[RDA-L] Fwd:

[Jeremiah Paschke-Wood]

http://www.hotelgloriachiancianoterme.it/ako7ed.php?s=ot

Re: [RDA-L] MLA Best Practices for Music Cataloging using RDA and MARC21 -- 6.9 Content Type/6.10 Language of Expression

[Nancy Lorimer]

Adam et al.,

While content type is theoretically core, it is, as Casey says a problem 
in music authority records for expressions, which may represent more 
than one expression and thus more than one content type. In any event, 
DCM Z1 still says: "Do not supply. Pending outcome of 
report/recommendations from the PCC Access Point for Expressions Task 
Group". The report has been submitted, but (as far as I know, and have 
possibly missed it with so much else going on) no action has been taken.


The pertinent sentence in the report about recommendations for both 
content type and language of expression states: "Further, we recommend 
that when authority records are created or updated, special fields (046 
Date, 336 Content Type, 377 Language, 381 Other Distinguishing 
Characteristic, and so on) pertaining to expressions not be encoded 
unless it is certain they apply to all expressions potentially 
represented by that record at its level of differentiation." Since music 
catalogers are (mostly) sticking to what we call "generic" expression 
records, this recommendation would suggest we not add these fields, 
since content type and (in the case of music records), the language may 
be different for the different expressions represented by the record.


Nancy

On 2/11/2013 3:46 PM, Casey A Mullin wrote:
Thanks for the feedback, Adam. Just a quick response for now: we have 
opted to focus on those elements in bib and authority records that 
apply to music-specific situations. The practice of coding language in 
authority records is probably best addressed at the PCC/LC level.


As for coding content type in authority records, this is especially 
problematic for music. Since we are not currently recommending 
routinely encoding content type in access points for musical 
expressions (indeed, the idea of doing this in any sort of consistent 
way across the board is very much up in the air), it doesn't seem 
advisable to recommend encoding content type in 336 in authority 
records. This is especially true for music, where any work can be 
expressed as notated music or performed music (or even two-dimensional 
moving image!). If the access point does not differentiate, then it 
doesn't seem useful to encode both (all three?) content types in 336 
as a default. Of course, this is a question of best practices, not 
necessarily what (we might think) should be "allowed." Having said all 
this, authority record and access point practices are evolving 
quickly, so we will be revisiting this issue forthwith.


Cheers,
Casey

On 2/11/2013 3:18 PM, Adam L. Schiff wrote:
The section on 6.9 Content Type only addresses recording this element 
in bibliographic records.  Shouldn't it also address when and if to 
record this in authority records for expressions?


The same question applies to 6.9 Language of Expression.

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, 11 Feb 2013, Casey A Mullin wrote:


[Cross-posted widely. Please excuse the duplication]

Colleagues,

The MLA-BCC RDA Music Implementation Task Force is happy to announce 
the release of the first complete draft of "Best Practices for Music 
Cataloging using RDA and MARC21." This document represents over 
sixteen months of effort by the task force to determine and 
articulate best practices for the description of music resources 
(chiefly scores and audio recordings). In the increasingly 
decentralized environment of library metadata standards, this 
document addresses the need for specific guidance for catalogers 
describing music resources that is authoritative, yet flexible to 
the needs of individual institutions. It is intended to supplement 
the text of RDA itself, and accounts for (though does not presume 
full adherence to) the Library of Congress-Program for Cooperative 
Cataloging Policy Statements (LC-PCC PS).


The task force invites broad input regarding these best practices, 
from both specialists within the music community and non-specialists 
who work with music materials (or manage those who do). Formal means 
for collecting community feedback and incorporating it into 
revisions of the best practices document on an ongoing basis are 
still being developed. For the current draft, please send feedback 
directly to the task force chair (yours truly) at cmul...@stanford.edu.


Additionally, these best practices decisions will be the topic of a 
panel discussion at the MLA Annual Meeting in San Jose, CA on 
February 28, 2013, entitled "RDA Best Practices for Music: A 
Conversation." Specific topics to be discussed will be based 
directly on feedback gathered from e-mail responses in advance of 
the meeting, and from those attending the session (in "town hall" 
fashion). Whether or not you are able to atten

Re: [RDA-L] Best Practices for Music Cataloging using RDA and MARC21

[Casey A Mullin]

The examples in the document are intended to illustrate encoding 
recommendations specific to each element. They are not intended to be 
complete record examples. We do plan to include complete MARC 
bibliographic and authority record examples in a future version of the 
document.


