date:20121126

Re: [RDA-L] BIBFRAME model document announced

2012-11-26 Thread Heidrun Wiesenmüller


Thomas Brenndorfer said:


In several early chapters in RDA there is only a thin blue line separating the movement 
from manifestation attributes to item attributes, and from work attributes to expression 
attributes. For an example of a boundary, see the blue separator "Other Identifying 
Attributes of Expressions" above RDA 6.9 (Content Type).

For RDA Ch. 4 (Providing Acquisitions and Access Information), the attributes 
can be applied to either manifestations or items. This can be seen more clearly 
in the RDA Element Set view (under the Tools tab), which has a hard FRBR 
breakdown of WEMIPFCBCOEP and all subordinate elements organized by attribute 
elements and then relationship elements.


True, works and expressions are treated very close together in RDA. And 
it's certainly also true that the boundaries between the WEMI entities 
are not always clear-cut, and there is sometimes room for discussion and 
different interpretations.


But I still find it very hard to accept that BIBFRAME in its first draft 
(if I understand it correctly) doesn't seem to accommodate for modeling 
a work in the abstract FRBR sense - at least not in the bibliographic 
part of BIBFRAME. Perhaps it would be possible to model a FRBR work in 
the "Authority" section of BIBFRAME, as obviously a FRBR work can be a 
subject. I share Robert Maxwell's concern, though, that BIBFRAME here 
seems to codify a certain form of technical implementation, namely that 
of bibliographic vs. authority data. A really modern data framework 
should, I believe, be more flexible than that.




The report provides a good rationalization for its own approach, which is at a 
sufficiently high abstract level to account for data organization by other 
communities:
"The goal of the Bibliographic Framework Initiative is to develop a model to 
which various content models can be mapped. This recognizes that different 
communities may have different views of their resources and thus different needs for 
resource descriptions. This is especially pronounced as one leaves the book/text 
media and considers images (still and moving), cartographic resources, archival 
collections, and ultimately cultural artifact and museum collections. Many content 
models define hierarchical relationships that need to be restated in RDF graph terms 
and then simplified to the BIBFRAME model.

For example, the origin of the Work/Instance aspects of the BIBFRAME can reflect the 
FRBR relationships in terms of a graph rather than as hierarchical relationships, 
after applying a reductionist technique to simplify things as much as possible. 
Formally reconciling the BIBFRAME modeling effort with an RDA-lite set of cataloging 
rules is a logical next step."

(pg. 15 - http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition/pdf/marcld-report-11-21-2012.pdf)


Well, maybe it's just me, but I'm not really sure what they mean with 
"reflecting the FRBR relationships in terms of a graph (...) after 
applying a reductionist technique". Some more information would have 
been nice. It would also have been good if the BIBFRAME paper gave some 
insight in the motives for digressing from FRBR. Because, although I 
expressed some doubts in my last mail, in fact I am certain that they've 
read the FRBR report...


Also, I really don't like the word "RDA-lite" in this paragraph. 
BIBFRAME must also accommodate for "RDA-full".


Heidrun


--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmüller M.A.
Hochschule der Medien
Fakultät Information und Kommunikation
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart
Tel. dienstl.: 0711/25706-188
Tel. Home Office: 0711/36565868
Fax. 0711/25706-300
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Re: [RDA-L] BIBFRAME model document announced

2012-11-26 Thread Bernhard Eversberg


Am 26.11.2012 09:43, schrieb Heidrun Wiesenmüller:


But I still find it very hard to accept that BIBFRAME in its first
draft (if I understand it correctly) doesn't seem to accommodate for
modeling a work in the abstract FRBR sense - at least not in the
bibliographic part of BIBFRAME. Perhaps it would be possible to model
a FRBR work in the "Authority" section of BIBFRAME, as obviously a
FRBR work can be a subject. I share Robert Maxwell's concern, though,
that BIBFRAME here seems to codify a certain form of technical
implementation, namely that of bibliographic vs. authority data. ...


A lot of speculation. We have to simply ask for the reasoning that
resulted in the draft as it is. Maybe - another speculation - they came
to the conclusion (after studying Jim Weinheimer's musings, for
instance) that WEMI is impracticable or not desirable or not worth the
time and effort.
Is there none of the insiders here to provide some background on all
this?

B.E.

Re: [RDA-L] BIBFRAME model document announced

2012-11-26 Thread James Weinheimer


On 11/26/2012 09:53 AM, Bernhard Eversberg wrote:


A lot of speculation. We have to simply ask for the reasoning that
resulted in the draft as it is. Maybe - another speculation - they came
to the conclusion (after studying Jim Weinheimer's musings, for
instance) that WEMI is impracticable or not desirable or not worth the
time and effort.
Is there none of the insiders here to provide some background on all
this?



I would personally like the BIBFRAME suggestions much more if all 
references to FRBR were taken out. As Eric Miller mentioned in his talk 
at LC about the new bibliographic framework, 
http://www.loc.gov/today/cyberlc/feature_wdesc.php?rec=5605 (and the 
ensuing discussion on Autocat), the framework must be simple. If it is 
not simple, nobody will even think about using it. Very wise words.


Let's face it: the FRBR structure is bizarre and difficult even for 
trained catalogers to grasp. In addition, it is based on some unproven 
ideological concepts. Can we really expect non-librarian web creators to 
understand it so that they can implement it in some kind of coherent way?


While the new FRBR relationships may sound good at first, the reality is 
rather different. Introducing those relationships will seriously devalue 
the records in the catalog and degrade search results if we are not to 
undertake *massive* retrospective work. That is a simple fact 
(http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2012/09/cataloging-matters-no-16-catalogs.html). 
This is certainly not the underlying idea of linked data. The idea of 
linked data is to take the data that you *currently have*, share it 
openly in certain ways, and link information where it can be linked. 
Just by doing that, it is assumed that you have increased its value. We 
should find out if it is true. We don't have to devalue the millions of 
records we have now.


The FRBR user tasks are from an earlier time, and in any case, the 
public hasn't been able to do them since keyword searching was 
introduced--even in our library catalogs. That has been quite awhile now 
and I have never seen or heard of anyone complaining. Those original 
tasks have been long forgotten and have now been superceded in a 
multitude of ways. Besides, if somebody wants to navigate WEMI, it can 
be done now with the right catalog software.


For navigation and discovery, let advances in software deal with all of 
that, just as modern software can now extract all the headings and turn 
them into facets for further searching. What more will advances in 
software be able to do as full-text becomes increasingly available and 
library metadata can interact with it more and more? And as image 
searching (http://www.tineye.com) and sound searching 
(http://www.musipedia.org/) improve?


The new bibliographic format should be aimed at the *public*. They will 
be the consumers--not catalogers. We should not be trying to make 
ideological statements that others will not understand or care about, 
such as trying to teach WEMI or to convince them that people *really* 
want the FRBR user tasks. People want resources. Create records that are 
reliable, based on what we have now. If other projects harvest our 
metadata, assume that they will *not* retain our format, but will 
transform it into something else that serves their needs--just as 
libraries do with the formats they get.


The first steps in the new format should be to make it in the simplest 
ways possible so that web creators can use our records as soon as 
possible. The catalog world is starving for feedback! Once feedback 
starts coming in, the future should become clearer.


--
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] BIBFRAME model document announced

2012-11-26 Thread Bernhard Eversberg


26.11.2012 12:17, James Weinheimer:


Let's face it: the FRBR structure is bizarre and difficult even for
trained catalogers to grasp.

... and to apply consistently end efficiently.



The FRBR user tasks are from an earlier time, and in any case, the
public hasn't been able to do them since keyword searching was
introduced--even in our library catalogs. That has been quite awhile
now and I have never seen or heard of anyone complaining. Those
original tasks have been long forgotten and have now been superceded
in a multitude of ways.

You are turning more and more radical. Honest analysis - once it
were done - might well confirm you, however.


Besides, if somebody wants to navigate WEMI,
it can be done now with the right catalog software.


Once it were proved necessary. LT and GBS have both found some
demand for it, and come up with their own solutions, not exactly along
our lines of thinking and not exactly with much success (in the case of 
GBS at least).




The first steps in the new format should be to make it in the
simplest ways possible so that web creators can use our records as
soon as possible.

Wasn't that part of the motivation behind Dublin Core? I think it failed
miserably because it did not create a format but left that to
implementers. Foreseeably, each and every one of them came up with
their own schemes and their own idiosyncratic syntaxes.
The schema.org people are doing a somewhat better job in that they
do not leave much to implementers. But then, their approach is very
different from the idea of "records" as self-contained entities, and so
it is difficult to see how to apply it in a library catalog context.

Anyway, I really don't like this speculating around in this list
with no input from those who should know more and might easily resolve 
errors in our wild guesses. Can this be called a discussion list? It is

rather another Speakers' Corner, inconsequential at the end of the day.
Not the first time though that I encounter this phenomenon.

B.Eversberg

Re: [RDA-L] Adding 336 still image

2012-11-26 Thread Robert Maxwell

My own practice is to use all the content types I need to describe the 
resource. I usually include content types corresponding to anything I've put in 
300 $b (in addition to text).

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept.
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to 
the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.


From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2012 11:40 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Adding 336 still image

Autocatters and RDA-Lers,

We've not yet had an answer to the question of what proportion of
illustrations warrants adding 336 still image to 336 text.  In
particular, I'm thinking of illustrated commercial sale catalogues,
and art exhibition catalogues.


