Re: [RDA-L] Apocrypha
The work Genesis is the work genesis. I see no need for any qualifier at all. (AACR cataloguers use to qualify everything. German cataloging tradition shows, that it is possible to use less qualifiers.) Am 10.05.2011 21:01, schrieb Adam L. Schiff: Mac wrote: Just Genesis is a faith neutral compromise. Ah, yes it might very well be. But since that title conflicts with other works that have the same title, if you are using an authorized access point you will need to qualify it. By what? (Torah), (Bible), (Book of the Torah), (Book of the Bible), (Holy scripture) - one could get into the same dilemma we've been discussing even with the qualifier. Adam ** * 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 * ** -- Mit freundlichen Gruessen Armin Stephan Jefe de Biblioteca Augustana-Hochschule / Bibliothek D-91564 Neuendettelsau Tel. 09874/509-300 | | ,__o |_-\_, | (*)/'(*)
Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement
-Original Message- From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca] Sent: November 9, 2011 11:42 AM To: Brenndorfer, Thomas Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement Thomas said: An artist responsible for the artistic content of the work would always form part of the authorized access point for the work. In terms of exhibition catalogues, the artist would be main entry if reproductions exceed text, but he text author (curator) would be main entry if text exceeds reproductions. I assume this is true for RDA as it is for AACR2. Our art library clients will not accept that. From their point of few, the amount of text is irrelevant. Perhaps this is something to be taken up in a special genre manual? One difference in RDA is that if the artist is secondary to the author of the text, the artist is still considered a creator of the work, even though the writer of the text is given prominence in the authorized access point for the work. In MARC, there is only the awkward split between 100 and 700 fields, with optional added relationship designators, to distinguish roles and relationships. Dumping the artist in a 700 field, amongst other names which are connected to the expression or manifestation, is one thing that makes MARC less amenable to the type of display and relationship structures used in many data systems. In RDA, there can be several creators or other persons associated with the work specifically designated as such. Only one creator can be used in the formation of an authorized access point (barring the alternative in RDA 6.27.1.3 which allows for all creators to be included as part of the authorized access point for the work). But RDA is written around the idea that the authorized access point for a work (aka main entry) is only one of many ways to identify a work, and so a switch in thinking is required in moving from worrying about the right main entry (and creating implicit, seemingly arbitrary, or hard to discern relationships) to thinking of the right kind of relationships to make in a thorough and exacting way first, with the main entry decision as a follow-up only, so as to maintain compatibility in those systems that rely heavily on the main entry. Basically RDA separates out the process of establishing relationships from the process of creating an authorized access point for the work. Future displays may be able to make use of that distinction and the information in RDA records to prioritize certain elements, such as the designator artist, to suit the needs of users more precisely. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement
-Original Message- What $e term would be used after a 111? We do many law symposia. author It is considered the creator of the work, just like a person may be. So the correct relator term is author. --- There is also this from RDA I.1: If the element used to record the relationship (e.g., creator) is considered sufficient for the purposes of the agency creating the data, do not use a relationship designator to indicate the specific nature of the relationship. -- John Hostage Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian Langdell Hall Harvard Law School Library Cambridge, MA 02138 host...@law.harvard.edu +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax) http://www.law.harvard.edu/library/
Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement
-Original Message- What $e term would be used after a 111? We do many law symposia. author It is considered the creator of the work, just like a person may be. So the correct relator term is author. Forgive me if I am mistaken, but $e is not used for relators in 111 or 711. Christopher D. Cook NOAA Central Library
Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement
$j is used in 111 and 711 for the relator code ($e is used for subordinate unit). Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Christopher D. Cook Sent: November 10, 2011 10:44 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement -Original Message- What $e term would be used after a 111? We do many law symposia. author It is considered the creator of the work, just like a person may be. So the correct relator term is author. Forgive me if I am mistaken, but $e is not used for relators in 111 or 711. Christopher D. Cook NOAA Central Library
Re: [RDA-L] Author