Thank you,
Casey

On 2/11/2013 3:47 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:

Kathy said:


Examples of 336 are under the appropriate RDA instruction (6.9). See

page 51.

Why are they not included in all examples with 337, 338, 344, 347?


Examples of $e relator terms are shown in relation to RDA Chapters 18-20

Why are they not shown in all examples?

We are still doing manifestation records in MARC, and all relevant
fields need to be present in those records.  We are not yet doing WEMI
records.


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


--
Casey A. Mullin
Head, Data Control Unit
Metadata Department
Stanford University Libraries
650-736-0849
cmul...@stanford.edu
http://www.caseymullin.com

--

"Those who need structured and granular data and the precise retrieval that results 
from it to carry out research and scholarship may constitute an elite minority rather 
than most of the people of the world (sadly), but that talented and intelligent minority 
is an important one for the cultural and technological advancement of humanity. It is 
even possible that if we did a better job of providing access to such data, we might 
enable the enlargement of that minority."
-Martha Yee

Re: [RDA-L] Best Practices for Music Cataloging using RDA and MARC21

[J. McRee Elrod]

Kathy said:

>Examples of 336 are under the appropriate RDA instruction (6.9). See
page 51.

Why are they not included in all examples with 337, 338, 344, 347?

>Examples of $e relator terms are shown in relation to RDA Chapters 18-20 

Why are they not shown in all examples?

We are still doing manifestation records in MARC, and all relevant
fields need to be present in those records.  We are not yet doing WEMI
records.


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

Re: [RDA-L] MLA Best Practices for Music Cataloging using RDA and MARC21 -- 6.9 Content Type/6.10 Language of Expression

[Casey A Mullin]

Thanks for the feedback, Adam. Just a quick response for now: we have 
opted to focus on those elements in bib and authority records that apply 
to music-specific situations. The practice of coding language in 
authority records is probably best addressed at the PCC/LC level.


As for coding content type in authority records, this is especially 
problematic for music. Since we are not currently recommending routinely 
encoding content type in access points for musical expressions (indeed, 
the idea of doing this in any sort of consistent way across the board is 
very much up in the air), it doesn't seem advisable to recommend 
encoding content type in 336 in authority records. This is especially 
true for music, where any work can be expressed as notated music or 
performed music (or even two-dimensional moving image!). If the access 
point does not differentiate, then it doesn't seem useful to encode both 
(all three?) content types in 336 as a default. Of course, this is a 
question of best practices, not necessarily what (we might think) should 
be "allowed." Having said all this, authority record and access point 
practices are evolving quickly, so we will be revisiting this issue 
forthwith.


Cheers,
Casey

On 2/11/2013 3:18 PM, Adam L. Schiff wrote:
The section on 6.9 Content Type only addresses recording this element 
in bibliographic records.  Shouldn't it also address when and if to 
record this in authority records for expressions?


The same question applies to 6.9 Language of Expression.

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, 11 Feb 2013, Casey A Mullin wrote:


[Cross-posted widely. Please excuse the duplication]

Colleagues,

The MLA-BCC RDA Music Implementation Task Force is happy to announce 
the release of the first complete draft of "Best Practices for Music 
Cataloging using RDA and MARC21." This document represents over 
sixteen months of effort by the task force to determine and 
articulate best practices for the description of music resources 
(chiefly scores and audio recordings). In the increasingly 
decentralized environment of library metadata standards, this 
document addresses the need for specific guidance for catalogers 
describing music resources that is authoritative, yet flexible to the 
needs of individual institutions. It is intended to supplement the 
text of RDA itself, and accounts for (though does not presume full 
adherence to) the Library of Congress-Program for Cooperative 
Cataloging Policy Statements (LC-PCC PS).


The task force invites broad input regarding these best practices, 
from both specialists within the music community and non-specialists 
who work with music materials (or manage those who do). Formal means 
for collecting community feedback and incorporating it into revisions 
of the best practices document on an ongoing basis are still being 
developed. For the current draft, please send feedback directly to 
the task force chair (yours truly) at cmul...@stanford.edu.


Additionally, these best practices decisions will be the topic of a 
panel discussion at the MLA Annual Meeting in San Jose, CA on 
February 28, 2013, entitled "RDA Best Practices for Music: A 
Conversation." Specific topics to be discussed will be based directly 
on feedback gathered from e-mail responses in advance of the meeting, 
and from those attending the session (in "town hall" fashion). 
Whether or not you are able to attend the MLA session, we want to 
hear from you!!


