[RDA-L] RDA in XML - Question
I decided that I wanted to play with creating RDA data in XML (not RDF-XML), so I did a very short experiment, which is located here: http://kcoyle.net/rda/RDAinXML.html This is NOT a test or any kind of proof because it's just one short cataloging record that I copied into RDA fields. In fact, since I'm not a cataloger, I may have used the wrong RDA elements and if so, please let me know. I also didn't create a schema because there are so many hundreds of RDA elements, but if I get the time I may create a minimal one (not sure if the RDA core is what it will be, but that will be a place to start). You can comment on my blog post if you wish: http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/2011/07/rda-in-xml-why-not-give-it-shot.html Even though this was a simple record, I did run into a problem that I think is interesting. It has to do with the current element called Uniform title. In this case it has two parts: authoritative title of the Work language of the Expression Not knowing what to do, I have left a placeholder in the record: rda:titleOfTheWork Hamlet. French /rda:titleOfTheWork The relevant statement seems to be in RDA 5.5: When constructing an authorized access point to represent a particular expression of a work or of a part or parts of a work, add to the authorized access point representing the work or a part or parts of the work an element or elements identifying that expression (see 6.27.3 rdalink). Each of these parts of the access point could (and probably should) be coded separately in the record. The question is whether they should *also* be included as an access point. There are, however, no RDA or FRBR elements listed for access points. If there were, I would assume that the entire string would be a single element: AccessPointHamlet. French/AccessPoint or even AccessPointShakespeare...etc. Hamlet. French/AccessPoint The general definition of access point in the text is: The term authorized access point? refers to the standardized access point representing an entity. The authorized access point representing a work or expression is constructed using the preferred title for the work preceded by the authorized access point representing a person, family, or corporate body responsible for the work, if appropriate. There are other issues relating to the fact that this access point uses data from multiple FRBR entities, but first I wanted to see if someone has an idea of whether it is the intention in RDA to include the access points (or links to authority records that define them) as elements in the RDA record, and what the idea was for coding them. -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [RDA-L] RDA in XML - Question
Hi Karen, Thanks for posting this to the list. As I understand it, there are two discrete RDA elements at play here: Language of the Expression (6.11), and Authorized Access Point Representing an Expression (6.27.3). As you point out, only the former is registered in the RDvocab.info namespace. To parse this out completely, I think you could input all of the following elements separately: Preferred Title of the work: Hamlet Language of the expression: French (or fre, as the case may be) Authorized Access Point Representing the Expression: Omescu, Ion. Hamlet. French The way I see it, the authorized access point is just another element of the Expression, and it exists independently of the Language of the Expression element. Perhaps the reason access points weren't included in the Registry was that they are not technically required by RDA. Rather, they are a human-readable contrivance for use in flat-file catalogs and browse displays. The fact that we code pieces of the access point separately in MARC is helpful for machine parsing, but it does not mean, to me, that we can't code separately in XML/RDF the individual elements (as codes/URIs/text) AND the composite access point (as text). To explode it out even further, you could input in this XML tree all of the following: Preferred Title of the Work: Hamlet Authorized Access Point Representing the Work: Omescu, Ion. Hamlet Language of the Expression: French (or fre, as the case may be) Authorized Access Point Representing the Expression: Omescu, Ion. Hamlet. French This is not parsimonious, but I think it's important to put these access points in their proper context in this kind of encoding: an added human-readable attribute, to enhance the more granular, separately-encoded attributes of each entity. Eventually, once we are encoding this data natively in XML/RDF, we won't need to construct access points at all. Cheers, Casey On 7/28/2011 8:42 AM, Karen Coyle wrote: I decided that I wanted to play with creating RDA data in XML (not RDF-XML), so I did a very short experiment, which is located here: http://kcoyle.net/rda/RDAinXML.html This is NOT a test or any kind of proof because it's just one short cataloging record that I copied into RDA fields. In fact, since I'm not a