Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

> -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: August 27, 2012 11:25 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
> 
> Adam said:
> 
> >RDA definitely allows the addition of qualifiers to distinguish works
> >with the same title ...
> 
> But not in 245 where they would be most helpful, and where Margaret Mann
> would have them (pre MARC), right?


As a basic principle that wouldn't be a good idea.

A 245 transcribed title proper can vary, and so it would not be a good 
"uniform" consistent identifier of the work.

The role of the authorized access point for the work is to function like a 
numeric identifier for the work-- something immutable and serviceable as the 
target of a relationship element and designator.

A bigger nuisance is the lack of subfield coding for the qualifier for 
authorized access points for works.

The Preferred Title is a separate element, but the qualifier gets dumped into 
$a of the MARC field 130. This despite the idea that the qualifier can also 
exist in its own element (such as 380 - Form of Work). If anything, this shows 
the risk of trying to start with MARC and its occasional lack of granularity or 
complex set of interdependencies, and reverse engineer the logic of what is 
needed to be done. A good example is the overlaying of two concepts at times on 
the 245 title-- that of transcribed title proper and that of preferred title of 
the work (if a 130 or 240 is absent). In the end, there are still two distinct 
elements.


> 
> >I can't seem to find a good relationship designator for the access
> >point made for the government of Australia ...
> 
> It seems to me impossible to construct a list which includes all
> possibilities.  Our clients don't want 7XX$i, but if we were to use it,
> "Recipient body:" seems appropriate.


The relationship designators form one layer; the broader relationship element 
serves as the basic indicator of the relationship.

One problem is that the broader elements aren't defined values for the 
relationship designator in subfield $e or $j for conferences (not $i -- that's 
not for persons, corporate bodies, or families, but for works and expressions).

Among these are:
Creator
Other Person, Corporate Body or Family Associated with the Work
Contributor
Publisher

Every relationship designator can devolve into one of these more basic 
elements, but perhaps what's needed is a better encoding method to capture 
these broader elements.

> 
> I still think including part or all of subtitle makes more sense than
> supplying something.  This is one of the very few instances in which I have
> not totally agreed with Michael Gorman (we had this discussion earlier
> about a very generic title proper, with a distinctive subtitle).  Seems to
> me a "portion or all of subtitle" could be added to the list of possible
> RDA additions.
> 

One thing RDA does is step back from the whole business of identifying entities 
through uniform headings, and provides instructions for other approaches.

This discussion is about establishing authorized access points (formerly known 
as uniform titles or main/added entry headings). These instructions are 
practically sequestered in RDA-- they're not the center of attention.

Rather the focus is on the collection of distinct elements that go into 
identifying an entity, including control numbers and URIs. Many of these 
elements can be assembled as needed into authorized access points, but can also 
serve any kind of display or search function. The Preferred Title for the Work 
is one element; Form of Work is another; Distinguishing Characteristic Element 
is another. Some of these elements, such as Date elements, lend themselves to 
normalization routines, such as ISO standards. No longer does one have to think 
of these elements solely as fitting into one constricted display, like a jigsaw 
puzzle, but difficult to work with after-the-fact in extracting and utilizing 
that data more effectively.

Focusing on aspects anchored on the traditional display has limited prospects. 
By utilizing the entity-relationship model, RDA offers a conventional method 
that is used to create consistent results in data management. There's a much 
larger canvas that one can paint on with RDA, and there are prospects of 
solving many problems.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

 

Re: [RDA-L] JSC, ISBD, and ISSN: harmonization discussions

[Paradis Daniel]

On August 16, John Hostage wrote :

 

Subject headings are a specialized area because they are so language dependent. 
 The Bibliotheque nationale de France has developed RAMEAU 
(http://www.bnf.fr/en/professionals/anx_cataloging_indexing/a.subject_reference_systems.html
 

 ), which I think was based on LCSH. 

 

RAMEAU was actually based on the Répertoire de vedettes-matière developed by 
Université Laval in Quebec and which is itself adapted in part from LCSH.

Sources: http://rameau.bnf.fr/informations/convention.htm; 
https://rvmweb.bibl.ulaval.ca/a-propos.

 

Daniel Paradis

 

Bibliothécaire

Direction du traitement documentaire des collections patrimoniales

Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec

 

2275, rue Holt

Montréal (Québec) H2G 3H1

Téléphone : 514 873-1101, poste 3721

Télécopieur : 514 873-7296

daniel.para...@banq.qc.ca

http://www.banq.qc.ca  



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Karen Coyle [li...@kcoyle.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 19:18
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] JSC, ISBD, and ISSN: harmonization discussions

John, thanks for being our "ears on the ground." I think that we have to be 
careful about how we define "use ISBD", and I had trouble posing that question 
originally. I think the key question is whether people use the ISBD 
documentation AS THEIR CATALOGING RULES, or whether they have local catalong 
rules that are designed to be compatible with ISBD. I don't know if you would 
consider AACR2 and RDA to be conformant with ISBD (I don't know any of them 
well enough to make that determination.) My question was intended to be the 
former: that people actually catalog from the ISBD rules as issued by IFLA.