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

Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors

2012-11-26 Thread Jack Wu

Then, in MARC, it can sometimes be using $e illustrator, but at other times $e 
artist? Or would one be using both terms? It's somewhat confusing to me.
 
Jack Wu
Franciscan University of Steubenville
j...@franciscan.edu 

>>> JSC Secretary  11/23/2012 8:14 AM >>>
Jenny,

The LC-PCC PS you cite is in chapter 20, the chapter for contributors, and 
states the policy requiring an authorized access point for the first 
illustrator (someone with responsibility for the expression, not the work). If 
the person involved in your resource has responsibility at the work level as a 
creator, you would not be consulting chapter 20.

Yes, the only creator-level term in appenidx I is "artist" because 
"illustrator" there is the term for a relationship at the expression level.

Judy Kuhagen
JSC Secretary



On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Jenny Wright  wrote:


Hi All
I am looking at how to deal with children's picture books using RDA rules, and 
would like to know what others think.

I think of children's picture books as being co-created by the author and the 
illustrator, and I believe it would be a different work if there were different 
illustrations, rather than a different expression.

My reading of RDA is that if I believe a person to be a co-creator of a work, 
rather than a contributor to an expression, then the only available 
relationship designator for the illustrator is "artist".

However, there is an LC-PCC PS stating
"Provide an authorized access point in the bibliographic record for an 
illustrator in all cases of resources intended for children. Give the RDA 
appendix I designator "illustrator" in MARC 700 subfield $e."

Can anyone help explain this apparent anomaly?
Thank you
Jenny Wright
Development manager
Bibliographic Data Services Ltd.




Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance

Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors

2012-11-26 Thread Jenny Wright

My understanding is that:

If the illustrations are integral to the work, the person who
drew/painted them is a creator, or co-creator, and so the relationship
designator should be "artist".

If the illustrations are complementary to the work, and belong at
expression level (they contribute to the realisation of the work), then
the relationship designator should be "illustrator".

What is more debatable is how one decides whether the art is integral to
the work.  Could another artist could draw new comic strips for the same
story, or new pictures for a juvenile picture book without changing it
to a new work?

Jenny Wright

Development Manager

Bibliographic Data Services Ltd.

 

 

 

 

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jack Wu
Sent: 26 November 2012 14:30
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors

 

Then, in MARC, it can sometimes be using $e illustrator, but at other
times $e artist? Or would one be using both terms? It's somewhat
confusing to me.

 

Jack Wu

Franciscan University of Steubenville

j...@franciscan.edu 

>>> JSC Secretary  11/23/2012 8:14 AM >>>
Jenny,

The LC-PCC PS you cite is in chapter 20, the chapter for contributors,
and states the policy requiring an authorized access point for the first
illustrator (someone with responsibility for the expression, not the
work). If the person involved in your resource has responsibility at the
work level as a creator, you would not be consulting chapter 20.

Yes, the only creator-level term in appenidx I is "artist" because
"illustrator" there is the term for a relationship at the expression
level.

Judy Kuhagen
JSC Secretary




On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Jenny Wright
 wrote:

Hi All
I am looking at how to deal with children's picture books using RDA
rules, and would like to know what others think.

I think of children's picture books as being co-created by the author
and the illustrator, and I believe it would be a different work if there
were different illustrations, rather than a different expression.

My reading of RDA is that if I believe a person to be a co-creator of a
work, rather than a contributor to an expression, then the only
available relationship designator for the illustrator is "artist".

However, there is an LC-PCC PS stating
"Provide an authorized access point in the bibliographic record for an
illustrator in all cases of resources intended for children. Give the
RDA appendix I designator "illustrator" in MARC 700 subfield $e."

Can anyone help explain this apparent anomaly?
Thank you
Jenny Wright
Development manager
Bibliographic Data Services Ltd.

 



Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance 



This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk

Re: [RDA-L] BIBFRAME model document announced

2012-11-26 Thread Adger Williams


Anyway, I really don't like this speculating around in this list
with no input from those who should know more and might easily resolve
errors in our wild guesses. Can this be called a discussion list? It is
rather another Speakers' Corner, inconsequential at the end of the day.
Not the first time though that I encounter this phenomenon.


How soon we get some input from Zephira ("those who should know more...")
will show us how much value they place on RDA.

In the absence of any response, a certain amount of discussion seems
entirely appropriate.


On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Bernhard Eversberg wrote:

> 26.11.2012 12:17, James Weinheimer:
>
>
>> Let's face it: the FRBR structure is bizarre and difficult even for
>> trained catalogers to grasp.
>>
> ... and to apply consistently end efficiently.
>
>
>
>> The FRBR user tasks are from an earlier time, and in any case, the
>> public hasn't been able to do them since keyword searching was
>> introduced--even in our library catalogs. That has been quite awhile
>> now and I have never seen or heard of anyone complaining. Those
>> original tasks have been long forgotten and have now been superceded
>> in a multitude of ways.
>>
> You are turning more and more radical. Honest analysis - once it
> were done - might well confirm you, however.
>
>
>  Besides, if somebody wants to navigate WEMI,
>> it can be done now with the right catalog software.
>>
>>  Once it were proved necessary. LT and GBS have both found some
> demand for it, and come up with their own solutions, not exactly along
> our lines of thinking and not exactly with much success (in the case of
> GBS at least).
>
>
>
>> The first steps in the new format should be to make it in the
>> simplest ways possible so that web creators can use our records as
>> soon as possible.
>>
> Wasn't that part of the motivation behind Dublin Core? I think it failed
> miserably because it did not create a format but left that to
> implementers. Foreseeably, each and every one of them came up with
> their own schemes and their own idiosyncratic syntaxes.
> The schema.org people are doing a somewhat better job in that they
> do not leave much to implementers. But then, their approach is very
> different from the idea of "records" as self-contained entities, and so
> it is difficult to see how to apply it in a library catalog context.
>
> Anyway, I really don't like this speculating around in this list
> with no input from those who should know more and might easily resolve
> errors in our wild guesses. Can this be called a discussion list? It is
> rather another Speakers' Corner, inconsequential at the end of the day.
> Not the first time though that I encounter this phenomenon.
>
> B.Eversberg
>



-- 
Adger Williams
Colgate University Library
315-228-7310
awilli...@colgate.edu

Re: [RDA-L] BIBFRAME model document announced

2012-11-26 Thread Brenndorfer, Thomas

A good tutorial on RDF graphs can be found here: 
http://www.linkeddatatools.com/semantic-web-basics. One can see the same kind 
of entity, attribute and relationship structure as in FRBR, but here is is all 
structured by relationships in the form of statements (or triples), and 
arranged in graphs (which are a series of statements about how things relate to 
each other). What is new with RDF graph databases is their non-hierarchical 
nature.


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors

2012-11-26 Thread Jack Wu

And the searcher, in order to search successfully, would have to know
this distinction in our use of a different qualifier for the same person
under different circumstances, as well, I presume?

Jack Wu
Franciscan University of Steubenville
j...@franciscan.edu

>>> Jenny Wright  11/26/2012 9:38 AM >>>

My understanding is that:
If the illustrations are integral to the work, the person who
drew/painted them is a creator, or co-creator, and so the relationship
designator should be “artist”.
If the illustrations are complementary to the work, and belong at
expression level (they contribute to the realisation of the work), then
the relationship designator should be “illustrator”.
What is more debatable is how one decides whether the art is integral
to the work.  Could another artist could draw new comic strips for the
same story, or new pictures for a juvenile picture book without changing
it to a new work?
Jenny Wright
Development Manager
Bibliographic Data Services Ltd.

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jack Wu
Sent: 26 November 2012 14:30
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors

Then, in MARC, it can sometimes be using $e illustrator, but at other
times $e artist? Or would one be using both terms? It's somewhat
confusing to me.

Jack Wu

Franciscan University of Steubenville

j...@franciscan.edu 

>>> JSC Secretary  11/23/2012 8:14 AM >>>
Jenny,

The LC-PCC PS you cite is in chapter 20, the chapter for contributors,
and states the policy requiring an authorized access point for the first
illustrator (someone with responsibility for the expression, not the
work). If the person involved in your resource has responsibility at the
work level as a creator, you would not be consulting chapter 20.

Yes, the only creator-level term in appenidx I is "artist" because
"illustrator" there is the term for a relationship at the expression
level.

Judy Kuhagen
JSC Secretary

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Jenny Wright
 wrote:
Hi All
I am looking at how to deal with children's picture books using RDA
rules, and would like to know what others think.

I think of children's picture books as being co-created by the author
and the illustrator, and I believe it would be a different work if there
were different illustrations, rather than a different expression.

My reading of RDA is that if I believe a person to be a co-creator of a
work, rather than a contributor to an expression, then the only
available relationship designator for the illustrator is "artist".

However, there is an LC-PCC PS stating
"Provide an authorized access point in the bibliographic record for an
illustrator in all cases of resources intended for children. Give the
RDA appendix I designator "illustrator" in MARC 700 subfield $e."

Can anyone help explain this apparent anomaly?
Thank you
Jenny Wright
Development manager
Bibliographic Data Services Ltd.

Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance 

This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk

Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance

Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors

2012-11-26 Thread Brenndorfer, Thomas

The distinction between “artist” and “illustrator” currently exists in the 
choices for main entry heading. Catalogers have to know that an artist can be a 
main entry heading, and an illustrator can only be an added entry. The 
distinction comes down to knowing what is the work and what is the expression 
(that is, in knowing that an illustrator has only contributed to the 
realization of a work, but is not responsible for the primary intellectual or 
creative content of the work).
These categorizations may seem arbitrary, but they are still the basis for 
traditional cataloging, and reappear as entity-relationships in RDA. RDA does 
go a bit further in recognizing that there may be more types of relationships 
beyond the crude main/added entry distinction. For example, a Creator may also 
have a Contributor role (as in Composer and Singer). This can be seen in the 
second RDA/MARC example in 
http://www.rdatoolkit.org/sites/default/files/6jsc_rda_complete_examples_bibliographic_jul0312_rev.pdf
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 Jack Wu
Sent: November 26, 2012 11:08 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors

And the searcher, in order to search successfully, would have to know this 
distinction in our use of a different qualifier for the same person under 
different circumstances, as well, I presume?

Jack Wu
Franciscan University of Steubenville
j...@franciscan.edu

>>> Jenny Wright mailto:jenny.wri...@bibdsl.co.uk>> 
>>> 11/26/2012 9:38 AM >>>
My understanding is that:
If the illustrations are integral to the work, the person who drew/painted them 
is a creator, or co-creator, and so the relationship designator should be 
“artist”.
If the illustrations are complementary to the work, and belong at expression 
level (they contribute to the realisation of the work), then the relationship 
designator should be “illustrator”.
What is more debatable is how one decides whether the art is integral to the 
work.  Could another artist could draw new comic strips for the same story, or 
new pictures for a juvenile picture book without changing it to a new work?
Jenny Wright
Development Manager
Bibliographic Data Services Ltd.

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jack Wu
Sent: 26 November 2012 14:30
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors

Then, in MARC, it can sometimes be using $e illustrator, but at other times $e 
artist? Or would one be using both terms? It's somewhat confusing to me.

Jack Wu
Franciscan University of Steubenville
j...@franciscan.edu

>>> JSC Secretary 
>>> mailto:jscsecret...@rdatoolkit.org>> 
>>> 11/23/2012 8:14 AM >>>
Jenny,

The LC-PCC PS you cite is in chapter 20, the chapter for contributors, and 
states the policy requiring an authorized access point for the first 
illustrator (someone with responsibility for the expression, not the work). If 
the person involved in your resource has responsibility at the work level as a 
creator, you would not be consulting chapter 20.

Yes, the only creator-level term in appenidx I is "artist" because 
"illustrator" there is the term for a relationship at the expression level.

Judy Kuhagen
JSC Secretary

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Jenny Wright 
mailto:jenny.wri...@bibdsl.co.uk>> wrote:
Hi All
I am looking at how to deal with children's picture books using RDA rules, and 
would like to know what others think.

I think of children's picture books as being co-created by the author and the 
illustrator, and I believe it would be a different work if there were different 
illustrations, rather than a different expression.

My reading of RDA is that if I believe a person to be a co-creator of a work, 
rather than a contributor to an expression, then the only available 
relationship designator for the illustrator is "artist".

However, there is an LC-PCC PS stating
"Provide an authorized access point in the bibliographic record for an 
illustrator in all cases of resources intended for children. Give the RDA 
appendix I designator "illustrator" in MARC 700 subfield $e."

Can anyone help explain this apparent anomaly?
Thank you
Jenny Wright
Development manager
Bibliographic Data Services Ltd.

Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance

This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk
_

Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors

2012-11-26 Thread Laurence S. Creider

And all this helps the public how?

-- 
Laurence S. Creider
Interim Head
Archives and Special Collections Dept.
University Library
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM  88003
Work: 575-646-4756
Fax: 575-646-7477
lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu

On Mon, November 26, 2012 9:19 am, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
> The distinction between âartistâ and âillustratorâ currently
> exists in the choices for main entry heading. Catalogers have to know that
> an artist can be a main entry heading, and an illustrator can only be an
> added entry. The distinction comes down to knowing what is the work and
> what is the expression (that is, in knowing that an illustrator has only
> contributed to the realization of a work, but is not responsible for the
> primary intellectual or creative content of the work).
> These categorizations may seem arbitrary, but they are still the basis for
> traditional cataloging, and reappear as entity-relationships in RDA. RDA
> does go a bit further in recognizing that there may be more types of
> relationships beyond the crude main/added entry distinction. For example,
> a Creator may also have a Contributor role (as in Composer and Singer).
> This can be seen in the second RDA/MARC example in
> http://www.rdatoolkit.org/sites/default/files/6jsc_rda_complete_examples_bibliographic_jul0312_rev.pdf
> 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 Jack Wu
> Sent: November 26, 2012 11:08 AM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors
>
> And the searcher, in order to search successfully, would have to know this
> distinction in our use of a different qualifier for the same person under
> different circumstances, as well, I presume?
>
> Jack Wu
> Franciscan University of Steubenville
> j...@franciscan.edu
>
 Jenny Wright
 mailto:jenny.wri...@bibdsl.co.uk>>
 11/26/2012 9:38 AM >>>
> My understanding is that:
> If the illustrations are integral to the work, the person who drew/painted
> them is a creator, or co-creator, and so the relationship designator
> should be âartistâ.
> If the illustrations are complementary to the work, and belong at
> expression level (they contribute to the realisation of the work), then
> the relationship designator should be âillustratorâ.
> What is more debatable is how one decides whether the art is integral to
> the work.  Could another artist could draw new comic strips for the same
> story, or new pictures for a juvenile picture book without changing it to
> a new work?
> Jenny Wright
> Development Manager
> Bibliographic Data Services Ltd.
>
>
>
>
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jack Wu
> Sent: 26 November 2012 14:30
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors
>
> Then, in MARC, it can sometimes be using $e illustrator, but at other
> times $e artist? Or would one be using both terms? It's somewhat confusing
> to me.
>
> Jack Wu
> Franciscan University of Steubenville
> j...@franciscan.edu
>
 JSC Secretary
 mailto:jscsecret...@rdatoolkit.org>>
 11/23/2012 8:14 AM >>>
> Jenny,
>
> The LC-PCC PS you cite is in chapter 20, the chapter for contributors, and
> states the policy requiring an authorized access point for the first
> illustrator (someone with responsibility for the expression, not the
> work). If the person involved in your resource has responsibility at the
> work level as a creator, you would not be consulting chapter 20.
>
> Yes, the only creator-level term in appenidx I is "artist" because
> "illustrator" there is the term for a relationship at the expression
> level.
>
> Judy Kuhagen
> JSC Secretary
>
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Jenny Wright
> mailto:jenny.wri...@bibdsl.co.uk>> wrote:
> Hi All
> I am looking at how to deal with children's picture books using RDA rules,
> and would like to know what others think.
>
> I think of children's picture books as being co-created by the author and
> the illustrator, and I believe it would be a different work if there were
> different illustrations, rather than a different expression.
>
> My reading of RDA is that if I believe a person to be a co-creator of a
> work, rather than a contributor to an expression, then the only available
> relationship designator for the illustrator is "artist".
>
> However, there is an LC-PCC PS stating
> "Provide an authorized access point in the bibliographic record for an
> illustrator in all cases of resources intended for children. Give the RDA
> appendix I designator "illustrator" in MARC 700 subfield $e."
>
> Can anyone help explain this apparent anomaly?
> Thank you
> Jenny Wright
> Development manager
> Bibli

[RDA-L] Recording Statements of Responsibility Relating to Series

2012-11-26 Thread Lynne LaBare, Senior Librarian/Cataloger


  
  
Dear Colleagues,

I am new to RDA cataloging and
request your help in the correct way to record a statement
of responsibility for a series in the 800 field. The example I have is as
follows:
  
  800 1_ $aSnyder,
Maria V., $e author.$t Healer series ;$v
2.

Please inform me if I
am interpreting RDA:2.12.6.3 correctly.  Thank you.
  


Lynne J. LaBare 
Senior Librarian, Cataloger
Provo Library at Academy Square 
550 North University Avenue Provo, Utah
84601-1618
801.852.7672
801.852.6670 (fax) 
Email: lyn...@provo.lib.ut.us
  

  

  

<>

Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors

2012-11-26 Thread Brenndorfer, Thomas

As an option for navigating the relationships people have had to creative 
works, there is the possibility of very user-friendly approaches, as in this 
IMDB example for the many job types Clint Eastwood has had in relation to films:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm142/


Current library catalogs do not come close in helping users in ways that are 
now commonly found across the web.