cataloger, I may have used the wrong RDA elements and if so, please let me know. I also didn't create a schema because there are so many hundreds of RDA elements, but if I get the time I may create a minimal one (not sure if the RDA core is what it will be, but that will be a place to start). You can comment on my blog post if you wish: http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/2011/07/rda-in-xml-why-not-give-it-shot.html Even though this was a simple record, I did run into a problem that I think is interesting. It has to do with the current element called Uniform title. In this case it has two parts: authoritative title of the Work language of the Expression Not knowing what to do, I have left a placeholder in the record: rda:titleOfTheWork Hamlet. French /rda:titleOfTheWork The relevant statement seems to be in RDA 5.5: When constructing an authorized access point to represent a particular expression of a work or of a part or parts of a work, add to the authorized access point representing the work or a part or parts of the work an element or elements identifying that expression (see 6.27.3 rdalink). Each of these parts of the access point could (and probably should) be coded separately in the record. The question is whether they should *also* be included as an access point. There are, however, no RDA or FRBR elements listed for access points. If there were, I would assume that the entire string would be a single element: AccessPointHamlet. French/AccessPoint or even AccessPointShakespeare...etc. Hamlet. French/AccessPoint The general definition of access point in the text is: The term authorized access point? refers to the standardized access point representing an entity. The authorized access point representing a work or expression is constructed using the preferred title for the work preceded by the authorized access point representing a person, family, or corporate body responsible for the work, if appropriate. There are other issues relating to the fact that this access point uses data from multiple FRBR entities, but first I wanted to see if someone has an idea of whether it is the intention in RDA to include the access points (or links to authority records that define them) as elements in the RDA record, and what the idea was for coding them. -- Casey A. Mullin Discovery Metadata Librarian Metadata Development Unit Stanford University Libraries 650-736-0849 cmul...@stanford.edu http://www.caseymullin.com -- Those who need structured and granular data and the precise retrieval that results from it to carry out research and scholarship may constitute an elite minority rather than most of the
Re: [RDA-L] RDA in XML - Question
Karen Coyle said:
rda:titleOfTheWork
Hamlet. French
/rda:titleOfTheWork
AccessPointHamlet. French/AccessPoint
or even
AccessPointShakespeare...etc. Hamlet. French/AccessPoint
In MARC, the language would be subfield coded, so I suspect at least
as much granularity would be needed in an HTLM schema.
One difficulty with the term access point is that it includes main,
added, and perhaps subject entries.
A translation of Hamlet would have both the main entry Shakespeare
... and the added entry Hamlet ..., but a criticism of Hamlet would
have the subject heading Shakespeare ..., but not Hamlet. A work
which contains portions of Hamlet, a movie of Hamlet, etc., would have
an added entry under Shakespeare ... but not one under Hamlet ...,
unless that work's title begins Hamlet
I find RDA terminology far less precise that AACR2, which extends to
the HTML markup terms above. Basic distinctions are lacking. That's
not your fault Karen, considering the muddy text you had to work with.
Any word on who is given the task of rewriting in simple English?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] RDA in XML - Question
Mac,
I think the the lack of added entries you are citing is only relevant
in a left-anchored browsing environment. Moving forward, such
left-anchored entries are not required for access. If a work is about
Hamlet, contains Hamlet, derives from Hamlet, etc., then the term
Hamlet will be present somewhere in the metadata, whether as a title
element on its own, or as part of an access point. In fact, RDA actually
allows us to be more precise (not less) in how we represent entities,
attributes and relationships.
Of course, in an environment where keyword access is not possible (do
such environments still exist, outside of card catalogs?), then one
might have to take extra steps.
Casey
On 7/28/2011 9:50 AM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Karen Coyle said:
rda:titleOfTheWork
Hamlet. French
/rda:titleOfTheWork
AccessPointHamlet. French/AccessPoint
or even
AccessPointShakespeare...etc. Hamlet. French/AccessPoint
In MARC, the language would be subfield coded, so I suspect at least
as much granularity would be needed in an HTLM schema.
One difficulty with the term access point is that it includes main,
added, and perhaps subject entries.
