Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records?

[Mark Ehlert]

Mac Elrod wrote:
> RDA requires only the first author and illustrators of children's
> books as author mainn or added entry.

First author as baseline comes from RDA; illustrators of children's
books as required comes from the LCPS.  If we're pointing fingers,
let's point them in the right direction.

-- 
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] RDA's too low baseline (was: Plans for Existing Bib Records?)

[J. McRee Elrod]

Mark Ehlert said:

>First author as baseline comes from RDA; illustrators of children's
>books as required comes from the LCPS. 
 
Since RDA's baseline is *far* too low, perhaps LCPS should have a
minimum number of authors to be transcribed and traced if present
(three suggests itself for continuity), as well as a requirement for
correlation between transcription and tracing of authors.  RDA allows
both transcription without tracing, and tracing without transcription.
!@#$%^&*!

Earlier we were speaking of the additional notes required by RDA
(typos, missing jurisdictions).  I forgot Margaret Mann's title
clarification, e.g., "Fire [poems]".  Yet another note?

For me and my house, we are at least transcribing and tracing up to
three authors if present,  and supplying missing jurisdictions in
situ.  260 $aLondon, as opposed to 260 $aLondon [Ontario], does
patrons a very real disservice.  Notes are rarely read.

We are still considering typos and title clarifications.  RDA
represents a massive step backward in meeting the needs of our
clients.  At this point FRBR is pie in the sky, and basic description
is being gutted.

RDA baseline records should *not* be coded as LDR/17 = blank for full
records.  Perhaps PCC could specify a higher standard for full record
coding?


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

Re: [RDA-L] Indexing 336-384

[hecain]

Quoting "Cheryl L. Conway" :


The University Libraries is exploring re-indexing our online catalog.

We are wondering:

Are  libraries planning to index RDA (336-384) fields within their  
library catalogs?


I assume you means what I would describe as changing the mapping of  
MARC fields and subfields in specifying what particular indexes cover,  
and possibly setting up some new indexes.


I haven't heard of any library undertaking this yet simply on account  
of RDA.  Those I know that are considering the possibility have done  
no more than sketch possibilities, but seem to intend to wait until  
RDA implementation, and particularly LC and PCC decisions, are made.   
Until then, apart from a few libraries continuing to deploy RDA with  
(I presume) the LC RDA test specifications -- the University of  
Chicago Library is a notable one -- most people seem to be in a state  
of "wait and see".


In the system I know best (SirsiDynix's Horizon) it's possible for  
authorized staff to conduct SQL searches at database level.  That  
would suffice for investigating what specific RDA content has entered  
the system and help show whether separate indexes are called for.  I  
assume most other systems have some similar capability, if they don't  
provide a keyword search targeted to specific MARC fields (as, for  
example, LC's Voyager system does).


Hal Cain, willing to wait and see
Melbourne, Australia
hec...@dml.vic.edu.au


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

Re: [RDA-L] Indexing 336-384

[J. McRee Elrod]

This is what we suggest to our clients:

Mapping for OPAC display sometimes needs to be adjusted locally.  Some
mapping supplied by vendors has problems.

Following are fields to check for.  Unless otherwise noted, map to the
named OPAC field given beside the field number.  Where no subfields are
given, map all.  There are no standards for these labels, so the names in
software systems vary.  Some software will allow you to change the
names.

A strong case can be made for suppressing the labels, and displaying
the bibliographic information in ISBD order with ISBD punctuation,
like the unit catalogue card.  This creates more space for
bibliographic information. The labels are often misleading.  A 100
labeled Author may be a composer, or a criminal defendant, for
example.  A 700 labeled Added author may be a translator, an
illustrator, and editor, or even a Festschrift honouree.

Fields which are not mapped may simply be left in the record.  The
only fields which should be deleted are those which apply to a
particular copy in a record acquired from an individual library's
catalogue.

*means the field is indexed

001  Record sequence number* This is a local field supplied by your
software.  The previous 001 may be moved to 035.  035 is usually not 
mapped nor indexed.