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 Laurence S. Creider
> Sent: November 26, 2012 11:27 AM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors
> 
> And all this helps the public how?
> 
> --
> Laurence S. Creider
> Interim Head
> Archives and Special Collections Dept.
> University Library
> New Mexico State University
> Las Cruces, NM  88003
> Work: 575-646-4756
> Fax: 575-646-7477
> lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu
> 
> On Mon, November 26, 2012 9:19 am, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
> > The distinction between â€œartistâ€ and â€œillustratorâ€ currently
> > exists in the choices for main entry heading. Catalogers have to know
> > that an artist can be a main entry heading, and an illustrator can
> > only be an added entry. The distinction comes down to knowing what is
> > the work and what is the expression (that is, in knowing that an
> > illustrator has only contributed to the realization of a work, but is
> > not responsible for the primary intellectual or creative content of the
> work).
> > These categorizations may seem arbitrary, but they are still the basis
> > for traditional cataloging, and reappear as entity-relationships in
> > RDA. RDA does go a bit further in recognizing that there may be more
> > types of relationships beyond the crude main/added entry distinction.
> > For example, a Creator may also have a Contributor role (as in Composer
> and Singer).
> > This can be seen in the second RDA/MARC example in
> > http://www.rdatoolkit.org/sites/default/files/6jsc_rda_complete_exampl
> > es_bibliographic_jul0312_rev.pdf
> > 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 Jack Wu
> > Sent: November 26, 2012 11:08 AM
> > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors
> >
> > And the searcher, in order to search successfully, would have to know
> > this distinction in our use of a different qualifier for the same
> > person under different circumstances, as well, I presume?
> >
> > Jack Wu
> > Franciscan University of Steubenville
> > j...@franciscan.edu
> >
>  Jenny Wright
>  mailto:jenny.wri...@bibdsl.co.uk>>
>  11/26/2012 9:38 AM >>>
> > My understanding is that:
> > If the illustrations are integral to the work, the person who
> > drew/painted them is a creator, or co-creator, and so the relationship
> > designator should be â€œartistâ€.
> > If the illustrations are complementary to the work, and belong at
> > expression level (they contribute to the realisation of the work),
> > then the relationship designator should be â€œillustratorâ€.
> > What is more debatable is how one decides whether the art is integral
> > to the work.  Could another artist could draw new comic strips for the
> > same story, or new pictures for a juvenile picture book without
> > changing it to a new work?
> > Jenny Wright
> > Development Manager
> > Bibliographic Data Services Ltd.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
> > Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jack Wu
> > Sent: 26 November 2012 14:30
> > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors
> >
> > Then, in MARC, it can sometimes be using $e illustrator, but at other
> > times $e artist? Or would one be using both terms? It's somewhat
> > confusing to me.
> >
> > Jack Wu
> > Franciscan University of Steubenville
> > j...@franciscan.edu
> >
>  JSC Secretary
>  mailto:jscsecret...@rdatoolkit.org>>
>  11/23/2012 8:14 AM >>>
> > Jenny,
> >
> > The LC-PCC PS you cite is in chapter 20, the chapter for contributors,
> > and states the policy requiring an authorized access point for the
> > first illustrator (someone with responsibility for the expression, not
> > the work). If the person involved in your resource has responsibility
> > at the work level as a creator, you would not be consulting chapter 20.
> >
> > Yes, the only creator-level term in appenidx I is "artist" because
> > "illustrator" there is the term for a relationship at the expression
> > level.
> >
> > Judy Kuhagen
> > JSC Secretary
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Jenny Wright
> > mailto:jen

Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors

2012-11-26 Thread Mike Tribby

Wotta boon! (The fact of IMDb already existing notwithstanding). And let's 
extend this fantastic accomplishment to other areas of interest and inquiry, 
too. How long until I can consult my local OPAC to find out who won the batting 
title in the Pacific Coast League in 1932?




Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses

mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Brenndorfer, Thomas
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 10:35 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors

As an option for navigating the relationships people have had to creative 
works, there is the possibility of very user-friendly approaches, as in this 
IMDB example for the many job types Clint Eastwood has had in relation to films:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm142/


Current library catalogs do not come close in helping users in ways that are 
now commonly found across the web.


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 Laurence S.
> Creider
> Sent: November 26, 2012 11:27 AM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors
>
> And all this helps the public how?
>
> --
> Laurence S. Creider
> Interim Head
> Archives and Special Collections Dept.
> University Library
> New Mexico State University
> Las Cruces, NM  88003
> Work: 575-646-4756
> Fax: 575-646-7477
> lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu
>
> On Mon, November 26, 2012 9:19 am, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
> > The distinction between â€œartistâ€ and â€œillustratorâ€ currently
> > exists in the choices for main entry heading. Catalogers have to
> > know that an artist can be a main entry heading, and an illustrator
> > can only be an added entry. The distinction comes down to knowing
> > what is the work and what is the expression (that is, in knowing
> > that an illustrator has only contributed to the realization of a
> > work, but is not responsible for the primary intellectual or
> > creative content of the
> work).
> > These categorizations may seem arbitrary, but they are still the
> > basis for traditional cataloging, and reappear as
> > entity-relationships in RDA. RDA does go a bit further in
> > recognizing that there may be more types of relationships beyond the crude 
> > main/added entry distinction.
> > For example, a Creator may also have a Contributor role (as in
> > Composer
> and Singer).
> > This can be seen in the second RDA/MARC example in
> > http://www.rdatoolkit.org/sites/default/files/6jsc_rda_complete_exam
> > pl
> > es_bibliographic_jul0312_rev.pdf
> > 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 Jack Wu
> > Sent: November 26, 2012 11:08 AM
> > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors
> >
> > And the searcher, in order to search successfully, would have to
> > know this distinction in our use of a different qualifier for the
> > same person under different circumstances, as well, I presume?
> >
> > Jack Wu
> > Franciscan University of Steubenville
> > j...@franciscan.edu
> >
>  Jenny Wright
>  mailto:jenny.wri...@bibdsl.co.uk>>
>  11/26/2012 9:38 AM >>>
> > My understanding is that:
> > If the illustrations are integral to the work, the person who
> > drew/painted them is a creator, or co-creator, and so the
> > relationship designator should be â€œartistâ€.
> > If the illustrations are complementary to the work, and belong at
> > expression level (they contribute to the realisation of the work),
> > then the relationship designator should be â€œillustratorâ€.
> > What is more debatable is how one decides whether the art is
> > integral to the work.  Could another artist could draw new comic
> > strips for the same story, or new pictures for a juvenile picture
> > book without changing it to a new work?
> > Jenny Wright
> > Development Manager
> > Bibliographic Data Services Ltd.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
> > Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jack Wu
> > Sent: 26 November 2012 14:30
> > To:
> > RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors
> >
> > Then, in MARC, it can sometimes be using $e illustrator, but at
> > other times $e artist? Or would one be using both terms? It's
> > somewhat confusing to me.
> >
> > Jack Wu
> > Franciscan University of Steubenville
> > j...@franciscan.edu
> >
> >>

Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors

2012-11-26 Thread Brenndorfer, Thomas

Enriched content added to catalogs already can do similar things, such as 
immediate access to reviews and related readers advisory services. The question 
is: how do we make our data even more amenable to these user-friendly services.

In addition, the roles people play are already meticulously recorded in a 
variety of notes in catalog records. So, yes, the implication is that catalog 
records often do have the answers or details that may exist elsewhere.

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 Mike Tribby
> Sent: November 26, 2012 11:43 AM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors
> 
> Wotta boon! (The fact of IMDb already existing notwithstanding). And let's
> extend this fantastic accomplishment to other areas of interest and
> inquiry, too. How long until I can consult my local OPAC to find out who
> won the batting title in the Pacific Coast League in 1932?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mike Tribby
> Senior Cataloger
> Quality Books Inc.
> The Best of America's Independent Presses
> 
> mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Brenndorfer, Thomas
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 10:35 AM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors
> 
> As an option for navigating the relationships people have had to creative
> works, there is the possibility of very user-friendly approaches, as in
> this IMDB example for the many job types Clint Eastwood has had in
> relation to films:
> http://www.imdb.com/name/nm142/
> 
> 
> Current library catalogs do not come close in helping users in ways that
> are now commonly found across the web.
> 
> 
> 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 Laurence S.
> > Creider
> > Sent: November 26, 2012 11:27 AM
> > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors
> >
> > And all this helps the public how?
> >
> > --
> > Laurence S. Creider
> > Interim Head
> > Archives and Special Collections Dept.
> > University Library
> > New Mexico State University
> > Las Cruces, NM  88003
> > Work: 575-646-4756
> > Fax: 575-646-7477
> > lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu
> >
> > On Mon, November 26, 2012 9:19 am, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
> > > The distinction between â€œartistâ€ and â€œillustratorâ€ currently
> > > exists in the choices for main entry heading. Catalogers have to
> > > know that an artist can be a main entry heading, and an illustrator
> > > can only be an added entry. The distinction comes down to knowing
> > > what is the work and what is the expression (that is, in knowing
> > > that an illustrator has only contributed to the realization of a
> > > work, but is not responsible for the primary intellectual or
> > > creative content of the
> > work).
> > > These categorizations may seem arbitrary, but they are still the
> > > basis for traditional cataloging, and reappear as
> > > entity-relationships in RDA. RDA does go a bit further in
> > > recognizing that there may be more types of relationships beyond the
> crude main/added entry distinction.
> > > For example, a Creator may also have a Contributor role (as in
> > > Composer
> > and Singer).
> > > This can be seen in the second RDA/MARC example in
> > > http://www.rdatoolkit.org/sites/default/files/6jsc_rda_complete_exam
> > > pl
> > > es_bibliographic_jul0312_rev.pdf
> > > 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 Jack Wu
> > > Sent: November 26, 2012 11:08 AM
> > > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> > > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors
> > >
> > > And the searcher, in order to search successfully, would have to
> > > know this distinction in our use of a different qualifier for the
> > > same person under different circumstances, as well, I presume?
> > >
> > > Jack Wu
> > > Franciscan University of Steubenville
> > > j...@franciscan.edu
> > >
> >  Jenny Wright
> >  mailto:jenny.wri...@bibdsl.co.uk>>
> >  11/26/2012 9:38 AM >>>
> > > My understanding is that:
> > > If the illustrations are integral to the work, the person who
> > > drew/painted them is a creator, or co-creator, and so the
> > > relationship designator should be â€œartistâ€.
> > > If the illustrations are complementary to the work, and belong at
> > > expression level (they contribute to the realisation of the work

Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors

2012-11-26 Thread James Weinheimer


On 11/26/2012 05:49 PM, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:


Enriched content added to catalogs already can do similar things, such as 
immediate access to reviews and related readers advisory services. The question 
is: how do we make our data even more amenable to these user-friendly services.