A translation of Hamlet would have both the main entry Shakespeare
... and the added entry Hamlet ..., but a criticism of Hamlet would
have the subject heading Shakespeare ..., but not Hamlet. A work
which contains portions of Hamlet, a movie of Hamlet, etc., would have
an added entry under Shakespeare ... but not one under Hamlet ...,
unless that work's title begins Hamlet
I find RDA terminology far less precise that AACR2, which extends to
the HTML markup terms above. Basic distinctions are lacking. That's
not your fault Karen, considering the muddy text you had to work with.
Any word on who is given the task of rewriting in simple English?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Casey A. Mullin
Discovery Metadata Librarian
Metadata Development Unit
Stanford University Libraries
650-736-0849
cmul...@stanford.edu
http://www.caseymullin.com
--
Those who need structured and granular data and the precise retrieval that results
from it to carry out research and scholarship may constitute an elite minority rather
than most of the people of the world (sadly), but that talented and intelligent minority
is an important one for the cultural and technological advancement of humanity. It is
even possible that if we did a better job of providing access to such data, we might
enable the enlargement of that minority.
-Martha Yee
Re: [RDA-L] RDA in XML - Question
I want to be sure I understand this. If the work is a criticism of Hamlet,
under current subject heading rules, there would be a 600 10 Shakespeare,
William. |t Hamlet, right?
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 9:50 AM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
Karen Coyle said:
rda:titleOfTheWork
Hamlet. French
/rda:titleOfTheWork
AccessPointHamlet. French/AccessPoint
or even
AccessPointShakespeare...etc. Hamlet. French/AccessPoint
In MARC, the language would be subfield coded, so I suspect at least
as much granularity would be needed in an HTLM schema.
One difficulty with the term access point is that it includes main,
added, and perhaps subject entries.
A translation of Hamlet would have both the main entry Shakespeare
... and the added entry Hamlet ..., but a criticism of Hamlet would
have the subject heading Shakespeare ..., but not Hamlet. A work
which contains portions of Hamlet, a movie of Hamlet, etc., would have
an added entry under Shakespeare ... but not one under Hamlet ...,
unless that work's title begins Hamlet
I find RDA terminology far less precise that AACR2, which extends to
the HTML markup terms above. Basic distinctions are lacking. That's
not your fault Karen, considering the muddy text you had to work with.
Any word on who is given the task of rewriting in simple English?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing
HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/http://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu
Re: [RDA-L] RDA in XML - Question
On 28/07/2011 17:42, Karen Coyle wrote: snip Each of these parts of the access point could (and probably should) be coded separately in the record. The question is whether they should *also* be included as an access point. There are, however, no RDA or FRBR elements listed for access points. If there were, I would assume that the entire string would be a single element: AccessPointHamlet. French/AccessPoint or even AccessPointShakespeare...etc. Hamlet. French/AccessPoint /snip In the best scenario, it seems this should be something like: AccessPoint work author personalNameShakespeare/personalName dateswhatever/dates /author titleInfo originalTitleHamlet/originalTitle dates1599-1601/dates [from Wikipedia] /titleInfo /work expression languageFrench/language /expression /AccessPoint while all data here would be represented by separate URIs in various ways. I made up all of the coding, by the way. Also, there could be different translations into French, so the translator's name (or printer or something) from the subfield s (if I am not mistaken) could be added as well to the access pointexpression just as Shakespeare is added under the work. All this could be displayed and searched as a single element just as it is now. I also added the date to the original work to make the people who have been discussing this possibility on the NGC4LIB list happy. I don't care for the idea and think it's a serious waste of time for precious little advantage, and importing it to an individual record such as is done here would not be very useful for a searcher, I don't believe, but nevertheless, if the information were in the work record, it can be imported. But, if it was seen as worthwhile, such information could be imported from another database that has that kind of information. Also, I don't know how unclear dates should be handled. -- James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
[RDA-L] XML RDA record
From Karen Coyle's http://kcoyle.net/rda/RDAinXML.html
LC control no.: 87211501
Type of material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.)
In RDA, this would be: text, unmediated, volume
Personal name: Omescu, Ion.
Uniform title: Hamlet. French
This would be the uniform title of a French translation of Hamlet, *not*
of a criticism of Hamlet.
Main title:Hamlet, ou, La tentation du possible : essai / Ion Omesco
; avant-propos d'Henri Gouhier.
