Re: [RDA-L] JSC, ISBD, and ISSN: harmonization discussions
20.08.2012 21:59, J. McRee Elrod: Heidrun wisely said: The ISBD has been a common core of many cataloguing codes for decades. This common ground shouldn't be casually abandoned. VERY true. While not taking issue with the importance of ISBD as such, it can, I think, not be called a common core of cataloging codes in general, but of those of their parts relating to description. While the D in RDA is for Description, the focus is really all on the A for Access, and that's a lot more relevant these days for most people using catalogs. So, I think it is appropriate that RDA doesn't go to all the lengths, as older codes did, of painstakingly describing every bit of descriptive information and how it should all be stitched together for a readable display. The latter can and must be left to software, and I think it is true that ISBD had not been formulated with an eye on how well the rules lent themselves to being algorithmically representable. Where there is still a demand for ISBD display, and I'm not arguing with this, one will have to live with minor flaws. What's more important is that much more detail than before should be actionable for algorithms. This, of course and among other things, speaks for standardized codes and acronyms rather than vernacular verbiage. The focus in cataloging must be on access points and their standardization and international harmonization by way of vehicles like VIAF. Thus, RAD would be a more appropriate name for a contemporary code. Another focus should be on the question of *what* we catalog, and here in particular, how to treat parts of larger entities. As of now, the woefully inadequate contents note for multipart publications seems still very much alive. B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] JSC, ISBD, and ISSN: harmonization discussions
Bernhard said:
While not taking issue with the importance of ISBD as such, it
can, I think, not be called a common core of cataloging codes
in general, but of those of their parts relating to description.
It is true that ISBD does not address access points. ISBD does
provide for the transcription of information which in turn justifies
access points. One of the great weaknesses of RDA (IMNSHO) is the
breaking of the link between description and access points; in RDA one
may transcribe and not trace, and/or trace a name not justified by
transcription.
The latter [display] can and must be left to software ...
So long as librarians familiar with bibliographic display dating back
to Panizzi are responsible, and not IT people with no expertise in
that area. Unlabeled ISBD display is certainly the easiest for me to
understand. A criminal defendant, composer, translator, illustrator,
editor, etc. with the label Author really irritates me.
Contributor or Personal name isn't very helpful either.
This, of course and among other things, speaks for standardized
codes and acronyms rather than vernacular verbiage.
If you mean substitution of language of the catalogue phrases for
standardized ISBD Latin abbreviation inclusions, I could not agree
with you more. I hope you will urge EURIG to stick with ISBD
inclusions, not to mention adopting ISBD's Area 0 electronic as
media type.
The focus in cataloging must be on access points and their
standardization and international harmonization by way of vehicles
like VIAF.
Yes.
Another focus should be on the question of *what* we catalog, and
here in particular, how to treat parts of larger entities.
We found the UKMARC 248 to be an excellent solution, giving direct
title access to constituent parts as opposed to the difficult to index
505$t and 700$t. Too bad UK cataloguers did not stick to their guns
and get that added to MARC21. German cataloguers did a better job of
getting favourite things added, but did not address constituent parts.
Something like UKMARC 248 should be a part of the new coding schema,
assuming it ever actually happens.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Quick question about RDA 2.4.1.8
I think that is the intention. It was brought up as an RDA change from AACR2 at an early ALA pre-conference I attended. AACR2 1.1F12: Treat a noun phrase occurring in conjunction with a statement of responsibility as other title information if it is indicative of the nature of the work. RDA 2.4.1.8: If a noun or noun phrase occurs with the statement of responsibility , treat the noun or noun phrase as part of the statement of responsibility. I later noticed that the second example in RDA 2.4.1.8 has dramatised adaptations as part of the statement of responsibility. AACR2 uses the same example and has dramatised adaptations as other title in 1.1F12. I also think that cataloger judgment is involved. RDA 2.3.4: Other title information may include any phrase appearing with a title proper that is indicative of the character, contents, etc., of the resource or the motives for, or occasion of, its production, publication, etc. If you had Tome 1 / a novel by X, it is still a statement. If you had Tome 1 / novel X it really isn't a statement anymore, and it could be said that novel lacking a grammatical connection to X is an example of not occurring with the statement of responsibility. You still have the latitude to consider the noun phrase as indicative of the character, contents, etc. of the resource: Davy Jones : a pirate novel / by Y, not Davy Jones / a pirate novel by Y. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 2:24 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Quick question about RDA 2.4.1.8 RDA 2.4.1.8 reads, If a noun or noun phrase occurs with a statement of responsibility, treat the noun or noun phrase as part of the statement of responsibility. Does this mean that if we had the following two title pages: Tome a novel John Smith Another Tome a novel by John Smith The phrase a novel would be considered subtitle (in the first example), but part of the statement of responsibility (in the second), solely depending on whether or not the word by was there? -- Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137
Re: [RDA-L] Quick question about RDA 2.4.1.8