The current draft may be found here: 
http://bcc.musiclibraryassoc.org/BCC-Historical/BCC2013/RDA_Best_Practices_for_Music_Cataloging.pdf


Many thanks,
Casey Mullin
Chair, MLA-BCC RDA Music Implementation Task Force

--
Casey A. Mullin
Head, Data Control Unit
Metadata Department
Stanford University Libraries
650-736-0849
cmul...@stanford.edu
http://www.caseymullin.com

--

"Those who need structured and granular data and the precise 
retrieval that results from it to carry out research and scholarship 
may constitute an elite minority rather than most of the people of 
the world (sadly), but that talented and intelligent minority is an 
important one for the cultural and technological advancement of 
humanity. It is even possible that if we did a better job of 
providing access to such data, we might enable the enlargement of 
that minority."

-Martha Yee




--
Casey A. Mullin
Head, Data Control Unit
Metadata Department
Stanford University Libraries
650-736-0849
cmul...@stanford.edu
http://www.caseymullin.com

--

"Those who need structured and granular data and the precise retrieval that results 
from it to carry out research and scholarship may constitute an elite minority rather 
than most of the people of the world (sadly), but that talented and inte

Re: [RDA-L] MLA Best Practices for Music Cataloging using RDA and MARC21 -- 6.9 Content Type/6.10 Language of Expression

[Adam L. Schiff]

The section on 6.9 Content Type only addresses recording this element in 
bibliographic records.  Shouldn't it also address when and if to record 
this in authority records for expressions?


The same question applies to 6.9 Language of Expression.

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, 11 Feb 2013, Casey A Mullin wrote:


[Cross-posted widely. Please excuse the duplication]

Colleagues,

The MLA-BCC RDA Music Implementation Task Force is happy to announce the 
release of the first complete draft of "Best Practices for Music Cataloging 
using RDA and MARC21." This document represents over sixteen months of effort 
by the task force to determine and articulate best practices for the 
description of music resources (chiefly scores and audio recordings). In the 
increasingly decentralized environment of library metadata standards, this 
document addresses the need for specific guidance for catalogers describing 
music resources that is authoritative, yet flexible to the needs of 
individual institutions. It is intended to supplement the text of RDA itself, 
and accounts for (though does not presume full adherence to) the Library of 
Congress-Program for Cooperative Cataloging Policy Statements (LC-PCC PS).


The task force invites broad input regarding these best practices, from both 
specialists within the music community and non-specialists who work with 
music materials (or manage those who do). Formal means for collecting 
community feedback and incorporating it into revisions of the best practices 
document on an ongoing basis are still being developed. For the current 
draft, please send feedback directly to the task force chair (yours truly) at 
cmul...@stanford.edu.


Additionally, these best practices decisions will be the topic of a panel 
discussion at the MLA Annual Meeting in San Jose, CA on February 28, 2013, 
entitled "RDA Best Practices for Music: A Conversation." Specific topics to 
be discussed will be based directly on feedback gathered from e-mail 
responses in advance of the meeting, and from those attending the session (in 
"town hall" fashion). Whether or not you are able to attend the MLA session, 
we want to hear from you!!


The current draft may be found here: 
http://bcc.musiclibraryassoc.org/BCC-Historical/BCC2013/RDA_Best_Practices_for_Music_Cataloging.pdf


Many thanks,
Casey Mullin
Chair, MLA-BCC RDA Music Implementation Task Force

--
Casey A. Mullin
Head, Data Control Unit
Metadata Department
Stanford University Libraries
650-736-0849
cmul...@stanford.edu
http://www.caseymullin.com

--

"Those who need structured and granular data and the precise retrieval that 
results from it to carry out research and scholarship may constitute an elite 
minority rather than most of the people of the world (sadly), but that 
talented and intelligent minority is an important one for the cultural and 
technological advancement of humanity. It is even possible that if we did a 
better job of providing access to such data, we might enable the enlargement 
of that minority."