Edition: 1re d.
In RDA, this would be spelled out, if spelled out on the item.
Published/Created: Paris : Presses universitaires de France, c1987.
In RDA, if France was on the source, it would be transcribed. There
would be two years, publication and copyright. e.g., [1987], c1987.
Related titles:Tentation du possible.
This is not a related title; it is a portion of the title; in MARC
246 30, not 740 2.
Description: ix, 278 p. ; 21 cm.
In RDA pages would be spelled out, and cm. would have a period only
if series were displayed after, as opposed to being last. (ISBD order
of elements grew out of experience.)
ISBN: 2130401309
Notes: Includes index.
Bibliography: p. [269]-270.
It is not clear to me whether LCPS will opt for Includes bibliographic
references (pages [269[-279) and index, as is now the case.
Subjects: Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Hamlet.
If the work discusses the personality of Hamlet, I would add a personal
name entry (as opposed to at title entry) for Hamlet as a fictitious
character, 650 in AACR2, 600 in RDA.
Series:Littratures modernes
Whether this is the 490 or 830, it seems best displayed after collation
to me. How is a cataloguer to know where it will be displayed, if not in
ISBD order, so whether to put a period on cm?
RDA says nothing about display, but display (perhaps mistakenly)
affects punctuation. It would be far simpler to have standardized
punctuation for each element.
Casey Mullin posted:
Preferred Title of the work: Hamlet
No. The work is a criticism of Hamlet, not the play Hamlet. The
preferred title is the French title of the work.
Authorized Access Point Representing the Expression: Omescu, Ion.
Hamlet. French
No. Again, Hamlet is the title of the play or character which is
the subject of the work, not the title of the work. French would be
added the the uniform title for a translation of the play. The fact
that the critique of the play or character is in French would not
affect the subject entry point for the play.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] XML RDA record
So that we don't get side-tracked into discussion of improper
cataloging, I think I should quickly find an example that is better.
I'll do that and post it.
kc
Quoting J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca:
From Karen Coyle's http://kcoyle.net/rda/RDAinXML.html
LC control no.: 87211501
Type of material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.)
In RDA, this would be: text, unmediated, volume
Personal name: Omescu, Ion.
Uniform title: Hamlet. French
This would be the uniform title of a French translation of Hamlet, *not*
of a criticism of Hamlet.
Main title:Hamlet, ou, La tentation du possible : essai / Ion Omesco
; avant-propos d'Henri Gouhier.
Edition: 1re d.
In RDA, this would be spelled out, if spelled out on the item.
Published/Created: Paris : Presses universitaires de France, c1987.
In RDA, if France was on the source, it would be transcribed. There
would be two years, publication and copyright. e.g., [1987], c1987.
Related titles:Tentation du possible.
This is not a related title; it is a portion of the title; in MARC
246 30, not 740 2.
Description: ix, 278 p. ; 21 cm.
In RDA pages would be spelled out, and cm. would have a period only
if series were displayed after, as opposed to being last. (ISBD order
of elements grew out of experience.)
ISBN: 2130401309
Notes: Includes index.
Bibliography: p. [269]-270.
It is not clear to me whether LCPS will opt for Includes bibliographic
references (pages [269[-279) and index, as is now the case.
Subjects: Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Hamlet.
If the work discusses the personality of Hamlet, I would add a personal
name entry (as opposed to at title entry) for Hamlet as a fictitious
character, 650 in AACR2, 600 in RDA.
Series:Littratures modernes
Whether this is the 490 or 830, it seems best displayed after collation
to me. How is a cataloguer to know where it will be displayed, if not in
ISBD order, so whether to put a period on cm?
RDA says nothing about display, but display (perhaps mistakenly)
affects punctuation. It would be far simpler to have standardized
punctuation for each element.
Casey Mullin posted:
Preferred Title of the work: Hamlet
No. The work is a criticism of Hamlet, not the play Hamlet. The
preferred title is the French title of the work.
Authorized Access Point Representing the Expression: Omescu, Ion.
