately left out of the record for a given author, then the catalog will not be an "efficient instrument" to find out "which works by a particular author ... RDA requires only the first author and illustrators of children's books as author mainn or added entry. You can have main entry under first author, a statement of resonsibility giving that author plus "[and others]", with no author added entries. There needs to be a minimum standard number. Absolutely! The standard as it reads now is that all you have to do to follow the standard is to trace main entry, translators and illustrators of children's books (which is really weird!). Everybody seems to assume that this allows the catalogers suddenly to start tracing *additional* headings. Why? It is simply unrealistic to think people will do more than the minimum--especially in this economic climate. Why would anybody believe it would increase, except in really exceptional cases of projects with special funding, or the cataloger just felt like doing it because he or she liked the resource and maybe the bosses won't notice? What are the cataloging managers going to decide? Will they just say, "Do whatever you feel like!" There will have to be at least some local policies on specific materials, such as dictionaries and encyclopedias, wikis, serials and other resources. Also relevant to the discussion are the scandals in the authorship of scientific materials published by "too many people" http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/19/science/after-two-scandals-physics-group-expands-ethics-guidelines.html. Here are some articles I have found quickly, "Ethical Abuses in the Authorship of Scientific Papers" http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbent/v51n1/01.pdf and guidelines for biomedical journals http://www.icmje.org/ethical_1author.html. Provide a minimum number of authors. It's clear and simple. Otherwise, each institution will have to decide on its own. It makes as much sense to standardize it as to let it all go down to one author, which it probably will, unless catalogers just continue the practices as they are now. -- James L. Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