-Martha Yee

Re: [RDA-L] MLA Best Practises - 6.3. Form of Work

[Adam L. Schiff]

For most 3XX attribute fields, the LC/PCC recommendation is to prefer 
controlled vocabulary, which results in terms recorded in the plural form 
in many cases (such as when LCSH or LCGFT is used as the controlled 
vocabulary).  I'm wondering then whether the section 6.3 on Form of work 
should explicitly state to give the form of work in the singular, or if 
that is not the recommended practice, whether an additional example (or 
several) could be given showing the use of a term from a controlled 
vocabulary.  For example:


100 1_ Farrenc, Louise, $d 1804-1875. $t Symphonies, $n no. 3, op. 36, $r 
G minor

380 __ Symphonies $2 lcsh

100 1_ Zwilich, Ellen Taaffe, $d 1939- $t Shadows
380 __ Concertos $2 lcsh

100 1_ Corigliano, John, $d 1938- $t Ghosts of Versailles
380 __ Operas $2 lcsh

--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, 11 Feb 2013, Casey A Mullin wrote:


[Cross-posted widely. Please excuse the duplication]

Colleagues,

The MLA-BCC RDA Music Implementation Task Force is happy to announce the 
release of the first complete draft of "Best Practices for Music Cataloging 
using RDA and MARC21." This document represents over sixteen months of effort 
by the task force to determine and articulate best practices for the 
description of music resources (chiefly scores and audio recordings). In the 
increasingly decentralized environment of library metadata standards, this 
document addresses the need for specific guidance for catalogers describing 
music resources that is authoritative, yet flexible to the needs of 
individual institutions. It is intended to supplement the text of RDA itself, 
and accounts for (though does not presume full adherence to) the Library of 
Congress-Program for Cooperative Cataloging Policy Statements (LC-PCC PS).


The task force invites broad input regarding these best practices, from both 
specialists within the music community and non-specialists who work with 
music materials (or manage those who do). Formal means for collecting 
community feedback and incorporating it into revisions of the best practices 
document on an ongoing basis are still being developed. For the current 
draft, please send feedback directly to the task force chair (yours truly) at 
cmul...@stanford.edu.


Additionally, these best practices decisions will be the topic of a panel 
discussion at the MLA Annual Meeting in San Jose, CA on February 28, 2013, 
entitled "RDA Best Practices for Music: A Conversation." Specific topics to 
be discussed will be based directly on feedback gathered from e-mail 
responses in advance of the meeting, and from those attending the session (in 
"town hall" fashion). Whether or not you are able to attend the MLA session, 
we want to hear from you!!


The current draft may be found here: 
http://bcc.musiclibraryassoc.org/BCC-Historical/BCC2013/RDA_Best_Practices_for_Music_Cataloging.pdf


Many thanks,
Casey Mullin
Chair, MLA-BCC RDA Music Implementation Task Force

--
Casey A. Mullin
Head, Data Control Unit
Metadata Department
Stanford University Libraries
650-736-0849
cmul...@stanford.edu
http://www.caseymullin.com

--

"Those who need structured and granular data and the precise retrieval that 
results from it to carry out research and scholarship may constitute an elite 
minority rather than most of the people of the world (sadly), but that 
talented and intelligent minority is an important one for the cultural and 
technological advancement of humanity. It is even possible that if we did a 
better job of providing access to such data, we might enable the enlargement 
of that minority."

-Martha Yee

Re: [RDA-L] Best Practices for Music Cataloging using RDA and MARC21 -- Draft open for comment (fwd) (fwd)

[Kathy Glennan]

Examples of 336 are under the appropriate RDA instruction (6.9). See page 51.

Examples of $e relator terms are shown in relation to RDA Chapters 18-20 (pages 
70-72).


Kathy Glennan
Head, Metadata Creation and Enhancement / Music Cataloger
University of Maryland
kglen...@umd.edu

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 3:46 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Best Practices for Music Cataloging using RDA and MARC21 -- 
Draft open for comment (fwd) (fwd)

"Best Practices for Music Cataloging using RDA and MARC21."
 
http://bcc.musiclibraryassoc.org/BCC-Historical/BCC2013/RDA_Best_Practices_for_Music_Cataloging.pdf

Interesting, and a lot of work.

I was surprised to see no examples of $4 relator codes or $e relator terms.

I was surprised to see examples of 260, when PCC has said that no new RDA 
records are to have 260.  I was also suprised to see the copyright symbols used 
in 260 examples, as opposed to "c" and "p".

I was surprised to see no examples of 336 RDA media content, but rather 
examples of 344 and 347.  The fact that samples were not in field tag order, I 
found confusing.


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

Re: [RDA-L] Best Practices for Music Cataloging using RDA and MARC21 -- Draft open for comment (fwd) (fwd)

[Kevin M Randall]

Mac Elrod wrote:

> I was surprised to see examples of 260, when PCC has said that no new
> RDA records are to have 260.