In addition, the roles people play are already meticulously recorded in a 
variety of notes in catalog records. So, yes, the implication is that catalog 
records often do have the answers or details that may exist elsewhere.




Of course, the fact that a search for Clint Eastwood as a film director 
will not retrieve 99.99% of the resources where he was the film 
director--that is, without massive edits of the millions of records in 
our databases--is neither here nor there. This fact shouldn't be 
discussed. The theory is far more important than what people experience.


Yes, it would be nice if we could click our fingers and have Clint 
Eastwood's headings magically add "film director" to the records where 
he was a director, as with all the other actors and editors and 
illustrators and what not, adding all their relator codes on all the 
zillions of other headings.


Unfortunately, the world doesn't work that way and we should not pretend 
that just by adding the relator codes to the new records people will be 
able to find what libraries have with Eastwood as a director. The public 
will find out soon enough. And who will get hurt? The people who search 
for Eastwood as a film director and get bogus results, plus the 
catalogers who will get blamed by everybody for making a lousy catalog 
that actually *decreases* access while the catalogers insist that they 
are *increasing* access. Ha! Ha!


As I mentioned in a previous post, it is not the idea of linked data to 
make your data obsolete--it is to enhance your data by sharing it with 
others in various, useful ways.


--
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] Illustrators as creators, not contributors

2012-11-26 Thread Kevin M Randall

I think the point of Thomas Brenndorfer's IMDb example is not to say that the 
OPAC should be a way to find out what types of jobs that Clint Eastwood has 
had.  Certainly there are other places more appropriate to find that 
information.  Rather, it is to say that the OPAC should be able to help a user 
find resources based on certain criteria, e.g. Clint Eastwood as actor, Clint 
Eastwood as director, Clint Eastwood as writer, Clint Eastwood as producer, 
Clint Eastwood as music composer, Clint Eastwood as music performer, etc.  
Having the specific nature of the relationship unambiguously tied to the access 
point or identifier will greatly enhance the ability of the user to find the 
resources sought.

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
k...@northwestern.edu
(847) 491-2939

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

> -Original Message-
> 
> Wotta boon! (The fact of IMDb already existing notwithstanding). And
> let's extend this fantastic accomplishment to other areas of interest and
> inquiry, too. How long until I can consult my local OPAC to find out who
> won the batting title in the Pacific Coast League in 1932?
> 
> Mike Tribby
> 
> -Original Message-
> 
> As an option for navigating the relationships people have had to creative
> works, there is the possibility of very user-friendly approaches, as in this
> IMDB example for the many job types Clint Eastwood has had in relation
> to films:
> http://www.imdb.com/name/nm142/
> 
> Current library catalogs do not come close in helping users in ways that
> are now commonly found across the web.
> 
> Thomas Brenndorfer

Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors

2012-11-26 Thread Mike Tribby

Ox Eckhardt hit .371 in 1932 for the Mission Reds to win the Pacific Coast 
League batting title.

But where, if anywhere, do you draw the line? My need to know about and do 
research on oldtime minor league baseball doesn't measure up to the frequent 
examples of OPAC users starved for information about Clint Eastwood? I don't 
think Ox Eckhardt ever appeared in national media talking to an empty chair 
(but maybe he should have).




Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses

mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 11:33 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors

I think the point of Thomas Brenndorfer's IMDb example is not to say that the 
OPAC should be a way to find out what types of jobs that Clint Eastwood has 
had.  Certainly there are other places more appropriate to find that 
information.  Rather, it is to say that the OPAC should be able to help a user 
find resources based on certain criteria, e.g. Clint Eastwood as actor, Clint 
Eastwood as director, Clint Eastwood as writer, Clint Eastwood as producer, 
Clint Eastwood as music composer, Clint Eastwood as music performer, etc.  
Having the specific nature of the relationship unambiguously tied to the access 
point or identifier will greatly enhance the ability of the user to find the 
resources sought.

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
k...@northwestern.edu
(847) 491-2939

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

> -Original Message-
>
> Wotta boon! (The fact of IMDb already existing notwithstanding). And
> let's extend this fantastic accomplishment to other areas of interest
> and inquiry, too. How long until I can consult my local OPAC to find
> out who won the batting title in the Pacific Coast League in 1932?
>
> Mike Tribby
>
> -Original Message-
>
> As an option for navigating the relationships people have had to
> creative works, there is the possibility of very user-friendly
> approaches, as in this IMDB example for the many job types Clint
> Eastwood has had in relation to films:
> http://www.imdb.com/name/nm142/
>
> Current library catalogs do not come close in helping users in ways
> that are now commonly found across the web.
>
> Thomas Brenndorfer

Re: [RDA-L] Recording Statements of Responsibility Relating to Series

2012-11-26 Thread Kevin M Randall

Lynne J. LaBare wrote:

> I am new to RDA cataloging and request your help in the correct way to
> record a statement of responsibility for a series in the 800 field. The
> example I have is as follows:
> 
> 800 1_ $aSnyder, Maria V., $e author.$t Healer series ;$v 2.
> 
> Please inform me if I am interpreting RDA:2.12.6.3 correctly.  Thank you.

What you have here is what appears to be a good MARC field based on RDA 
instructions in Section 8, "Recording Relationships between Works, Expressions, 
Manifestations, & Items", including 24.4.2, "Authorized Access Point 
Representing the Related Work or Expression".  This is an access point, dealing 
with the relationship between related resources (in this case the resource 
being cataloged and the series of which it is a part).

Statement of responsibility of the series is an attribute of the manifestation 
and is handled in RDA Section 1, "Recording Attributes of Manifestation & 
Item", specifically 2.12, "Series Statement".  Putting the series statement 
into MARC, and using ISBD formatting, would result in something like this (I'm 
guessing at what may actually be appearing on the resource):

490 1_ $a Healer series / $c Maria V. Snyder ; $v 2

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
k...@northwestern.edu
(847) 491-2939

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors

2012-11-26 Thread Kevin M Randall

Mike Tribby wrote:

> Ox Eckhardt hit .371 in 1932 for the Mission Reds to win the Pacific Coast
> League batting title.
> 
> But where, if anywhere, do you draw the line? My need to know about
> and do research on oldtime minor league baseball doesn't measure up to
> the frequent examples of OPAC users starved for information about Clint
> Eastwood? I don't think Ox Eckhardt ever appeared in national media
> talking to an empty chair (but maybe he should have).

My guess is that the line would be drawn between:  a) relationships between 
entities, and:  b) facts contained within the resource.

The Clint Eastwood examples illustrate relationships between Eastwood and the 
resources, and the nature of those relationships.  To make a parallel between 
Clint Eastwood and Ox Eckhardt, your desire to find out that Ox Eckhardt hit 
.371 in 1932 for the Mission Reds to win the Pacific Coast League batting title 
would be akin to finding out that Clint Eastwood took "x" number of days to 
direct the film UNFORGIVEN, or worked "y" number of dollars on his role in THE 
GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY.  Just like the case with Eckhardt, these facts 
about Eastwood--whether or not anyone finds them interesting or important--are 
bibliographically insignificant.  They would not belong in the OPAC.  I think 
most catalogers would have no trouble seeing this line.

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
k...@northwestern.edu
(847) 491-2939

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

Re: [RDA-L] Recording Statements of Responsibility Relating to Series

2012-11-26 Thread Gene Fieg

Are we required to use $e in RDA, or is it an option?

On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Kevin M Randall wrote:

> Lynne J. LaBare wrote:
>
> > I am new to RDA cataloging and request your help in the correct way to
> > record a statement of responsibility for a series in the 800 field. The
> > example I have is as follows:
> >
> > 800 1_ $aSnyder, Maria V., $e author.$t Healer series ;$v 2.
> >
> > Please inform me if I am interpreting RDA:2.12.6.3 correctly.  Thank you.
>
> What you have here is what appears to be a good MARC field based on RDA
> instructions in Section 8, "Recording Relationships between Works,
> Expressions, Manifestations, & Items", including 24.4.2, "Authorized Access
> Point Representing the Related Work or Expression".  This is an access
> point, dealing with the relationship between related resources (in this
> case the resource being cataloged and the series of which it is a part).
>
> Statement of responsibility of the series is an attribute of the
> manifestation and is handled in RDA Section 1, "Recording Attributes of
> Manifestation & Item", specifically 2.12, "Series Statement".  Putting the
> series statement into MARC, and using ISBD formatting, would result in
> something like this (I'm guessing at what may actually be appearing on the
> resource):
>
> 490 1_ $a Healer series / $c Maria V. Snyder ; $v 2
>
>
> Kevin M. Randall
> Principal Serials Cataloger
> Northwestern University Library
> k...@northwestern.edu
> (847) 491-2939
>
> Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
>



-- 
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu

Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email.  The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University.  It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.