Then we get into Ed's question: is that all? Or do they supplement ISBD with 
headings for authors and subjects, etc.?

And I have yet another question, which is: have they developed a data format 
that represents ISBD for this purpose? (If so, I'd like to see it.)

It does appear that the Finnish library works very closely to ISBD and I have 
sent them a few extra questions (and I should apologize for taking their time 
in the midst of IFLA!).

Thanks again,
kc



On 8/15/12 1:32 PM, John Hostage wrote:

Ed,

I'm sorry, we didn't get into that question.  The group is planning an 
international survey to find out who uses the ISBD, so I'll suggest that they 
include that question in the survey.

John

 

--

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/ 
 





From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Ed Jones [ejo...@nu.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 15:46
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] JSC, ISBD, and ISSN: harmonization discussions

John

 

If these countries use ISBD, they presumably use it in place of locally 
elaborated rules for bibliographic description (corresponding to AACR2 part 1). 
What do they do for choice and form of access points (corresponding to AACR2 
part 2), where no comprehensive international standard exists?

 

Ed

 

 

 

Ed Jones

Associate Director, Assessment and Technical Services

National University Library

9393 Lightwave Avenue

San Diego, California  92123-1447

 

+1 858 541 7920 (voice)

+1 858 541 7997 (fax)

 

http://national.academia.edu/EdJones

 

 

 

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of John Hostage
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 12:30 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] JSC, ISBD, and ISSN: harmonization discussions

 

I'm at the IFLA conference in Helsinki, so I put this question to the 
ISBD Review Group.

The responses indicated that the ISBD is used as the cataloging code 
here in Finland. See, for example, this report on the National Metadata 
Repository 
(http://www.nationallibrary.fi/libraries/projects/metadatarepository.html) 
under Subprojects.

In Slovenia, the ISBD will be used for cataloging

Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question

[Gene Fieg]

Just a question here.  I just looked at the RDA suggested additions to a
title to distinguish it from others.

I did not see Summary listed there; it might be justified by the statement
to take the qualifier from the work itself, but what some other agency or
person writes a different summary of the same work, then what.  The uniform
title (preferred access point) would not point to that work, would it?

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 6:33 AM, Brenndorfer, Thomas <
tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca> wrote:

> > -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: August 27, 2012 11:25 PM
> > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
> >
> > Adam said:
> >
> > >RDA definitely allows the addition of qualifiers to distinguish works
> > >with the same title ...
> >
> > But not in 245 where they would be most helpful, and where Margaret Mann
> > would have them (pre MARC), right?
>
>
> As a basic principle that wouldn't be a good idea.
>
> A 245 transcribed title proper can vary, and so it would not be a good
> "uniform" consistent identifier of the work.
>
> The role of the authorized access point for the work is to function like a
> numeric identifier for the work-- something immutable and serviceable as
> the target of a relationship element and designator.
>
> A bigger nuisance is the lack of subfield coding for the qualifier for
> authorized access points for works.
>
> The Preferred Title is a separate element, but the qualifier gets dumped
> into $a of the MARC field 130. This despite the idea that the qualifier can
> also exist in its own element (such as 380 - Form of Work). If anything,
> this shows the risk of trying to start with MARC and its occasional lack of
> granularity or complex set of interdependencies, and reverse engineer the
> logic of what is needed to be done. A good example is the overlaying of two
> concepts at times on the 245 title-- that of transcribed title proper and
> that of preferred title of the work (if a 130 or 240 is absent). In the
> end, there are still two distinct elements.
>
>
> >
> > >I can't seem to find a good relationship designator for the access
> > >point made for the government of Australia ...
> >
> > It seems to me impossible to construct a list which includes all
> > possibilities.  Our clients don't want 7XX$i, but if we were to use it,
> > "Recipient body:" seems appropriate.
>
>
> The relationship designators form one layer; the broader relationship
> element serves as the basic indicator of the relationship.
>
> One problem is that the broader elements aren't defined values for the
> relationship designator in subfield $e or $j for conferences (not $i --
> that's not for persons, corporate bodies, or families, but for works and
> expressions).
>
> Among these are:
> Creator
> Other Person, Corporate Body or Family Associated with the Work
> Contributor
> Publisher
>
> Every relationship designator can devolve into one of these more basic
> elements, but perhaps what's needed is a better encoding method to capture
> these broader elements.
>
> >
> > I still think including part or all of subtitle makes more sense than
> > supplying something.  This is one of the very few instances in which I
> have
> > not totally agreed with Michael Gorman (we had this discussion earlier
> > about a very generic title proper, with a distinctive subtitle).  Seems
> to
> > me a "portion or all of subtitle" could be added to the list of possible
> > RDA additions.
> >
>
> One thing RDA does is step back from the whole business of identifying
> entities through uniform headings, and provides instructions for other
> approaches.
>
> This discussion is about establishing authorized access points (formerly
> known as uniform titles or main/added entry headings). These instructions
> are practically sequestered in RDA-- they're not the center of attention.
>
> Rather the focus is on the collection of distinct elements that go into
> identifying an entity, including control numbers and URIs. Many of these
> elements can be assembled as needed into authorized access points, but can
> also serve any kind of display or search function. The Preferred Title for
> the Work is one element; Form of Work is another; Distinguishing
> Characteristic Element is another. Some of these elements, such as Date
> elements, lend themselves to normalization routines, such as ISO standards.
> No longer does one have to think of these elements solely as fitting into
> one constricted display, like a jigsaw puzzle, but difficult to work with
> after-the-fact in extracting and utilizing that data more effectively.
>
> Focusing on aspects anchored on the traditional display has limited
> prospects. By utilizing the entity-relationship model, RDA offers a
> conventional method that is used to create consistent results in data
> management. There

Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

LCPS 6.27.1.9

The "catalog" when testing for conflict. Define the "catalog" as the file 
against which the searching and cataloging is being done. In addition, 
catalogers (including LC overseas offices' catalogers) may take into account 
any resource with the same authorized access point of which they know, whether 
or not it is in the catalog. Do not take into account variant access points.


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 Gene Fieg
Sent: August 28, 2012 11:55 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question

Just a question here.  I just looked at the RDA suggested additions to a title 
to distinguish it from others.

I did not see Summary listed there; it might be justified by the statement to 
take the qualifier from the work itself, but what some other agency or person 
writes a different summary of the same work, then what.  The uniform title 
(preferred access point) would not point to that work, would it?
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 6:33 AM, Brenndorfer, Thomas 
mailto:tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca>> 
wrote:
> -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: August 27, 2012 11:25 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
>
> Adam said:
>
> >RDA definitely allows the addition of qualifiers to distinguish works
> >with the same title ...
>
> But not in 245 where they would be most helpful, and where Margaret Mann
> would have them (pre MARC), right?

As a basic principle that wouldn't be a good idea.

A 245 transcribed title proper can vary, and so it would not be a good 
"uniform" consistent identifier of the work.

The role of the authorized access point for the work is to function like a 
numeric identifier for the work-- something immutable and serviceable as the 
target of a relationship element and designator.

A bigger nuisance is the lack of subfield coding for the qualifier for 
authorized access points for works.

The Preferred Title is a separate element, but the qualifier gets dumped into 
$a of the MARC field 130. This despite the idea that the qualifier can also 
exist in its own element (such as 380 - Form of Work). If anything, this shows 
the risk of trying to start with MARC and its occasional lack of granularity or 
complex set of interdependencies, and reverse engineer the logic of what is 
needed to be done. A good example is the overlaying of two concepts at times on 
the 245 title-- that of transcribed title proper and that of preferred title of 
the work (if a 130 or 240 is absent). In the end, there are still two distinct 
elements.


>
> >I can't seem to find a good relationship designator for the access
> >point made for the government of Australia ...
>
> It seems to me impossible to construct a list which includes all
> possibilities.  Our clients don't want 7XX$i, but if we were to use it,
> "Recipient body:" seems appropriate.

The relationship designators form one layer; the broader relationship element 
serves as the basic indicator of the relationship.

One problem is that the broader elements aren't defined values for the 
relationship designator in subfield $e or $j for conferences (not $i -- that's 
not for persons, corporate bodies, or families, but for works and expressions).

Among these are:
Creator
Other Person, Corporate Body or Family Associated with the Work
Contributor
Publisher

Every relationship designator can devolve into one of these more basic 
elements, but perhaps what's needed is a better encoding method to capture 
these broader elements.

>
> I still think including part or all of subtitle makes more sense than
> supplying something.  This is one of the very few instances in which I have
> not totally agreed with Michael Gorman (we had this discussion earlier
> about a very generic title proper, with a distinctive subtitle).  Seems to
> me a "portion or all of subtitle" could be added to the list of possible
> RDA additions.
>
One thing RDA does is step back from the whole business of identifying entities 
through uniform headings, and provides instructions for other approaches.

This discussion is about establishing authorized access points (formerly known 
as uniform titles or main/added entry headings). These instructions are 
practically sequestered in RDA-- they're not the center of attention.

Rather the focus is on the collection of distinct elements that go into 
identifying an entity, including control numbers and URIs. Many of these 
elements can be assembled as needed into authorized access points, but can also 
serve any kind of display or search function. The Preferred Title for the Work 
is one element; Form of Work is anothe

Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question

[John Hostage]

Aren't these relationships overdetermined at this point?  We have additional 
access points on both records as well as 2 authority records that refer to each 
other and essentially duplicate the information on the bib records.  All this 
to indicate relationships that can probably best be handled in a note 
(unstructured description of the related expression) (RDA 26.1.1.3).  In my 
opinion, these are related expressions we're talking about (FRBR 5.3.2).  For 
machine connections, identifiers in field 787 would probably work best.