The examples give 260 as an alternative to 264.  It is clearly stated that "MLA 
strongly recommends using the 264 field."  (Footnote 12 on page 17.)  However, 
while it's clear, it's certainly not prominent.  I would suggest they try to 
find some way of saying it more loudly.

> I was also suprised to see the copyright
> symbols used in 260 examples, as opposed to "c" and "p".

This isn't surprising to me at all.  RDA has no provision for using "c" or "p". 
 It's either the symbol, or the word "copyright" or "phonogram".  Using "c" or 
"p" with the date is a pre-RDA convention.

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

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

[RDA-L] Best Practices for Music Cataloging using RDA and MARC21 -- Draft open for comment (fwd) (fwd)

[J. McRee Elrod]

"Best Practices for Music Cataloging using RDA and MARC21."
 
http://bcc.musiclibraryassoc.org/BCC-Historical/BCC2013/RDA_Best_Practices_for_Music_Cataloging.pdf

Interesting, and a lot of work.

I was surprised to see no examples of $4 relator codes or $e relator
terms.

I was surprised to see examples of 260, when PCC has said that no new
RDA records are to have 260.  I was also suprised to see the copyright
symbols used in 260 examples, as opposed to "c" and "p".

I was surprised to see no examples of 336 RDA media content, but
rather examples of 344 and 347.  The fact that samples were not in
field tag order, I found confusing.


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

Re: [RDA-L] Best Practices for Music Cataloging using RDA and MARC21 -- Draft open for comment

[Nancy Sack]

Casey, thanks to you and your committee for this monumental work. I have 
one question (for now ;)):
on p. 72, could you specify what $e term(s) is/are appropriate for 
the first case (when performers/performing ensembles are recorded in a 
100/110 field (and in 245 $c) because they are treated as adapters.


Also, one correction: on p. 23, I think "261" is supposed to be "264"?

Thanks.

Nancy


On 2/11/2013 7:15 AM, Casey A Mullin wrote:

[Cross-posted widely. Please excuse the duplication]

Colleagues,

The MLA-BCC RDA Music Implementation Task Force is happy to announce 
the release of the first complete draft of "Best Practices for Music 
Cataloging using RDA and MARC21." This document represents over 
sixteen months of effort by the task force to determine and articulate 
best practices for the description of music resources (chiefly scores 
and audio recordings). In the increasingly decentralized environment 
of library metadata standards, this document addresses the need for 
specific guidance for catalogers describing music resources that is 
authoritative, yet flexible to the needs of individual institutions. 
It is intended to supplement the text of RDA itself, and accounts for 
(though does not presume full adherence to) the Library of 
Congress-Program for Cooperative Cataloging Policy Statements (LC-PCC PS).


The task force invites broad input regarding these best practices, 
from both specialists within the music community and non-specialists 
who work with music materials (or manage those who do). Formal means 
for collecting community feedback and incorporating it into revisions 
of the best practices document on an ongoing basis are still being 
developed. For the current draft, please send feedback directly to the 
task force chair (yours truly) at cmul...@stanford.edu.


Additionally, these best practices decisions will be the topic of a 
panel discussion at the MLA Annual Meeting in San Jose, CA on February 
28, 2013, entitled "RDA Best Practices for Music: A Conversation." 
Specific topics to be discussed will be based directly on feedback 
gathered from e-mail responses in advance of the meeting, and from 
those attending the session (in "town hall" fashion). Whether or not 
you are able to attend the MLA session, we want to hear from you!!


The current draft may be found here: 
http://bcc.musiclibraryassoc.org/BCC-Historical/BCC2013/RDA_Best_Practices_for_Music_Cataloging.pdf


Many thanks,
Casey Mullin
Chair, MLA-BCC RDA Music Implementation Task Force
--
Casey A. Mullin
Head, Data Control Unit
Metadata Department
Stanford University Libraries
650-736-0849
cmul...@stanford.edu
http://www.caseymullin.com

--

"Those who need structured and granular data and the precise retrieval that results 
from it to carry out research and scholarship may constitute an elite minority rather 
than most of the people of the world (sadly), but that talented and intelligent minority 
is an important one for the cultural and technological advancement of humanity. It is 
even possible that if we did a better job of providing access to such data, we might 
enable the enlargement of that minority."
-Martha Yee


--
Nancy Sack
Cataloging Department
University of Hawaii at Manoa
2550 McCarthy Mall
Honolulu, HI 96822
phone: 808-956-2648
fax: 808-956-5968
e-mail: s...@hawaii.edu

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Goldfarb, Kathie]

OK.  I have had only occasional access to the RDA Toolkit and had not had an 
opportunity to delve deeply into RDA, and therefore was unaware of the 
complexities involved in the Author/title rules and searching.  

kathie

Kathleen Goldfarb
Technical Services Librarian
College of the Mainland
Texas City, TX 77539
409 933 8202

 Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email.