Hamlet. French
No. Again, Hamlet is the title of the play or character which is
the subject of the work, not the title of the work. French would be
added the the uniform title for a translation of the play. The fact
that the critique of the play or character is in French would not
affect the subject entry point for the play.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Re: [RDA-L] XML RDA record
J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote: ISBN: 2130401309 Notes: Includes index. Bibliography: p. [269]-270. It is not clear to me whether LCPS will opt for Includes bibliographic references (pages [269[-279) and index, as is now the case. http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=lcpschp7#lcps7-265 Casey Mullin posted: Preferred Title of the work: Hamlet No. The work is a criticism of Hamlet, not the play Hamlet. The preferred title is the French title of the work. The preferred title (240 $a in the bib record) is still Hamlet. Omescu's work happens to have the same preferred work title as Shakespeare's. (Like LC/NACO practice, alternative titles are dropped from uniform titles under RDA.) Authorized Access Point Representing the Expression: Omescu, Ion. Hamlet. French No. Again, Hamlet is the title of the play or character which is the subject of the work, not the title of the work. French would be added the the uniform title for a translation of the play. The fact that the critique of the play or character is in French would not affect the subject entry point for the play. Casey isn't talking about subject entry, but main author/title entry. Bib record here for those who want to see the original: http://lccn.loc.gov/87211501 -- 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 http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
Re: [RDA-L] XML RDA record
Mac Elrod wrote: RDA says nothing about display, but display (perhaps mistakenly) affects punctuation. It would be far simpler to have standardized punctuation for each element. The supplying of ISBD punctuation would be much better left to applications outputting ISBD displays. ISBD punctuation has no place in display-agnostic data, which is something we should be striving for. And this would *especially* be true for metadata consisting of RDA elements tagged as such (since RDA element tags won't have the drawback of abiguity inherent in some MARC tags). Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Bibliographic Services Dept. Northwestern University Library 1970 Campus Drive Evanston, IL 60208-2300 Email: k...@northwestern.edu Phone: (847) 491-2939 Fax: (847) 491-4345
Re: [RDA-L] XML RDA record
-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: July 28, 2011 1:40 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] XML RDA record ... Authorized Access Point Representing the Expression: Omescu, Ion. Hamlet. French No. Again, Hamlet is the title of the play or character which is the subject of the work, not the title of the work. French would be added the the uniform title for a translation of the play. The fact that the critique of the play or character is in French would not affect the subject entry point for the play. Hamlet is the Preferred title for the work by Ion Omescu. The authorized access point for the work is: Omescu, Ion. Hamlet (It could have been Omescu, Ion. Hamlet, ou La tentation du possible but RDA 6.2.2.4 says not to include alternate titles from the title proper when recording the Preferred title of the work). The authorized access point for the expression start with the authorized access point for the work, and adds expression elements: Omescu, Ion. Hamlet. French The subject access point is a relationship to the work, and once RDA adds subject relationships, it might look something like this: WORK: Omescu, Ion. Hamlet Has subject: Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Hamlet Designator: criticism of The French expression is not part of this relationship-- it's strictly a work-to-work relationship for this subject access point. The discussion is missing one major point: The authorized access point for a work (such as Omescu, Ion. Hamlet) is only one of the conventions used to identify a work in RDA. The collection of elements that comprise the entity is how RDA expects the entity to be primarily represented. Identifiers (such as URIs) are another convention. This is roughly how that data would be represented in RDA… Manifestation attributes (with some liberties to follow RDA conventions and LCPS): Title proper: Hamlet, ou, La tentation du possible Variant title: Tentation du possible Other title information: essai First statement of responsibility: Ion Omescu Second statement of responsibility: avant-propos d'Henri Gouhier Edition statement: Premiere édition Publication statement: - Place of publication: Paris - Publisher’s name: Presses universitaires de France - Date of publication: [1987] Copyright date: ©1987 Series statement: Littératures modernes Mode of issuance: single unit Identifier for the manifestation: ISBN 2130401309 Media type: unmediated Carrier type: volume Extent of text: ix, 278 pages Dimensions: 21 cm Work attributes: Preferred title for the work: Hamlet