If a noun or noun phrase occurs with a statement of responsibility, treat the noun or noun phrase as part of the statement of responsibility. I would consider that such a noun or noun phrase should be something closely related to the statement of responsibility. That means that they can not be separated semantically. The noun or noun phrase is a part of the statement of responsibility. Without it, the meaning of the statement would not be complete. The case mentioned is a kind of loose. The noun, a novel, could be in a subtitle. In such a situation, I would consider a solution that would benefit patrons more. Thanks. Joan On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Arakawa, Steven steven.arak...@yale.eduwrote: I think that is the intention. It was brought up as an RDA change from AACR2 at an early ALA pre-conference I attended. AACR2 1.1F12: “Treat a noun phrase occurring in conjunction with a statement of responsibility as other title information if it is indicative of the nature of the work.” RDA 2.4.1.8: “If a noun or noun phrase occurs with the statement of responsibility , treat the noun or noun phrase as part of the statement of responsibility.” ** ** I later noticed that the second example in RDA 2.4.1.8 has “dramatised adaptations” as part of the statement of responsibility. AACR2 uses the same example and has “dramatised adaptations” as other title in 1.1F12. I also think that cataloger judgment is involved. RDA 2.3.4: “Other title information may include any phrase appearing with a title proper that is indicative of the character, contents, etc., of the resource or the motives for, or occasion of, its production, publication, etc.” ** ** If you had Tome 1 / a novel by X, it is still a statement. If you had Tome 1 / novel X it really isn’t a statement anymore, and it could be said that “novel” lacking a grammatical connection to “X” is an example of not occurring with the statement of responsibility. You still have the latitude to consider the noun phrase as indicative of the character, contents, etc. of the resource: Davy Jones : a pirate novel / by Y, not Davy Jones / a pirate novel by Y. ** ** ** ** Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Benjamin A Abrahamse *Sent:* Wednesday, August 22, 2012 2:24 PM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* [RDA-L] Quick question about RDA 2.4.1.8 ** ** RDA 2.4.1.8 reads, If a noun or noun phrase occurs with a statement of responsibility, treat the noun or noun phrase as part of the statement of responsibility. ** ** Does this mean that if we had the following two title pages: ** ** Tome a novel John Smith ** ** Another Tome a novel by John Smith ** ** The phrase a novel would be considered subtitle (in the first example), but part of the statement of responsibility (in the second), solely depending on whether or not the word by was there? ** ** -- ** ** Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 ** ** -- Joan Wang Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
[RDA-L] Quick question about RDA 2.4.1.8
RDA-L readers, The second example might have the other title information and statement of responsibility data in more than one manner of presentation on a printed title page. If, as Benjamin Abrahamse has already given, it is presented on two lines: Another Tome a novel by John Smith Then it might be recorded as: a novel / by John Smith on the basis that there are two phrases, not one, on separate lines, the first being other title information, the second a statement of responsibility. But if the presentation is instead an integrated phrase on one line, thus: Another Tome a novel by John Smith Then it can be recorded as: a novel by John Smith as an integrated statement of responsibility. This is the practice indicated in RDA 2.4.1.8. Perhaps, with this rule, we are at long last getting away from the practice of carving up such statements by inserting a slash, as was done for most of the duration under AACR2. If the above is contradicted elsewhere in RDA, now would be a good time to say! Thanks - Ian Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - ifairclough43...@yahoo.com
Re: [RDA-L] Quick question about RDA 2.4.1.8
The key phrase noted by Joan is they can not be separated semantically. I would use this rule when the title page reads: arranged for organ by ... Ralph Ralph Hartsock Senior Music Cataloger University of North Texas Libraries E-mail: ralph.harts...@unt.edumailto:ralph.harts...@unt.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joan Wang Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 3:21 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Quick question about RDA 2.4.1.8 If a noun or noun phrase occurs with a statement of responsibility, treat the noun or noun phrase as part of the statement of responsibility. I would consider that such a noun or noun phrase should be something closely related to the statement of responsibility. That means that they can not be separated semantically. The noun or noun phrase is a part of the statement of responsibility. Without it, the meaning of the statement would not be complete. The case mentioned is a kind of loose. The noun, a novel, could be in a subtitle. In such a situation, I would consider a solution that would benefit patrons more. Thanks. Joan On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Arakawa, Steven steven.arak...@yale.edumailto:steven.arak...@yale.edu wrote: I think that is the intention. It was brought up as an RDA change from AACR2 at an early ALA pre-conference I attended. AACR2 1.1F12: Treat a noun phrase occurring in conjunction with a statement of responsibility as other title information if it is indicative of the nature of the work. RDA 2.4.1.8http://2.4.1.8: If a noun or noun phrase occurs with the statement of responsibility , treat the noun or noun phrase as part of the statement of responsibility. I later noticed that the second example in RDA 2.4.1.8 has dramatised adaptations as part of the statement of responsibility. AACR2 uses the same example and has dramatised adaptations as other title in 1.1F12. I also think that cataloger judgment is involved. RDA 2.3.4: Other title information may include any phrase appearing with a title proper that is indicative of the character, contents, etc., of the resource or the motives for, or occasion of, its production, publication, etc. If you had Tome 1 / a novel by X, it is still a statement. If you had Tome 1 / novel X it really isn't a statement anymore, and it could be said that novel lacking a grammatical connection to X is an example of not occurring with the statement of responsibility. You still have the latitude to consider the noun phrase as indicative of the character, contents, etc. of the resource: Davy Jones : a pirate novel / by Y, not Davy Jones / a pirate novel by Y. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286tel:%28203%29432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edumailto:steven.arak...@yale.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 2:24 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Quick question about RDA 2.4.1.8 RDA 2.4.1.8 reads, If a noun or noun phrase occurs with a statement of responsibility, treat the noun or noun phrase as part of the statement of responsibility. Does this mean that if we had the following two title pages: Tome a novel John Smith Another Tome a novel by John Smith The phrase a novel would be considered subtitle (in the first example), but part of the statement of responsibility (in the second), solely depending on whether or not the word by was there? -- Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137tel:617-253-7137 -- Joan Wang Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] JSC, ISBD, and ISSN: harmonization discussions