-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 1:34 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons 
etc.

Kathie said:

>... other than for classification purposes, I do not believe the Main 
>entry really has that much significance ...

Wouldn't that be Cuttering purposes, not classification?

What about 600$a$t and 700$a$t entries?  Then there is the matter of 
coordination with scholarly citation practice.  There are communities with 
which to play well, apart from the Web one.


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






in the library's OPAC or our patron's searching needs.

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[J. McRee Elrod]

Kathie said:

>... other than for classification purposes, I do not believe the Main
>entry really has that much significance ...

Wouldn't that be Cuttering purposes, not classification?

What about 600$a$t and 700$a$t entries?  Then there is the matter of
coordination with scholarly citation practice.  There are communities
with which to play well, apart from the Web one.


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






in the library's OPAC or our patron's searching needs.

[RDA-L] Best Practices for Music Cataloging using RDA and MARC21 -- Draft open for comment

[Casey A Mullin]

[Cross-posted widely. Please excuse the duplication]

Colleagues,

The MLA-BCC RDA Music Implementation Task Force is happy to announce the 
release of the first complete draft of "Best Practices for Music 
Cataloging using RDA and MARC21." This document represents over sixteen 
months of effort by the task force to determine and articulate best 
practices for the description of music resources (chiefly scores and 
audio recordings). In the increasingly decentralized environment of 
library metadata standards, this document addresses the need for 
specific guidance for catalogers describing music resources that is 
authoritative, yet flexible to the needs of individual institutions. It 
is intended to supplement the text of RDA itself, and accounts for 
(though does not presume full adherence to) the Library of 
Congress-Program for Cooperative Cataloging Policy Statements (LC-PCC PS).


The task force invites broad input regarding these best practices, from 
both specialists within the music community and non-specialists who work 
with music materials (or manage those who do). Formal means for 
collecting community feedback and incorporating it into revisions of the 
best practices document on an ongoing basis are still being developed. 
For the current draft, please send feedback directly to the task force 
chair (yours truly) at cmul...@stanford.edu.


Additionally, these best practices decisions will be the topic of a 
panel discussion at the MLA Annual Meeting in San Jose, CA on February 
28, 2013, entitled "RDA Best Practices for Music: A Conversation." 
Specific topics to be discussed will be based directly on feedback 
gathered from e-mail responses in advance of the meeting, and from those 
attending the session (in "town hall" fashion). Whether or not you are 
able to attend the MLA session, we want to hear from you!!


The current draft may be found here: 
http://bcc.musiclibraryassoc.org/BCC-Historical/BCC2013/RDA_Best_Practices_for_Music_Cataloging.pdf


Many thanks,
Casey Mullin
Chair, MLA-BCC RDA Music Implementation Task Force

--
Casey A. Mullin
Head, Data Control Unit
Metadata Department
Stanford University Libraries
650-736-0849
cmul...@stanford.edu
http://www.caseymullin.com

--

"Those who need structured and granular data and the precise retrieval that results 
from it to carry out research and scholarship may constitute an elite minority rather 
than most of the people of the world (sadly), but that talented and intelligent minority 
is an important one for the cultural and technological advancement of humanity. It is 
even possible that if we did a better job of providing access to such data, we might 
enable the enlargement of that minority."
-Martha Yee

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Goldfarb, Kathie
> Sent: February-11-13 10:07 AM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three
> persons etc.
> 
> I would interpret " first named person as part of the authorized access points
> for the work " as referring to the existence of a 1xx OR 7xx for that person,
> but not necessarily as main entry.  In fact, other than for classification
> purposes, I do not believe the Main entry really has that much significance in
> the library's OPAC or our patron's searching needs.
> 
> Kathie

The authorized access point for the work is covered beginning in RDA 6.27, and 
the construction of the authorized access point for the work for a 
collaborative work (i.e., more than one creator) does indeed refer to the 
"first named"-- the first name to appear in a statement of a responsibility.

An example of an authorized access point for a work is: Hemingway, Ernest, 
1899–1961. Sun also rises

The first part of the authorized access point for the work is the equivalent to 
what arises with the main entry rule in AACR2 (i.e. what goes into the 1XX 
field but continued with a 240 or 245 title proper).