Expression attributes: Language of expression: French Content type: text Supplementary content: Includes bibliographical references (pages [269]-270) and index. Relationships: Work Creator: Omescu, Ion designator: author Work Related work: Littératures moderns designator: series Work (anticipating subject relationships in RDA): Related work: Shakespeare, Hamlet, 1564-1616. Hamlet designator: criticism of [Once one sees the pattern for relationships in RDA, they become dead simple. A far cry from the vast complexity of MARC as it tries to accomplish the same things.] The authorized access points for the original work are formed out of the granular elements (attributes and relationships)… Authorized access point for the work: Omescu, Ion. Hamlet Authorized access point for this expression: Omescu, Ion. Hamlet. French Those authorized access points (with all the baggage and rules for main entry they carry forward from AACR2) are but one convention to represent specific entities, well-suited for left-anchored flat file catalogs to collocate related works and expressions. Also, RDA is not silent about ISBD display. There’s RDA Appendix D.1 that provides all the instructions for an overlay of ISBD punctuation on all of these elements (and Appendix E.1 for AACR2 punctuation in access points). It’s all there if needed—the point is that it’s not needed for all environments. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
[RDA-L] Second RDA in XML example
http://kcoyle.net/rda/RDAinXML2.html I didn't do anything this time with the uniform title, although I did use the title portion for the Work title and the language portion for the language of expression. I haven't figured out what to do with the LCCN -- it's a related metadata record, but I'm not sure what it's related to. I think most people would assume that it is an identifier for the manifestation. Also, we could probably have a long discussion about classification numbers and what they represent. Maybe best leave that for another day. I am impressed by how many elements have URIs. Between VIAF and id.loc.gov, plus general standards like ISO languages, we are doing pretty good. (Note, I used a non-LC URI for the ISO language... I could have used the LC one but they should be the same... will use LC's next time.) kc -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
[RDA-L] XML RDA record (fwd)
LC control no.: 87211501
[snip]
ISBN: 2130401309
Sorry, I should have remaked that in an international environment,
if both LCCN and ISBN can not be displayed at the top, ISSN is more
important.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] RDA in XML - Question
James said:
In the best scenario, it seems this should be something like:
AccessPoint
work
author
personalNameShakespeare/personalName
Shakespeare did not write the critique. His play is the subject.
originalTitleHamlet/originalTitle
this is not the original title of the critique, unless you mean the
title minus the alternate title.
Also, there could be different translations into French, so the translator's
name ...
There was no translation. The critique was written in French.
Mark Ehlert said:
The preferred title (240 $a in the bib record) is still Hamlet.
Omescu's work happens to have the same preferred work title as
Shakespeare's.
Are we really going to do uniform titles for all manifestations,
adding language (if not a translation?), even though a huge majority
of maniffestations are the only manifestation of a particular
expression, and that expression is the only one of a particular work?
SLC would price itself out of our market.
Shouln't we wait until an added or subject entry for the work is
needed?
And we we are going to drop alternate titles for preferred title, they
should not be part of title proper!!!
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Second RDA in XML example
Karen Coyle li...@kcoyle.net wrote: http://kcoyle.net/rda/RDAinXML2.html I disagree with the term you select for Form of Work. It looks like you pulled it from the Content Type list, which under RDA is expression-level material. I'd probably use Play or something similar, preferably from a controlled vocabulary (LCGFT?). -- 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 http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
Re: [RDA-L] Second RDA in XML example
Quoting Mark Ehlert ehler...@umn.edu: Karen Coyle li...@kcoyle.net wrote: http://kcoyle.net/rda/RDAinXML2.html I disagree with the term you select for Form of Work. It looks like you pulled it from the Content Type list, which under RDA is expression-level material. I'd probably use Play or something similar, preferably from a controlled vocabulary (LCGFT?). Mark, thanks. You are right. I was assuming that Form of Work would have a list of terms (controlled vocabulary) associated with it, but I went back to a JSC document listing the data elements and it does not. I will change it to Play and leave it as plain text until there is a URI available at id.loc.gov. kc p.s. Did I mention that I am not a cataloger? :-) -- 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 http://www.minitex.umn.edu/ -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