Authority records for these titles seem unnecessary since they don't meet the 
requirements in the Descriptive Cataloging Manual, Z1, Introduction.

Is it really useful to have an access point for a body that merely receives a 
report and didn't have a hand in its creation, especially when that body is a 
national government?

--
John Hostage
Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services
Langdell Hall 194
Cambridge, MA 02138
host...@law.harvard.edu
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)

> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 20:30
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
> 
> RDA definitely allows the addition of qualifiers to distinguish works
> with the same title:
> 
> 6.27 Constructing Access Points to Represent Works and Expressions
> 
> If the access point constructed by applying the instructions given
> under
> 6.27.1.2-6.27.1.8 is the same as or similar to an access point
> representing a different work, or to an access point representing a
> person, family, or corporate body, make additions to the access point
> applying the instructions given under 6.27.1.9.
> 
> 6.27.1.9  Additions to Access Points Representing Works
> 
> If the access point constructed by applying the instructions given
> under
> 6.27.1.2-6.27.1.8 is the same as or similar to an access point
> representing a different work, or to an access point representing a
> person, family, corporate body, or place, add one or more of the
> following, as appropriate:
> 
> a) a term indicating the form of work (see 6.3)
> 
> b) the date of the work (see 6.4)
> 
> c) the place of origin of the work (see 6.5) and/or
> 
> d) a term indicating another distinguishing characteristic of the work
> (see 6.6).
> 
> In my case, both the full report and the summary have the same title
> proper, and since the works would be named by title only, 6.27.1.9 is
> applicable.  I will go with "a term indicating another distinguishing
> characterist of the work" and use "Water availability in the Ovens
> (Summary)" as the authorized access point for the derivative work.  I
> do think that the full report also probably needs to have a qualifier
> added to it to distinguish it.  I'm thinking "Water availability in the
> Ovens (Full report)" is about as good as anything else.
> 
> The bib records are OCLC #408550975 and 808387939.  The name authority
> records are no2012115407 and no2012115406.  I used reciprocal 530s in
> the NARs to link the two related works.
> 
> 
> Now that you've helped me solve this question - here's another for the
> same two works:
> 
> I can't seem to find a good relationship designator for the access
> point made for the government of Australia, based on the subtitles:
> 
> Water availability in the Ovens : a report to the Australian Government
> from the CSIRO Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project.
> 
> Water availability in the Ovens : summary of a report to the Australian
> Government from the CSIRO Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields
> Project.
> 
> 710 2_CSIRO Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project, $e
> author.
> 710 1_  Australia, $e ???
> 710 2_  CSIRO (Australia), $e issuing body.
> 

Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question

[Joan Wang]

According to FRBR, summary as a relationship exists between works or
expressions of different works. I am not sure if it is helpful.

Thanks
Joan

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:09 AM, John Hostage wrote:

> Aren't these relationships overdetermined at this point?  We have
> additional access points on both records as well as 2 authority records
> that refer to each other and essentially duplicate the information on the
> bib records.  All this to indicate relationships that can probably best be
> handled in a note (unstructured description of the related expression) (RDA
> 26.1.1.3).  In my opinion, these are related expressions we're talking
> about (FRBR 5.3.2).  For machine connections, identifiers in field 787
> would probably work best.
>
> Authority records for these titles seem unnecessary since they don't meet
> the requirements in the Descriptive Cataloging Manual, Z1, Introduction.
>
> Is it really useful to have an access point for a body that merely
> receives a report and didn't have a hand in its creation, especially when
> that body is a national government?
>
> --
> John Hostage
> Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian
> Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services
> Langdell Hall 194
> Cambridge, MA 02138
> host...@law.harvard.edu
> +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
> +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
> > Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 20:30
> > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
> >
> > RDA definitely allows the addition of qualifiers to distinguish works
> > with the same title:
> >
> > 6.27 Constructing Access Points to Represent Works and Expressions
> >
> > If the access point constructed by applying the instructions given
> > under
> > 6.27.1.2-6.27.1.8 is the same as or similar to an access point
> > representing a different work, or to an access point representing a
> > person, family, or corporate body, make additions to the access point
> > applying the instructions given under 6.27.1.9.
> >
> > 6.27.1.9  Additions to Access Points Representing Works
> >
> > If the access point constructed by applying the instructions given
> > under
> > 6.27.1.2-6.27.1.8 is the same as or similar to an access point
> > representing a different work, or to an access point representing a
> > person, family, corporate body, or place, add one or more of the
> > following, as appropriate:
> >
> > a) a term indicating the form of work (see 6.3)
> >
> > b) the date of the work (see 6.4)
> >
> > c) the place of origin of the work (see 6.5) and/or
> >
> > d) a term indicating another distinguishing characteristic of the work
> > (see 6.6).
> >
> > In my case, both the full report and the summary have the same title
> > proper, and since the works would be named by title only, 6.27.1.9 is
> > applicable.  I will go with "a term indicating another distinguishing
> > characterist of the work" and use "Water availability in the Ovens
> > (Summary)" as the authorized access point for the derivative work.  I
> > do think that the full report also probably needs to have a qualifier
> > added to it to distinguish it.  I'm thinking "Water availability in the
> > Ovens (Full report)" is about as good as anything else.
> >
> > The bib records are OCLC #408550975 and 808387939.  The name authority
> > records are no2012115407 and no2012115406.  I used reciprocal 530s in
> > the NARs to link the two related works.
> >
> >
> > Now that you've helped me solve this question - here's another for the
> > same two works:
> >
> > I can't seem to find a good relationship designator for the access
> > point made for the government of Australia, based on the subtitles:
> >
> > Water availability in the Ovens : a report to the Australian Government
> > from the CSIRO Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project.
> >
> > Water availability in the Ovens : summary of a report to the Australian
> > Government from the CSIRO Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields
> > Project.
> >
> > 710 2_CSIRO Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project, $e
> > author.
> > 710 1_  Australia, $e ???
> > 710 2_  CSIRO (Australia), $e issuing body.
> >
>