Re: [RDA-L] Recording Statements of Responsibility Relating to Series

2012-11-26 Thread Kevin M Randall

Gene Fieg wrote:

> Are we required to use $e in RDA, or is it an option?

The relationship designator is not a core element in RDA.

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
k...@northwestern.edu
(847) 491-2939

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors

2012-11-26 Thread Brenndorfer, Thomas

Good point, and what often gets short shrift is the importance of applying the 
logic of the user tasks. If the data doesn't help to find, identify, select or 
obtain a resource, then it's not bibliographically relevant.

Beyond that, there is scaling effect in RDA, where essential elements are Core, 
but the others exist to serve the needs of a particular constituency.

>From a public library perspective, the addition or inclusion of certain kinds 
>of data has a measurable impact in terms of circulation. In an obvious way, 
>resources that are harder to find, harder to identify, harder to differentiate 
>or understand how they fit needs, are those that simply sit on the shelves (or 
>on a file server).

The types of questions that reference librarians (which includes me at times) 
get highlight the specificity that users often want and expect in terms of 
bibliographic information. If a task takes 3 or 4 steps and requires consulting 
multiple sources, when the relevant data need only be put into an already 
assigned MARC field (or RDA element), then it makes sense to put it into the 
record as it has a multiplier effect on time saved down the line. We do pay for 
full record services (as well as enhanced or enriched OPAC content) in part for 
that very reason.

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 Kevin M Randall
> Sent: November 26, 2012 1:21 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors
> 
> Mike Tribby wrote:
> 
> > Ox Eckhardt hit .371 in 1932 for the Mission Reds to win the Pacific
> > Coast League batting title.
> >
> > But where, if anywhere, do you draw the line? My need to know about
> > and do research on oldtime minor league baseball doesn't measure up to
> > the frequent examples of OPAC users starved for information about
> > Clint Eastwood? I don't think Ox Eckhardt ever appeared in national
> > media talking to an empty chair (but maybe he should have).
> 
> My guess is that the line would be drawn between:  a) relationships
> between entities, and:  b) facts contained within the resource.
> 
> The Clint Eastwood examples illustrate relationships between Eastwood and
> the resources, and the nature of those relationships.  To make a parallel
> between Clint Eastwood and Ox Eckhardt, your desire to find out that Ox
> Eckhardt hit .371 in 1932 for the Mission Reds to win the Pacific Coast
> League batting title would be akin to finding out that Clint Eastwood took
> "x" number of days to direct the film UNFORGIVEN, or worked "y" number of
> dollars on his role in THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY.  Just like the case
> with Eckhardt, these facts about Eastwood--whether or not anyone finds
> them interesting or important--are bibliographically insignificant.  They
> would not belong in the OPAC.  I think most catalogers would have no
> trouble seeing this line.
> 
> Kevin M. Randall
> Principal Serials Cataloger
> Northwestern University Library
> k...@northwestern.edu
> (847) 491-2939
> 
> Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors

2012-11-26 Thread Mike Tribby

"To make a parallel between Clint Eastwood and Ox Eckhardt, your desire to find 
out that Ox Eckhardt hit .371 in 1932 for the Mission Reds to win the Pacific 
Coast League batting title would be akin to finding out that Clint Eastwood 
took "x" number of days to direct the film UNFORGIVEN, or worked "y" number of 
dollars on his role in THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY.  Just like the case with 
Eckhardt, these facts about Eastwood--whether or not anyone finds them 
interesting or important--are bibliographically insignificant.  They would not 
belong in the OPAC."

If you frame it that way, sure, but if my curiosity about the PCL batting 
titles in the 1930s related to a sabremetric study of batting averages across 
the minor leagues during a time when the major league batting averages were at 
alltime highs, it might still be trivia to Clint Eastwood fans, but not to 
baseball statisticians.

"I think most catalogers would have no trouble seeing this line."

Of course you do.




Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses

mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com

Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors

2012-11-26 Thread Kevin M Randall

Mike Tribby wrote:

> "To make a parallel between Clint Eastwood and Ox Eckhardt, your desire
> to find out that Ox Eckhardt hit .371 in 1932 for the Mission Reds to win
> the Pacific Coast League batting title would be akin to finding out that
> Clint Eastwood took "x" number of days to direct the film UNFORGIVEN, or
> worked "y" number of dollars on his role in THE GOOD, THE BAD AND
> THE UGLY.  Just like the case with Eckhardt, these facts about Eastwood--
> whether or not anyone finds them interesting or important--are
> bibliographically insignificant.  They would not belong in the OPAC."
> 
> If you frame it that way, sure, but if my curiosity about the PCL batting
> titles in the 1930s related to a sabremetric study of batting averages
> across the minor leagues during a time when the major league batting
> averages were at alltime highs, it might still be trivia to Clint Eastwood
> fans, but not to baseball statisticians.

The point wasn't that the information was either trivial or of utmost 
importance to anyone for any reason.  The point was that Eckhardt's baseball 
stats have nothing to do (bibliographically) with the relationship between him 
and a resource in the OPAC.  Just like Eastwood's acting salary has nothing to 
do (bibliographically) with the relationship between him and the movie in the 
OPAC.  These may be facts contained within resources, but they are not things 
that library metadata deal with.  Now, it's possible that a library has a 
resource all about Eckhardt's baseball stats, and another all about Eastwood's 
salaries; the OPAC records might then have subject headings dealing with those 
topics, but again, any specific statistics would need to be found within the 
resource itself, not in the bibliographic metadata.

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
k...@northwestern.edu
(847) 491-2939

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

Re: [RDA-L] Recording Statements of Responsibility Relating to Series

2012-11-26 Thread Chris Rae Todd

I endorse Kevin's reading of this situation as the relationship between a 
resource and the series that it is part of. I also went back to chapter 6 to 
look at the instructions for creating authorised access points for works. 
The basic instruction involves adding the authorized access point for the 
creator (where there is one) to the preferred title for the the work. The 
relationship designator doesn't get a mention as part of this structure, so I'm 
assuming it would not be part of the 800 field. 

Is that how others see this situation?

Chris
Chris (Christine) Todd
Team Leader, Cataloguing Team 1 
National Library of New Zealand
The Department of Internal Affairs Te Tari Taiwhenua
Direct Dial: +64 4 474 3093
email: chris.rae.t...@dia.govt.nz

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: Tuesday, 27 November 2012 7:10 a.m.
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording Statements of Responsibility Relating to Series

Lynne J. LaBare wrote:

> I am new to RDA cataloging and request your help in the correct way to
> record a statement of responsibility for a series in the 800 field. The
> example I have is as follows:
> 
> 800 1_ $aSnyder, Maria V., $e author.$t Healer series ;$v 2.
> 
> Please inform me if I am interpreting RDA:2.12.6.3 correctly.  Thank you.

What you have here is what appears to be a good MARC field based on RDA 
instructions in Section 8, "Recording Relationships between Works, Expressions, 
Manifestations, & Items", including 24.4.2, "Authorized Access Point 
Representing the Related Work or Expression".  This is an access point, dealing 
with the relationship between related resources (in this case the resource 
being cataloged and the series of which it is a part).

Statement of responsibility of the series is an attribute of the manifestation 
and is handled in RDA Section 1, "Recording Attributes of Manifestation & 
Item", specifically 2.12, "Series Statement".  Putting the series statement 
into MARC, and using ISBD formatting, would result in something like this (I'm 
guessing at what may actually be appearing on the resource):

490 1_ $a Healer series / $c Maria V. Snyder ; $v 2

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
k...@northwestern.edu
(847) 491-2939

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! 

CAUTION:  This email message and any attachments contain information that may 
be confidential and may be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If you are not the intended 
recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this message or attachments is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error please 
notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments. 
Thank you.

Re: [RDA-L] Recording Statements of Responsibility Relating to Series

2012-11-26 Thread Kevin M Randall

Chris Todd wrote:

> I endorse Kevin's reading of this situation as the relationship between a
> resource and the series that it is part of. I also went back to chapter 6 to
> look at the instructions for creating authorised access points for works.
> The basic instruction involves adding the authorized access point for the
> creator (where there is one) to the preferred title for the the work. The
> relationship designator doesn't get a mention as part of this structure, so
> I'm assuming it would not be part of the 800 field.

Here's the path from Chapter 6:

6.27 (Constructing Access Points to Represent Works and Expressions)
6.27.1.1 (General Guidelines on Constructing Authorized Access Points 
Representing Works)

refers to:

19.2 (Creator)
19.2.1.3 (Recording Creators)

refers to:

18.4 (Recording Relationships to Persons, Families, and Corporate 
Bodies Associated with a Resource)
18.4.1 (Conventions Used to Record Persons, Families, and Corporate 
Bodies Associated with the Resource)

refers to:

18.5 (Relationship Designator)
18.5.1.3 (Recording Relationship Designators)

says:  "Record one or more appropriate terms from the list in 
appendix I with an identifier and/or authorized access point representing the 
person, family, or corporate body to indicate the nature of the relationship 
more specifically than is indicated by the defined scope of the relationship 
element itself."

I do have to admit that it took a bit of digging to discover this path...