On 22/08/2012 08:56, Bernhard Eversberg wrote: snip 20.08.2012 21:59, J. McRee Elrod: Heidrun wisely said: The ISBD has been a common core of many cataloguing codes for decades. This common ground shouldn't be casually abandoned. VERY true. While not taking issue with the importance of ISBD as such, it can, I think, not be called a common core of cataloging codes in general, but of those of their parts relating to description. While the D in RDA is for Description, the focus is really all on the A for Access, and that's a lot more relevant these days for most people using catalogs. So, I think it is appropriate that RDA doesn't go to all the lengths, as older codes did, of painstakingly describing every bit of descriptive information and how it should all be stitched together for a readable display. The latter can and must be left to software, and I think it is true that ISBD had not been formulated with an eye on how well the rules lent themselves to being algorithmically representable. Where there is still a demand for ISBD display, and I'm not arguing with this, one will have to live with minor flaws. What's more important is that much more detail than before should be actionable for algorithms. This, of course and among other things, speaks for standardized codes and acronyms rather than vernacular verbiage. The focus in cataloging must be on access points and their standardization and international harmonization by way of vehicles like VIAF. Thus, RAD would be a more appropriate name for a contemporary code. Another focus should be on the question of *what* we catalog, and here in particular, how to treat parts of larger entities. As of now, the woefully inadequate contents note for multipart publications seems still very much alive. /snip Right now I am assisting on an inventory of serials so therefore at this moment, I am feeling that *the rules* for description must be standardized, otherwise pure chaos awaits. For instance, interlibrary loans (so long as they are allowed!) demand precise description and therefore, if we want ILLs, precise descriptions seem unavoidable if they are to work at all--otherwise, everybody will forever be requesting what you already have, requesting what another library doesn't have, or they send something you do not want. ISBD provides this level of standardization and nothing I have seen has tried to displace it. Selectors also need such accuracy. *How* a record displays is another matter but, I have always felt that the display aspect of ISBD has been overblown by the IT community. I believe there should be *a* standardized display (for experts) and the current ISBD is as good as any for now, but I am sure there are many other displays that could the purpose just as well or better. Today, displays are flexible, as they have been for quite some time, and this flexibility should be the emphasis for the *public*. Expert-librarians have their own requirements, but these requirement are *no less* important then what the public needs. Modern systems should be able to allow it all. I do believe that the purpose of description should be reconsidered since our current rules suffer from a paradox. Description of physical materials that never change are one matter, but online materials that change randomly, sometimes very frequently, and without any notification, present an entirely different situation. Sooner or later, catalogers must consider how it is possible to describe virtual materials that are completely mercurial, by creating a record that must be changed manually. I have thought about this for a long time, and have never found any solution, nor have I seen one offered, therefore novel ideas must be tried. Notes such as Description based on web page (Dec. 23, 2008) are 100% completely useless for everyone involved, including the catalogers, and serve only as salve for the cataloger at the time of making the record. The description should be based on the resource as it stands currently, not on some version that no longer exists. The only solution in the traditional sense would be to try to start cataloging each instance as found in the Wayback Machine of the Internet Archive, but the very prospect is a nightmare. I think we would find very few takers on that one! You can count me out. That would truly be like trying to fight the ocean and you will drown. Several years ago, I wrote a letter to D-Lib Magazine about this issue, and surprisingly, I find that I still agree with it http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march01/03letters.html -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] JSC, ISBD, and ISSN: harmonization discussions
James Weinheimer wrote: Notes such as Description based on web page (Dec. 23, 2008) are 100% completely useless for everyone involved, including the catalogers, and serve only as salve for the cataloger at the time of making the record. The description should be based on the resource as it stands currently, not on some version that no longer exists. But until we do have some mechanism for dynamically keeping descriptions current, the notes that you say are completely useless are absolutely essential. I certainly agree with you that the traditional methods of creating metadata are not adequate for handling the universe of online resources. But that does not mean that we shouldn't still have standards that will allow traditional metadata and created-in-an-as-yet-unknown-method-and-system metadata to be able to interoperate. Developing those standards is what we're trying to do with RDA. Hopefully there will be ways to harvest data from the resources themselves, and map them to the data definitions in RDA, to get them into our discovery tools. But until we reach that goal, we still need to be creating traditional records, and we need to know what it is that the records are describing. With a Description based on note, there is a clue to what was described, and when. 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
[RDA-L] RDA questions
Autocaters:
In preparing RDA procedures for our clients, we have questions we have
not been able to answer.