The relationship of one or more creators to a work is covered in RDA 19. In 
MARC, multiple creators would be entered into 7XX fields, with one chosen for 
the 1XX spot.


There are two distinct meanings of the data in the 1XX field.

100 is for the authorized access point of a person who has a relationship with 
the work.

100 is for the first part of the authorized access point of the work. The form 
"Hemingway, Ernest, 1899–1961. Sun also rises" refers to the entity Work not 
Person.

Both situations can depend on the name that appears first in the statement of 
responsbility

When RDA 18.3 mentions the following is a Core element: "Other person, family, 
or corporate body associated with a work (if the access point representing that 
person, family, or corporate body is used to construct the authorized access 
point representing the work)", this means the core relationship of a one person 
to the work is contingent on the decision that went into constructing the 
authorized access point for a work.

And in turn, that decision can be contingent on the name listed first in the 
statement of responsibility.



Here is an example in RDA that illustrates these contingencies (and also shows 
the elimination of the rule of three) is:


Beyard, Michael D. Developing retail entertainment destinations 

Resource described: Developing retail entertainment destinations / principal 
authors, Michael D. Beyard, Raymond E. Braun, Herbert McLaughlin, Patrick L. 
Phillips, Michael S. Rubin ; contributing authors, Andre Bald, Steven Fader, 
Oliver Jerschow, Terry Lassar, David Mulvihill, David Takesuye



In RDA one would construct a relationship something like this:

Beyard, Michael D.  Beyard, Michael D. Developing retail 
entertainment destinations

But the Manifestation elements are separate from this:

Title proper: Developing retail entertainment destinations
Statement of responsibility relating to title proper [first statement is core 
element]: principal authors, Michael D. Beyard, Raymond E. Braun, Herbert 
McLaughlin, Patrick L. Phillips, Michael S. Rubin
Statement of responsibility relating to title proper: contributing authors, 
Andre Bald, Steven Fader, Oliver Jerschow, Terry Lassar, David Mulvihill, David 
Takesuye


What makes "Michael D. Beyard" a core relationship element is the connection 
between that name (the "first named") and the authorized access point for the 
work: "Beyard, Michael D. Developing retail entertainment destinations".

Beyond his role in the authorized access point for the work Michael D. Beyard 
is no more important a creator then Raymond E. Braun, Herbert McLaughlin, 
Patrick L. Phillips, or Michael S. Rubin. RDA 19 focuses only on the 
relationships between all creators and the work, but when RDA specifies one 
creator as a core element, the reference is back to RDA 6.27 when the 
authorized access point for the work (in name-title form) is being constructed, 
and the choice for that often falls back to the "first named" within the 
statement of responsibility.


Encoded in MARC (core elements only):

100 $a Beyard, Michael D.
245 $a Developing retail entertainment destinations /
245 $c principal authors, Michael D. Beyard, Raymond E. Braun, Herbert 
McLaughlin, Patrick L. Phillips, Michael S. Rubin



Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Goldfarb, Kathie]

In searching, whether the name is in a 1xx field or in a 7xx field, the results 
list should be interfiled, as they were in our card based catalog.  The 
display/indentation on that card would show whether the author was a main or 
added entry, but it would not affect the filing (if I remember correctly, I no 
longer have my filing rules manual). I think patrons are often unsure whether a 
person is an author, editor or contributor, they are just looking for works by 
that author.  When they get to the actual record, they will be able to see the 
person’s role in the relationship designator.

 

Now, as mentioned, that does have importance to the shelving of titles to keep 
works by the same author, in the same classification together, so we may want 
to make that distinction for shelving purposes.  

 

kathie

 

Kathleen Goldfarb

Technical Services Librarian

College of the Mainland

Texas City, TX 77539

409 933 8202

 

P Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email.

 

 

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joan Wang
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 9:18 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons 
etc.

 

Does it help for collocating works under the same person? I think that this is 
the significance of distinguishing creators from contributors. 

Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System 

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Goldfarb, Kathie  wrote:

I would interpret " first named person as part of the authorized access points 
for the work " as referring to the existence of a 1xx OR 7xx for that person, 
but not necessarily as main entry.  In fact, other than for classification 
purposes, I do not believe the Main entry really has that much significance in 
the library's OPAC or our patron's searching needs.

kathie

Kathleen Goldfarb
Technical Services Librarian
College of the Mainland
Texas City, TX 77539
409 933 8202  

P Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email.