I rather agree with Adam. In my earlier years as a cataloger, we catalogued a lot of missionary materials. While the publisher was not due an 1XX, it certainly, in some cases was due a 7XX; it is was the issuing body and in some way caused it to be emanated for its own interests. We did not do that for every one of these publications from missionary societies, but it did offer an important point of access. Gene Fieg Claremont School of Theology Cataloger, Nov. 10, 2011 On 11/9/11, Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.edu wrote: We intend to use one word relator terms only, in this case, issuer. RDA's issuing body seems more acurate than author to me for conferences, symposia, and law reform commissions, among others. Mac Except that the designator issuing body is not used for the creator of a work. issuing body is one of the relationship designators that is to be used for other persons, families, or corporate bodies associated with a work. That is, they are associated with the work but they are not considered creators of it. In AACR2 terms, these entities could not be given main entry because they are not creators of works. In RDA terms, their names would not be used when constructing the preferred access point for a work. Perhaps a clearer example is the director of a film. The director in AACR2 or RDA could almost never be recorded in the 1XX field. (The very rare exception is when a single person is individually responsible for the conception and execution of all aspects of the film. In which case the creator relationship designator filmmaker is used.) Since conferences are considered to be creators, you are supposed to pick a relationship designator from among those used for creators (Appendix I.2.1). Choosing issuing body for this relationship in RDA is just plain wrong, since it comes from I.2.2, the list for entities associated with a work other than creators. In the absence of a more specific term in I.2.1, I continue to maintain that author is the correct designator. Respectfully, Adam ** * 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 * ** -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement
Well for 111 and 711 you would encode the relater term in $j. But the relator term/relationship designator certainly can be used with conference access points. Adam ^^ 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 ~~ On Thu, 10 Nov 2011, Christopher D. Cook wrote: -Original Message- What $e term would be used after a 111? We do many law symposia. author It is considered the creator of the work, just like a person may be. So the correct relator term is author. Forgive me if I am mistaken, but $e is not used for relators in 111 or 711. Christopher D. Cook NOAA Central Library
[RDA-L] Cataloging Rules by Martha M. Yee
http://myee.bol.ucla.edu/catrulrdfIntro.htm
At the suggestion of an SLC cataloguer, I've just revisited Martha
Yee's Cataloguing rules. I've long admired Ms Yee's position paper on
OPAC display (available on the SLC website). That admiration now
extends to her rules.
These rules achieve the objectives of RDA in terms of FRBR and WEMI.
They have several major and minor advantages over RDA:
1) Valid principles are stated and followed.
2) The language is simple and comprehensible.
3) The relationship and media terms adhere more to natural language,
are more comprehensible, and shorter for display, than those of RDA.
4) Rule provisions are practical, pragmatic, and agree with patron
expectations, e.g., main entry under compiler of the works of a
variety of authors.
5) The vital matter of display is well addressed.
We could do far worse than to jettison RDA and adopt Yee's rules!
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Rules by Martha M. Yee
I find some of the material nice and simple, with short summaries and
descriptions, accompanied by lists.
Other parts appear muddled and confused.
Many attributes for a manifestation are shoved up to the expression level, such
as title and extent. That leaves the bizarre 2.2.12 Extent of expression, which
is for the extent as applied to all manifestations of the expression, but
when extent differs for manifestations, then 4.3.1 applies, which only
describes variant titles for serials (?!?).
How a new entity, title-manifestation fits into all this unclear, as this
gets into the question of whether a new entity, a new attribute, or a new
relationship is the right tool to use from the entity-relationship modeling
toolkit. That question is ongoing in RDA development, where, for example, Place
and Date can be attributes of entities, or entities in their own right with
their own cluster of attributes. If one doesn't proceed from an understanding
of these commonly used E-R principles, then the result is not going to be
principled.
Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library
-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: November 10, 2011 3:10 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Cataloging Rules by Martha M. Yee
http://myee.bol.ucla.edu/catrulrdfIntro.htm
At the suggestion of an SLC cataloguer, I've just revisited Martha
Yee's Cataloguing rules. I've long admired Ms Yee's position paper on
OPAC display (available on the SLC website). That admiration now
extends to her rules.
These rules achieve the objectives of RDA in terms of FRBR and WEMI.
They have several major and minor advantages over RDA:
1) Valid principles are stated and followed.
2) The language is simple and comprehensible.
3) The relationship and media terms adhere more to natural language,
are more comprehensible, and shorter for display, than those of RDA.
4) Rule provisions are practical, pragmatic, and agree with patron
expectations, e.g., main entry under compiler of the works of a
variety of authors.
5) The vital matter of display is well addressed.
We could do far worse than to jettison RDA and adopt Yee's rules!
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