-- 
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] Naming works question

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

I think one key idea is that the relationships exist regardless of the 
convention used to capture the relationship between two entities.

RDA has four conventions for conveying relationships between works and between 
expressions (relationships between manifestations and between items use all of 
these conventions except authorized access points):

1. identifier
2. authorized access point
3. structured description
4. unstructured description.

A specifically encoded relationship designator can usually be applied to 
options 1 to 3. The free text of an unstructured description (essentially just 
a note) can use the same vocabulary as the designator. Some MARC conventions 
allow for tags, subfields and indicators to map to specific relationship 
designators, and new MARC conventions (such as $i) are placeholders for these 
designators. Designators are also populating SEE ALSO references in RDA 
authority records. (Relationships not only can exist whether we encode them or 
not, the historic conventions we've used - bibliographic records and authority 
records - also don't determine whether these relationships exist. Rather it's a 
matter of recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of any one convention, and 
there are many weaknesses in traditional cataloging conventions.)

Authorized access points (heading construction) and structured descriptions 
(ordered by areas of description usually) have their own set of conventions and 
issues, and may not be the method used for creating relationships in the long 
term.

RDA also allows for identifiers to link entities. Those linked records or sets 
of descriptive data will have discrete data elements that are not necessarily 
ordered into authorized access points or structured descriptions. In databases 
what gets displayed to end-users is not usually the identifier but data 
elements assembled for display purposes.

The conventions we use (identifiers, authorized access points, structured 
descriptions, unstructured descriptions) will largely be determined by the 
application we are using, but all conventions should convey the same elementary 
information about a relationship between specified entities.

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 Joan Wang
Sent: August 28, 2012 12:50 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question

According to FRBR, summary as a relationship exists between works or 
expressions of different works. I am not sure if it is helpful.

Thanks
Joan
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:09 AM, John Hostage 
mailto:host...@law.harvard.edu>> wrote:
Aren't these relationships overdetermined at this point?  We have additional 
access points on both records as well as 2 authority records that refer to each 
other and essentially duplicate the information on the bib records.  All this 
to indicate relationships that can probably best be handled in a note 
(unstructured description of the related expression) (RDA 26.1.1.3).  In my 
opinion, these are related expressions we're talking about (FRBR 5.3.2).  For 
machine connections, identifiers in field 787 would probably work best.

Authority records for these titles seem unnecessary since they don't meet the 
requirements in the Descriptive Cataloging Manual, Z1, Introduction.

Is it really useful to have an access point for a body that merely receives a 
report and didn't have a hand in its creation, especially when that body is a 
national government?

--
John Hostage
Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services
Langdell Hall 194
Cambridge, MA 02138
host...@law.harvard.edu
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)

> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On 
> Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 20:30
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
>
> RDA definitely allows the addition of qualifiers to distinguish works
> with the same title:
>
> 6.27 Constructing Access Points to Represent Works and Expressions
>
> If the access point constructed by applying the instructions given
> under
> 6.27.1.2-6.27.1.8 is the same as or similar to an access point
> representing a different work, or to an access point representing a
> person, family, or corporate body, make additions to the access point
> applying the instructions given under 6.27.1.9.
>
> 6.27.1.9  Additions to Access Points Representing Works
>
> If the access point constructed by applying the instructions given
> under
> 6.27.1.2-6.27.1.8 is the same as or similar to an access point
> representing a different work, or to an access po

Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question

[Kevin M Randall]

John Hostage wrote:

> Aren't these relationships overdetermined at this point?  We have
> additional access points on both records as well as 2 authority records
> that refer to each other and essentially duplicate the information on the
> bib records.  All this to indicate relationships that can probably best be
> handled in a note (unstructured description of the related expression)
> (RDA 26.1.1.3).  In my opinion, these are related expressions we're talking
> about (FRBR 5.3.2).  For machine connections, identifiers in field 787
> would probably work best.
> 
> Authority records for these titles seem unnecessary since they don't meet
> the requirements in the Descriptive Cataloging Manual, Z1, Introduction.