010  LCCN*

020  ISBN*

022  ISSN*

Many do not map 050/055/060/082, unless one is used as the local call 
number rather than 090 (or OCLC's 092).  Some map them to "Knowledge
numbers" or indexes named for the classification system, for class 
searching. This can be very useful.

050 LCC

055  LCC assigned in Canada, or Canadian class number used with LCC

060  NLM classification

082 DDC

090$a  Local call number*
This field varies; some libraries use a different 09X, or a number in
the 8XX or 9XX range.  Some libraries use the 050/055/060/082 fields if
present rather than entering an 09X.  Cf, 852 $h$i.

090$b Location $f Sublocation.
Primarily in Canada.  Field and subfield vary with system. Cf. 852$a$b.

090$c Copies $d Volumes
Primarily in Canada.  Field and subfields vary with system.  Usually
mapped to "Holdings"; At SLC $c has print constant "c." unless there is 
text other than  numbers; $d has print constant "v." unless there is 
text or a four digit number (year).  Cf. 852$t$i.

Normally there is one 090 per title, but one 852 per physical item.


100  Personal author*

110  Corporate author*

111  Conference*
100, 110, and 111 are usually combined in a "Author" search, along with
700, 710, 711, 800, 810, and 811.

130  Uniform title*  (as main entry)

240  Uniform title*  (as filing title after 1XX),  
Indexing 240 as title will result in many unneeded index entries,
e.g., "Works",  But distinctive uniform titles are needed, e.g.,
"Romeo and Juliet".  There is no indicator to distinguish form from
distinctive uniform titles.

245  Title
  $a Title proper* 
  $h[general material designation] 
  $b subtitle or parallel title   
  $n number
  $p Part

Map to "Title".  While 245$a$h$b$h$n$p are mapped to display as
"Title", it's best to index only 245$a to determine the order of
hitlists.  If the other subfields are included, the title proper may
display far down the hitlist from where expected by patrons.  Some
libraries which index the whole string have found it necessary to
enter a 246 for the title proper alone, when there is a subtitle or
parallel title.

If RDA/MARC21 fields 336 and 338, content and carrier, are displayed
elsewhere than following 245$a, 245$h should be displayed in that
same location.  ISBD has content and carrier in Area 0, advocating early
display.

245$c Statement of responsibility.  
It should be included in the keyword search, in part because of
differences in spellings of names between statements of responsibility
and entries.

246  Alternate title*
When 1st indicator is 1, good systems display a note and vary the name
of this field based on the 246 2nd indicator: 4 = Cover title, 5 = Added
title page title, 6 = Caption title, 7 = Running title, 8 = Spine title.
Other sources of title are recorded in $i (to be printed in the
note) before the title in $a, with 1st indicator 1.  The 246 should be
indexed by the title search along with 130, 240, 245, 730, and 740.
Many libraries include 505$t, 7XX$t, 8XX$t, 780$t, 785$t, 440, 830, and
840 in the title search.

247  Previous title.*
May be found in older records for serials entered under most recent
title.  Used in current records for loose-leaf services and websites
which have changed title.  Map to "Title".

250  $a Edition  $b Statement of responsibility for edition.  
Include in keyword search.

[Between 250 and 260 there are some media specific fields: 254 music, 255
maps, 256 computer files; if you have those media, those fields should
be mapped to "Media specific information".  See also 362.]

260$a Place $b Publisher $c Date $e Place $f Manufacturer $g Date
Some map these to different named fields, others to one called
"Publishing information" or "Imprin

[RDA-L] Identifying RDA records

[J. McRee Elrod]

I'm posting this plea to the MARC list:

SLC initially programed the automatic identification of RDA records
based on the presence of 040$erda.  We now discover that subfield is
not always present.

We then switched to the presence of 33X.  We now hear rumours that
some libraries do not intend to assign 33X if the terms would be test,
umediated, and volume.

LDR/18 = i is not unique to RDA records.  Any chance of LDR/18 = r
being established for RDA?

I had assumed one function of RDA was to make bibliographic records
more computer manageable.  We are not finding that to be the case.


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