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
k...@northwestern.edu
(847) 491-2939

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

Re: [RDA-L] Recording Statements of Responsibility Relating to Series

2012-11-26 Thread Brenndorfer, Thomas

RDA Chapters 6.27 to 6.31 cover all the elements that are used for authorized 
access points for works. The authorized access points use only elements that 
are attributes for entities (such as preferred title, form of work, date of 
work, etc.). A person's name is often part of the authorized point for the 
work, but once added to create the access point the whole string is used to 
identify only the work entity.

A relationship designator is an element that is used between two entities, such 
as between a person and a work.

One would therefore have a relationship between two entities expressed in this 
way:

Snyder, Maria V.

 of work:

Snyder, Maria V. Healer series

with the full exact string "Snyder, Maria V. Healer series" standing in as the 
controlled identifier of the work.

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 Chris Rae Todd
> Sent: November 26, 2012 4:20 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording Statements of Responsibility Relating to
> Series
> 
> I endorse Kevin's reading of this situation as the relationship between a
> resource and the series that it is part of. I also went back to chapter 6
> to look at the instructions for creating authorised access points for
> works.
> The basic instruction involves adding the authorized access point for the
> creator (where there is one) to the preferred title for the the work. The
> relationship designator doesn't get a mention as part of this structure,
> so I'm assuming it would not be part of the 800 field.
> 
> Is that how others see this situation?
> 
> Chris
> Chris (Christine) Todd
> Team Leader, Cataloguing Team 1
> National Library of New Zealand
> The Department of Internal Affairs Te Tari Taiwhenua Direct Dial: +64 4
> 474 3093
> email: chris.rae.t...@dia.govt.nz
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
> Sent: Tuesday, 27 November 2012 7:10 a.m.
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording Statements of Responsibility Relating to
> Series
> 
> Lynne J. LaBare wrote:
> 
> > I am new to RDA cataloging and request your help in the correct way to
> > record a statement of responsibility for a series in the 800 field. The
> > example I have is as follows:
> >
> > 800 1_ $aSnyder, Maria V., $e author.$t Healer series ;$v 2.
> >
> > Please inform me if I am interpreting RDA:2.12.6.3 correctly.  Thank
> you.
> 
> What you have here is what appears to be a good MARC field based on RDA
> instructions in Section 8, "Recording Relationships between Works,
> Expressions, Manifestations, & Items", including 24.4.2, "Authorized
> Access Point Representing the Related Work or Expression".  This is an
> access point, dealing with the relationship between related resources (in
> this case the resource being cataloged and the series of which it is a
> part).
> 
> Statement of responsibility of the series is an attribute of the
> manifestation and is handled in RDA Section 1, "Recording Attributes of
> Manifestation & Item", specifically 2.12, "Series Statement".  Putting the
> series statement into MARC, and using ISBD formatting, would result in
> something like this (I'm guessing at what may actually be appearing on the
> resource):
> 
>   490 1_ $a Healer series / $c Maria V. Snyder ; $v 2
> 
> 
> Kevin M. Randall
> Principal Serials Cataloger
> Northwestern University Library
> k...@northwestern.edu
> (847) 491-2939
> 
> Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
> 
> CAUTION:  This email message and any attachments contain information that
> may be confidential and may be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If you are not the
> intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this message or
> attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email
> message in error please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the
> message and attachments. Thank you.
>

Re: [RDA-L] Recording Statements of Responsibility Relating to Series

2012-11-26 Thread Joan Wang

There is an authority record for the serial in OCLC. According to OCLC
current practice, catalogers should use access points as established in the
authority file, whether those forms are coded as RDA or AACR2.

100 1 Snyder, Maria V. ǂt Healer series

Unless you would like to change the authority record :D

Thanks,
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System

On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Chris Rae Todd
wrote:

> I endorse Kevin's reading of this situation as the relationship between a
> resource and the series that it is part of. I also went back to chapter 6
> to look at the instructions for creating authorised access points for works.
> The basic instruction involves adding the authorized access point for the
> creator (where there is one) to the preferred title for the the work. The
> relationship designator doesn't get a mention as part of this structure, so
> I'm assuming it would not be part of the 800 field.
>
> Is that how others see this situation?
>
> Chris
> Chris (Christine) Todd
> Team Leader, Cataloguing Team 1
> National Library of New Zealand
> The Department of Internal Affairs Te Tari Taiwhenua
> Direct Dial: +64 4 474 3093
> email: chris.rae.t...@dia.govt.nz
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
> Sent: Tuesday, 27 November 2012 7:10 a.m.
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording Statements of Responsibility Relating to
> Series
>
> Lynne J. LaBare wrote:
>
> > I am new to RDA cataloging and request your help in the correct way to
> > record a statement of responsibility for a series in the 800 field. The
> > example I have is as follows:
> >
> > 800 1_ $aSnyder, Maria V., $e author.$t Healer series ;$v 2.
> >
> > Please inform me if I am interpreting RDA:2.12.6.3 correctly.  Thank you.
>
> What you have here is what appears to be a good MARC field based on RDA
> instructions in Section 8, "Recording Relationships between Works,
> Expressions, Manifestations, & Items", including 24.4.2, "Authorized Access
> Point Representing the Related Work or Expression".  This is an access
> point, dealing with the relationship between related resources (in this
> case the resource being cataloged and the series of which it is a part).
>
> Statement of responsibility of the series is an attribute of the
> manifestation and is handled in RDA Section 1, "Recording Attributes of
> Manifestation & Item", specifically 2.12, "Series Statement".  Putting the
> series statement into MARC, and using ISBD formatting, would result in
> something like this (I'm guessing at what may actually be appearing on the
> resource):
>
> 490 1_ $a Healer series / $c Maria V. Snyder ; $v 2
>
>
> Kevin M. Randall
> Principal Serials Cataloger
> Northwestern University Library
> k...@northwestern.edu
> (847) 491-2939
>
> Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
> 
> CAUTION:  This email message and any attachments contain information that
> may be confidential and may be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If you are not the
> intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this message or
> attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message
> in error please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message
> and attachments. Thank you.
> 
>



-- 
Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D.
Cataloger -- CMC
Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office)
6725 Goshen Road
Edwardsville, IL 62025
618.656.3216x409
618.656.9401Fax

Re: [RDA-L] Recording Statements of Responsibility Relating to Series

2012-11-26 Thread Joan Wang

Sorry. Should be series instead of serial.

On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Joan Wang wrote:

> There is an authority record for the serial in OCLC. According to OCLC
> current practice, catalogers should use access points as established in the
> authority file, whether those forms are coded as RDA or AACR2.
>
> 100 1 Snyder, Maria V. ǂt Healer series
>
> Unless you would like to change the authority record :D
>
> Thanks,
> Joan Wang
> Illinois Heartland Library System
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Chris Rae Todd <
> chris.rae.t...@dia.govt.nz> wrote:
>
>> I endorse Kevin's reading of this situation as the relationship between a
>> resource and the series that it is part of. I also went back to chapter 6
>> to look at the instructions for creating authorised access points for works.
>> The basic instruction involves adding the authorized access point for the
>> creator (where there is one) to the preferred title for the the work. The
>> relationship designator doesn't get a mention as part of this structure, so
>> I'm assuming it would not be part of the 800 field.
>>
>> Is that how others see this situation?
>>
>> Chris
>> Chris (Christine) Todd
>> Team Leader, Cataloguing Team 1
>> National Library of New Zealand
>> The Department of Internal Affairs Te Tari Taiwhenua
>> Direct Dial: +64 4 474 3093
>> email: chris.rae.t...@dia.govt.nz
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
>> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
>> Sent: Tuesday, 27 November 2012 7:10 a.m.
>> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
>> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording Statements of Responsibility Relating to
>> Series
>>
>> Lynne J. LaBare wrote:
>>
>> > I am new to RDA cataloging and request your help in the correct way to
>> > record a statement of responsibility for a series in the 800 field. The
>> > example I have is as follows:
>> >
>> > 800 1_ $aSnyder, Maria V., $e author.$t Healer series ;$v 2.
>> >
>> > Please inform me if I am interpreting RDA:2.12.6.3 correctly.  Thank
>> you.
>>
>> What you have here is what appears to be a good MARC field based on RDA
>> instructions in Section 8, "Recording Relationships between Works,
>> Expressions, Manifestations, & Items", including 24.4.2, "Authorized Access
>> Point Representing the Related Work or Expression".  This is an access
>> point, dealing with the relationship between related resources (in this
>> case the resource being cataloged and the series of which it is a part).
>>
>> Statement of responsibility of the series is an attribute of the
>> manifestation and is handled in RDA Section 1, "Recording Attributes of
>> Manifestation & Item", specifically 2.12, "Series Statement".  Putting the
>> series statement into MARC, and using ISBD formatting, would result in
>> something like this (I'm guessing at what may actually be appearing on the
>> resource):
>>
>> 490 1_ $a Healer series / $c Maria V. Snyder ; $v 2
>>
>>
>> Kevin M. Randall
>> Principal Serials Cataloger
>> Northwestern University Library
>> k...@northwestern.edu
>> (847) 491-2939
>>
>> Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
>> 
>> CAUTION:  This email message and any attachments contain information that
>> may be confidential and may be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If you are not the
>> intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this message or
>> attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message
>> in error please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message
>> and attachments. Thank you.
>> 
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D.
> Cataloger -- CMC
> Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office)
> 6725 Goshen Road
> Edwardsville, IL 62025
> 618.656.3216x409
> 618.656.9401Fax
>
>


-- 
Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D.
Cataloger -- CMC
Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office)
6725 Goshen Road
Edwardsville, IL 62025
618.656.3216x409
618.656.9401Fax

Re: [RDA-L] Recording Statements of Responsibility Relating to Series

2012-11-26 Thread Deborah Fritz

I agree with Chris and Thomas on this: the purpose of the 800 field is to
indicate the relationship of the work being described to a related work (the
series it is in). Just as the purpose of an analytical 700 is to reference a
related work (e.g., based on)

25.1.1.3 tells us there are three ways to reference a related work, through:
1. a linking identifier
2. an Authorized Access Point for the related work
3a. a structured description of the related work; or
3b. an unstructured description of the related work.