Our current MARC environment is not ideal for handling RDA data.  MARC 
Bibliographic records technically are describing manifestations, but also 
include elements relating to work and expressions, because there's nowhere else 
for those things to go.  So yes, in a traditional MARC-based catalog system, 
the authority records are pretty much overkill.  But when we have a data 
infrastructure that's friendlier with RDA, we'll have less duplication between 
data in "records" (for lack of a better term at the moment) for the FRBR Group 
1 entities.  Things analogous to the authority records that Adam Schiff created 
will likely be part of the normal cataloging routine; they will be the 
"work/expression records" to which the "manifestation records" will relate.  If 
system developers allow catalogers to be involved in cataloging interface 
design, the creation of work/expression/manifestation "records" should be even 
*easier and faster* than traditional MARC cataloging in systems such as OCLC 
Connexion.  But I'm not holding my breath...

> Is it really useful to have an access point for a body that merely receives a
> report and didn't have a hand in its creation, especially when that body is
> a national government?

I agree with John that the relationship of "Australia" to this resource has 
little bibliographic significance in regard to RDA chapter 19.  I think the 
subject relationship (RDA chapter 23) is sufficient.

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] Naming works question

[Joan Wang]

Learn a lot. Thanks to Thomas.

Joan Wang
llinois Heartland Library System

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Brenndorfer, Thomas <
tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca> wrote:

> I think one key idea is that the relationships exist regardless of the
> convention used to capture the relationship between two entities.
>
> ** **
>
> RDA has four conventions for conveying relationships between works and
> between expressions (relationships between manifestations and between items
> use all of these conventions except authorized access points):
>
> ** **
>
> 1. identifier
>
> 2. authorized access point
>
> 3. structured description
>
> 4. unstructured description.
>
> ** **
>
> A specifically encoded relationship designator can usually be applied to
> options 1 to 3. The free text of an unstructured description (essentially
> just a note) can use the same vocabulary as the designator. Some MARC
> conventions allow for tags, subfields and indicators to map to specific
> relationship designators, and new MARC conventions (such as $i) are
> placeholders for these designators. Designators are also populating SEE
> ALSO references in RDA authority records. (Relationships not only can exist
> whether we encode them or not, the historic conventions we’ve used –
> bibliographic records and authority records – also don’t determine whether
> these relationships exist. Rather it’s a matter of recognizing the
> strengths and weaknesses of any one convention, and there are many
> weaknesses in traditional cataloging conventions.)
>
> ** **
>
> Authorized access points (heading construction) and structured
> descriptions (ordered by areas of description usually) have their own set
> of conventions and issues, and may not be the method used for creating
> relationships in the long term.
>
> ** **
>
> RDA also allows for identifiers to link entities. Those linked records or
> sets of descriptive data will have discrete data elements that are not
> necessarily ordered into authorized access points or structured
> descriptions. In databases what gets displayed to end-users is not usually
> the identifier but data elements assembled for display purposes.
>
> ** **
>
> The conventions we use (identifiers, authorized access points, structured
> descriptions, unstructured descriptions) will largely be determined by the
> application we are using, but all conventions should convey the same
> elementary information about a relationship between specified entities.***
> *
>
> ** **
>
> 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 *Joan Wang
> *Sent:* August 28, 2012 12:50 PM
>
> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
>
> ** **
>
> According to FRBR, summary as a relationship exists between works or
> expressions of different works. I am not sure if it is helpful.
>
> Thanks
> Joan
>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:09 AM, John Hostage 
> wrote:
>
> Aren't these relationships overdetermined at this point?  We have
> additional access points on both records as well as 2 authority records
> that refer to each other and essentially duplicate the information on the
> bib records.  All this to indicate relationships that can probably best be
> handled in a note (unstructured description of the related expression) (RDA
> 26.1.1.3).  In my opinion, these are related expressions we're talking
> about (FRBR 5.3.2).  For machine connections, identifiers in field 787
> would probably work best.
>
> Authority records for these titles seem unnecessary since they don't meet
> the requirements in the Descriptive Cataloging Manual, Z1, Introduction.
>
> Is it really useful to have an access point for a body that merely
> receives a report and didn't have a hand in its creation, especially when
> that body is a national government?
>
> --
> John Hostage
> Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian
> Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services
> Langdell Hall 194
> Cambridge, MA 02138
> host...@law.harvard.edu
> +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
> +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access*
> ***
>
> > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
> > Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 20:30
> > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
> >
>
> > RDA definitely allows the addition of qualifiers to distinguish works***
> *
>
> > with the same title:
> >
> > 6.27 Constructing Access Points to Represent Works and Expressions
> >
> > If the access point constructed by applying the instructions given
> > under
> > 6.27.1.2-6.27.1.8 is the same as or similar to an access point
> > representing a different work, or to 

[RDA-L] Recipients (was: Naming works question)

[Ian Fairclough]

RDA-L readers,

John Hostage asked: "Is it really useful to have an access point for a body 
that merely receives a report and didn't have a hand in its creation ... "

AACR2 was clear on this point.  It's a local option.   21.29D says  "If, in the 
context of a given catalogue, an added entry is required under a heading or 
title other than those prescribed in 21.30, make it." Note use of the word 
"required", often equated with "necessary", although there's a subtle 
difference.  Several years ago I applied this option while working in a 
previous position, in the context of an extensive repository of grey literature 
dealing with a local situation.  One agency, a contractor, created a document 
on behalf of another, an agency of the U.S. military, which received it.