How many illustrations should an item contain to have 336 still image
added to 336 text? At the moment we are assuming half, e.g., an
exhibition catalogue. How much in the way of audio and video files
should an e-resource have to add spoken word and/or two-dimensional
moving image?
Is anyone doing repeated $a in 336, as opposed to repeating 336's? If
repeating $a, I assume only one $2? I prefer repeating $a, and our IT
person says either would work for him.
If fictitious people are to be in 600 as opposed to 650, should
fictitious places be in 651 as opposed to 650?
Since LC and OCLC do not agree on 040 subfield order, may we use the
order we find easiest, i.e., alphabetical. (We would never add a $d
after $e as some have done.) LAC has not answered us concerning what
they intend to do.
LAC has told us that they intend to use $4 relator codes as opposed to
$e relator terms, due to their bilingual situation. Will many be
adding $e or $4 apart from illustrators of children's books? (All but
one of our clients has said they want neither, so if we add them, we
would have to remove them on export.)
Those are just a small sampling from our three page list of decisions
to be made.
Thanks for your advice.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
MARC21 Fields for RDA Content, Media Type, and Carrier Terms
14 October 2011
336 Content type
Follow each 336 term with $2rdaontent; except
follow thoseo in brackets with $2mricontent
For systems requiring 245$h, field 336 is exported as second half of
compound GMD, , truncated as shown, e.g., 245$h[online resource : text]
cartographic dataset }
cartographic image } [Consider displaying
cartographic moving image} cartographic with
cartographic tactile image } exact unit name, e.g.,
cartographic tactile three-dimensional form } map, globe.]
cartographic three-dimensional form }
computer dataset
computer program
[form]
[globe][
image*
[large print text]
[map]
[moving image]
notated movement
notated music
performed music
sounds
spoken word
still image [Unit name is specific term, e.g., engraving, painting.]
tactile image}
tactile notated movement }
tactile text } [Consider displaying just
tactile three-dimensional form } tactile with exact unit name.
text
three-dimensional form [Consider displaying form.]
three-dimensional moving image } [Consider displaying moving image.]
two-dimensional moving image }
337 Media type
Follow each term except electronic with $2rdamedia; follow
electronic with $2isbdmedia.
audio
electronic [Consider ISBD Area 0 term. rather than RDA's computer.]
microform
microscopic
projected
stereographic
unmediated
video
338 Carrier type
Follow each term with $2rdacarrier; except follow
equipment and kit with $2mricarrier.
1) Audio carriers
audio cartridge
audio cylinder
audio disc
sound-track reel
audio roll
audiocassette
audiotape reel
2) Electronic carriers
computer card
computer chip cartridge
computer disc
computer disc cartridge
computer tape cartridge
computer tape cassette
computer tape reel
online resource
3) Microform carriers
aperture card
microfiche
microfiche cassette
microfilm cartridge
microfilm cassette
microfilm reel
microfilm roll
microfilm slip
microopaque
4) Microscopic carriers
microscope slide
5) Projected image carriers
film cartridge
film cassette
film reel
film roll
filmslip
filmstrip
filmstrip cartridge
overhead transparency
slide [Use for photographic slides only]
5) Stereographic carriers
stereograph card
stereograph disc
6) Unmediated carriers
card
[equipment]
flipchart
[kit]
object
roll
sheet
volume
7) Video carriers
video cartridge
videocassette
videodisc
videotape reel
==
MARC codes for RDA carriers
http://www.loc.gov/standards/valuelist/marccarrier.html