Since we are not using linking identifiers to reference related entities, in
our current MARC environment, we use Authorized Access Points; so the 800
must contain the Authorized Access Point for the related work, and could
contain a Relationship Designator to explain the relationship between the
two *works*. At this point, I assume we are using the 800 tag to indicate
the series relationship rather than adding $i In Series (Work). 

So, the 800 is not the place to indicate the relationship of the creator to
the series work-that has to be done (somehow) in the record for the series
(whether that is another Bib record, or an authority record) and this 800
should read:

800 1_ $a Snyder, Maria V. $t Healer series ; $v 2.

Deborah

--
Deborah Fritz
MARC Database Consultant
The MARC of Quality
www.marcofquality.com
Voice/Fax: (321) 676-1904
 

Thomas Brenndorfer wrote:
> 
> RDA Chapters 6.27 to 6.31 cover all the elements that are 
> used for authorized access points for works. The authorized 
> access points use only elements that are attributes for 
> entities (such as preferred title, form of work, date of 
> work, etc.). A person's name is often part of the authorized 
> point for the work, but once added to create the access point 
> the whole string is used to identify only the work entity.
> 
> A relationship designator is an element that is used between 
> two entities, such as between a person and a work.
> 
> One would therefore have a relationship between two entities 
> expressed in this way:
> 
> Snyder, Maria V.
> 
>  of work:
> 
> Snyder, Maria V. Healer series
> 
> with the full exact string "Snyder, Maria V. Healer series" 
> standing in as the controlled identifier of the work.
---

Chris Rae Todd wrote:

> > 
> > I endorse Kevin's reading of this situation as the relationship 
> > between a resource and the series that it is part of. I 
> also went back 
> > to chapter 6 to look at the instructions for creating authorised 
> > access points for works.
> > The basic instruction involves adding the authorized access 
> point for 
> > the creator (where there is one) to the preferred title for the the 
> > work. The relationship designator doesn't get a mention as part of 
> > this structure, so I'm assuming it would not be part of the 
> 800 field.
> > 
> > Is that how others see this situation?

--- 

> > Kevin M. Randall wrote:
> > 
> > What you have here is what appears to be a good MARC field based on 
> > RDA instructions in Section 8, "Recording Relationships 
> between Works, 
> > Expressions, Manifestations, & Items", including 24.4.2, 
> "Authorized 
> > Access Point Representing the Related Work or Expression".  
> This is an 
> > access point, dealing with the relationship between related 
> resources 
> > (in this case the resource being cataloged and the series 
> of which it 
> > is a part).
> > 
> > Statement of responsibility of the series is an attribute of the 
> > manifestation and is handled in RDA Section 1, "Recording 
> Attributes 
> > of Manifestation & Item", specifically 2.12, "Series Statement".  
> > Putting the series statement into MARC, and using ISBD formatting, 
> > would result in something like this (I'm guessing at what 
> may actually 
> > be appearing on the
> > resource):
> > 
> > 490 1_ $a Healer series / $c Maria V. Snyder ; $v 2
---

> > Lynne J. LaBare wrote:
> > 
> > > I am new to RDA cataloging and request your help in the 
> correct way 
> > > to record a statement of responsibility for a series in the 800 
> > > field. The example I have is as follows:
> > >
> > > 800 1_ $aSnyder, Maria V., $e author.$t Healer series ;$v 2.
> > >
> > > Please inform me if I am interpreting RDA:2.12.6.3 
> correctly.  Thank
> > you.

Re: [RDA-L] Recording Statements of Responsibility Relating to Series

2012-11-26 Thread Brenndorfer, Thomas

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Deborah Fritz 
[debo...@marcofquality.com]
Sent: November-26-12 5:23 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording Statements of Responsibility Relating to Series

>Since we are not using linking identifiers to reference related entities, in
>our current MARC environment, we use Authorized Access Points; so the 800
>must contain the Authorized Access Point for the related work, and could
>contain a Relationship Designator to explain the relationship between the
>two *works*. At this point, I assume we are using the 800 tag to indicate
>the series relationship rather than adding $i In Series (Work).

The 800 tag itself does map to the relationship designator "in series (work)".

Although much focus has been on the overhead of adding all those relationship 
designators in subfield $e or $i, throughout MARC coding there's a huge number 
of tags, indicators, and subfields that map to relationship designators-- all 
arranged in a terribly inconsistent manner with all sorts of selective support 
for display in many OPACs.

One way to look at RDA's set of relationship designators in the Appendixes is 
as a compendium of all current data that functions as relationship designators. 
It's completely agnostic in that sense-- they're all there together regardless 
of how well they've been implemented in MARC or how easy they will be able to 
be handled retrospectively.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Recording Statements of Responsibility Relating to Series

2012-11-26 Thread Adam L. Schiff


Agreed, Chris.  The MARC 800/810/811/830 already conveys the designator "in series 
(work)" so adding the designator would be redundant.  One alternative in MARC would 
be to use the 7XX for related work, in which case the relationship designator WOULD be 
useful:

700 1_ $i In series (work): $a Author. $t Title.

This would work fine for unnumbered series, but instead of $v used in 8XX, 
you'd have to use $n in a 7XX.  But since we have more specific MARC coding for 
the series relationship, there's no reason to go the 7XX route.

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 Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Chris Rae Todd wrote:


I endorse Kevin's reading of this situation as the relationship between a 
resource and the series that it is part of. I also went back to chapter 6 to 
look at the instructions for creating authorised access points for works.
The basic instruction involves adding the authorized access point for the 
creator (where there is one) to the preferred title for the the work. The 
relationship designator doesn't get a mention as part of this structure, so I'm 
assuming it would not be part of the 800 field.

Is that how others see this situation?

Chris
Chris (Christine) Todd
Team Leader, Cataloguing Team 1
National Library of New Zealand
The Department of Internal Affairs Te Tari Taiwhenua
Direct Dial: +64 4 474 3093
email: chris.rae.t...@dia.govt.nz


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: Tuesday, 27 November 2012 7:10 a.m.
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording Statements of Responsibility Relating to Series

Lynne J. LaBare wrote:


I am new to RDA cataloging and request your help in the correct way to
record a statement of responsibility for a series in the 800 field. The
example I have is as follows:

800 1_ $aSnyder, Maria V., $e author.$t Healer series ;$v 2.

Please inform me if I am interpreting RDA:2.12.6.3 correctly.  Thank you.


What you have here is what appears to be a good MARC field based on RDA instructions in Section 8, 
"Recording Relationships between Works, Expressions, Manifestations, & Items", including 
24.4.2, "Authorized Access Point Representing the Related Work or Expression".  This is an 
access point, dealing with the relationship between related resources (in this case the resource being 
cataloged and the series of which it is a part).

Statement of responsibility of the series is an attribute of the manifestation and is handled in RDA 
Section 1, "Recording Attributes of Manifestation & Item", specifically 2.12, 
"Series Statement".  Putting the series statement into MARC, and using ISBD formatting, would 
result in something like this (I'm guessing at what may actually be appearing on the resource):

490 1_ $a Healer series / $c Maria V. Snyder ; $v 2


Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
k...@northwestern.edu
(847) 491-2939

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

CAUTION:  This email message and any attachments contain information that may 
be confidential and may be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If you are not the intended 
recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this message or attachments is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error please 
notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments. 
Thank you.

Re: [RDA-L] BIBFRAME model document announced

Re: [RDA-L] BIBFRAME model document announced

Re: [RDA-L] BIBFRAME model document announced

Re: [RDA-L] BIBFRAME model document announced

Re: [RDA-L] Adding 336 still image

Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors

Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors

Re: [RDA-L] BIBFRAME model document announced

Re: [RDA-L] BIBFRAME model document announced

Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors

Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors

Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors

[RDA-L] Recording Statements of Responsibility Relating to Series

Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors

Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors

Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors

Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors

Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors

Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors

Re: [RDA-L] Recording Statements of Responsibility Relating to Series

Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors

Re: [RDA-L] Recording Statements of Responsibility Relating to Series

Re: [RDA-L] Recording Statements of Responsibility Relating to Series

Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors

Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors

Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors

Re: [RDA-L] Recording Statements of Responsibility Relating to Series

Re: [RDA-L] Recording Statements of Responsibility Relating to Series

Re: [RDA-L] Recording Statements of Responsibility Relating to Series

Re: [RDA-L] Recording Statements of Responsibility Relating to Series

Re: [RDA-L] Recording Statements of Responsibility Relating to Series

Re: [RDA-L] Recording Statements of Responsibility Relating to Series

Re: [RDA-L] Recording Statements of Responsibility Relating to Series

Re: [RDA-L] Recording Statements of Responsibility Relating to Series

34 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information