In RDA I don't see a specific rule to that effect under 19.3 Other Person, 
Family, or Corporate Body Associated with a Work.  (Am I missing something?)  
And, if the general rule 19.3.1.3 "Record other persons, families, and 
corporate bodies associated with the work, if considered important for access 
..." applies, then I wonder what relationship designator is appropriate.  
Perhaps one would fall back on the last sentence of 18.5 "... use a term 
designating the nature of the relationship as concisely as possible" and put 
"recipient."


The quoted excerpt from John's e-mail ends "... especially when that body is a 
national government?"  To which the answer is, again, if required in a given 
catalogue; otherwise not.  There's no need to manufacture requirements when 
none exist.

A question that can be used in deciding about access points is this.  Suppose 
someone performed a search using a particular heading you're considering 
applying in a bib record.  If that person retrieves the record you're working 
on, how satisfied are they likely to be with the results?  So if you search for 
a government agency, how likely is it that you'll want documents issued *to*, 
rather than by, that agency?  In answering this question, local situations can 
differ.


- Ian

Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - ifairclough43...@yahoo.com 

Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question

[Adam L. Schiff]

"Summary" would be recorded as "Other distinguishing characteristics of 
the work"


Here's the authority record I created (no2012115406):

130 _0 $a Water availability in the Ovens (Summary)
381 __ $a Summary
410 2_ $a CSIRO Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project. $t Water 
availability in the Ovens
530 _0 $i Summary of (work): $a Water availability in the Ovens (Full 
report) $w r


The 381 field is where the other distinguishing characteristic (which can 
be any word or phrase) is recorded as a separate element.  But LCPS 0.6.4 
says to always add the element used to differentiate one entity from 
another to the access point itself, whether or not that element is also

recorded separately:

When recording elements to differentiate the authorized access point of a 
person, family, or corporate body from that of another person, family, or 
corporate body, always add one or more differentiating elements to the 
access point. Use judgment in deciding whether to also record these 
elements as separate elements and whether to record additional identifying 
elements (those not needed for differentiation) as separate elements.


^^
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 Tue, 28 Aug 2012, Gene Fieg wrote:


Just a question here.  I just looked at the RDA suggested additions to a title 
to distinguish it from others.
 
I did not see Summary listed there; it might be justified by the statement to 
take the qualifier from the work
itself, but what some other agency or person writes a different summary of the 
same work, then what.  The uniform
title (preferred access point) would not point to that work, would it?

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 6:33 AM, Brenndorfer, Thomas 
 wrote:
  > -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: August 27, 2012 11:25 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
>
> Adam said:
>
> >RDA definitely allows the addition of qualifiers to distinguish works
> >with the same title ...
>
> But not in 245 where they would be most helpful, and where Margaret Mann
> would have them (pre MARC), right?


As a basic principle that wouldn't be a good idea.

A 245 transcribed title proper can vary, and so it would not be a good 
"uniform" consistent identifier of the
work.

The role of the authorized access point for the work is to function like a 
numeric identifier for the work--
something immutable and serviceable as the target of a relationship element and 
designator.

A bigger nuisance is the lack of subfield coding for the qualifier for 
authorized access points for works.

The Preferred Title is a separate element, but the qualifier gets dumped into 
$a of the MARC field 130. This
despite the idea that the qualifier can also exist in its own element (such as 
380 - Form of Work). If
anything, this shows the risk of trying to start with MARC and its occasional 
lack of granularity or complex
set of interdependencies, and reverse engineer the logic of what is needed to 
be done. A good example is the
overlaying of two concepts at times on the 245 title-- that of transcribed 
title proper and that of preferred
title of the work (if a 130 or 240 is absent). In the end, there are still two 
distinct elements.


>
> >I can't seem to find a good relationship designator for the access
> >point made for the government of Australia ...
>
> It seems to me impossible to construct a list which includes all
> possibilities.  Our clients don't want 7XX$i, but if we were to use it,
> "Recipient body:" seems appropriate.


The relationship designators form one layer; the broader relationship element 
serves as the basic indicator of
the relationship.

One problem is that the broader elements aren't defined values for the 
relationship designator in subfield $e
or $j for conferences (not $i -- that's not for persons, corporate bodies, or 
families, but for works and
expressions).

Among these are:
Creator
Other Person, Corporate Body or Family Associated with the Work
Contributor
Publisher

Every relationship designator can devolve into one of these more basic 
elements, but perhaps what's needed is
a better encoding method to capture these broader elements.

>
> I still think including part or all of subtitle makes more sense than
> supplying something.  This is one of the very few instances in which I have
> not totally agreed with Michael Gorman (we had this discussion earlier
> about a very generic title proper, with a distinctive subtitle).  Seems to
> me a "portion or all of subtitle" could be added to the list of possible
> RDA additions.
>

One thing RDA does is step back from the who

Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question

[Adam L. Schiff]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012, Gene Fieg wrote:


Just a question here.  I just looked at the RDA suggested additions to a title 
to distinguish it from others.
 
I did not see Summary listed there; it might be justified by the statement to 
take the qualifier from the work
itself, but what some other agency or person writes a different summary of the 
same work, then what.  The uniform
title (preferred access point) would not point to that work, would it?


The question depends on what the preferred title for the work that is a 
summary of another work is.  If it is different than the original work, 
then this is not a problem.  In my situation, both the original work and 
the summary have the same preferred title, so a qualifier is needed to 
differentiate them:


ORIGINAL WORK (the full report):

Manifestation title: Water availability in the Ovens : a report to the 
Australian Government from the CSIRO Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable 
Yields Project.


Preferred title: Water availability in the Ovens

DERIVATIVE WORK (the summary):

Manifestation title: Water availability in the Ovens : summary of a report 
to the Australian Government from the CSIRO Murray-Darling Basin 
Sustainable Yields Project.


Preferred title: Water availability in the Ovens


To differentiate these two related works, I needed an authorized access 
point for each with a different qualifier.  So for each I added an "other 
distinguishing characteristic of the work" to differentiate them:


Authorized access point for original: Water availability in the Ovens 
(Full report)


Authorized access point for derivative: Water availability in the Ovens 
(Summary)



Now if the summary didn't have the same preferred title, we wouldn't have 
to do what I did.  For example, if the summary had this manifestation 
title:


Summary of Water availability in the Ovens

its preferred title would be:

Summary of Water availability in the Ovens

Now there is no conflict, so I would not have needed to include a 130 
field in each of the bibliographic records to distinguish them.


--Adam Schiff

**
* 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   * 
**

Re: [RDA-L] Recipients (was: Naming works question)

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Ian Fairclough
> Sent: August 28, 2012 3:07 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: [RDA-L] Recipients (was: Naming works question)
> 
> 
> In RDA I don't see a specific rule to that effect under 19.3 Other Person,
> Family, or Corporate Body Associated with a Work.  (Am I missing
> something?)  And, if the general rule 19.3.1.3 "Record other persons,
> families, and corporate bodies associated with the work, if considered
> important for access ..." applies, then I wonder what relationship
> designator is appropriate.  Perhaps one would fall back on the last
> sentence of 18.5 "... use a term designating the nature of the relationship
> as concisely as possible" and put "recipient."
> 

I think 19.3.1.3 is the only instruction that parallels AACR2 21.29D.

There is also probably a basic idea lurking in RDA as well when looking for 
comparable AACR2 rules-- when in doubt, check the examples.

There are several examples in 19.3.1.3 where only the phrasing "associated with 
the work" is used rather than a term reflecting a specific designator such as 
"issuing body" or "sponsoring body".

One example has a publisher elevated from its manifestation relationship to a 
work relationship -- "West (Firm) ... Publisher has significant responsibility 
for the creation of the work".

That last example is of note, since "publisher" is not a relationship 
designator, but its own relationship element, comparable to "creator" or "other 
person, corporate body or family associated with a work".

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question

[Bernhard Eversberg]

28.08.2012 19:29, Brenndorfer, Thomas:


RDA has four conventions for conveying relationships between works
and between expressions (relationships between manifestations and
between items use all of these conventions except authorized access
points):

1. identifier

2. authorized access point

3. structured description

4. unstructured description.
...

The conventions we use (identifiers, authorized access points,
structured descriptions, unstructured descriptions) will largely be
determined by the application we are using, but all conventions
should convey the same elementary information about a relationship
between specified entities.



The big question is: To whom can those conventions convey their meaning?
Only 1. and 2. can convey it to a program in order to elicit any action
from it, beyond merely displaying it. And that's what we want, more
often than not: to make relationship information actionable. Then
however, the desired actions may vary according to the nature of the
relationship: whether we have a translation, a summary, an updated
edition, or whatever.
All of this mandates machine-actionable linking, and qualifiers to
determine the semantics of a link. And since there may be more than one
such link per record, the identifier or access point has to be combined
with the qualifier in one field. And not, for example, the preferred
title in a 730 and a vernacular qualifier in a 370.
Is there a vocabulary of standardized qualifier terms anywhere, for
this purpose? If not, make one and make its use mandatory, make it a 
core subelement for relationships to work and expression.


B.Eversberg