-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: Friday, February 08, 2013 3:03 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons 
etc.

>I think we're all agreed that transcribing all names in a statement of 
>responsibility is preferable to any kinds of shortening the statement.

>I'm not so sure about your argument that the first name in such a list is of 
>special importance as a potential part of the access point of the >work.



It was just a small point, but the reference was to one change in RDA from 
AACR2, which is to always use the first named person as part of the authorized 
access point for the work when there are two or more involved (and principle 
responsibility cannot other be determined) (RDA 6.27.1.3; also RDA 19.2 where 
the main or first Creator relationship to the work is a core element).



In AACR2, the work had a title main entry if there were more than three 
creators named in the statement of responsibility. RDA doesn't have the Rule of 
Three, and one effect is that the first named in a long statement of 
responsibility will get greater attention than all the other names, and will 
likely end up as part of the authorized access point for the work (i.e. the 
name-title access point for the work).



Thomas Brenndorfer

Guelph Public Library




-- 

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] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Joan Wang]

Does it help for collocating works under the same person? I think that this
is the significance of distinguishing creators from contributors.

Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Goldfarb, Kathie  wrote:

> I would interpret " first named person as part of the authorized access
> points for the work " as referring to the existence of a 1xx OR 7xx for
> that person, but not necessarily as main entry.  In fact, other than for
> classification purposes, I do not believe the Main entry really has that
> much significance in the library's OPAC or our patron's searching needs.
>
> kathie
>
> Kathleen Goldfarb
> Technical Services Librarian
> College of the Mainland
> Texas City, TX 77539
> 409 933 8202
>
>  Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email.
>
>
>
> -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: Friday, February 08, 2013 3:03 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three
> persons etc.
>
> >I think we're all agreed that transcribing all names in a statement of
> responsibility is preferable to any kinds of shortening the statement.
>
> >I'm not so sure about your argument that the first name in such a list is
> of special importance as a potential part of the access point of the >work.
>
>
>
> It was just a small point, but the reference was to one change in RDA from
> AACR2, which is to always use the first named person as part of the
> authorized access point for the work when there are two or more involved
> (and principle responsibility cannot other be determined) (RDA 6.27.1.3;
> also RDA 19.2 where the main or first Creator relationship to the work is a
> core element).
>
>
>
> In AACR2, the work had a title main entry if there were more than three
> creators named in the statement of responsibility. RDA doesn't have the
> Rule of Three, and one effect is that the first named in a long statement
> of responsibility will get greater attention than all the other names, and
> will likely end up as part of the authorized access point for the work
> (i.e. the name-title access point for the work).
>
>
>
> Thomas Brenndorfer
>
> Guelph Public Library
>



-- 
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] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Goldfarb, Kathie]

I would interpret " first named person as part of the authorized access points 
for the work " as referring to the existence of a 1xx OR 7xx for that person, 
but not necessarily as main entry.  In fact, other than for classification 
purposes, I do not believe the Main entry really has that much significance in 
the library's OPAC or our patron's searching needs.

kathie

Kathleen Goldfarb
Technical Services Librarian
College of the Mainland
Texas City, TX 77539
409 933 8202

 Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email.



-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: Friday, February 08, 2013 3:03 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons 
etc.

>I think we're all agreed that transcribing all names in a statement of 
>responsibility is preferable to any kinds of shortening the statement.

>I'm not so sure about your argument that the first name in such a list is of 
>special importance as a potential part of the access point of the >work.



It was just a small point, but the reference was to one change in RDA from 
AACR2, which is to always use the first named person as part of the authorized 
access point for the work when there are two or more involved (and principle 
responsibility cannot other be determined) (RDA 6.27.1.3; also RDA 19.2 where 
the main or first Creator relationship to the work is a core element).



In AACR2, the work had a title main entry if there were more than three 
creators named in the statement of responsibility. RDA doesn't have the Rule of 
Three, and one effect is that the first named in a long statement of 
responsibility will get greater attention than all the other names, and will 
likely end up as part of the authorized access point for the work (i.e. the 
name-title access point for the work).



Thomas Brenndorfer

Guelph Public Library

[RDA-L] 2012 approved RDA proposals: changes posted

[JSC Secretary]

The final versions of the proposals approved by the Joint Steering
Committee for Development of RDA during and after its November 2012 meeting
have been posted on the JSC web site. See the "Sec final" documents listed
in the *table of new working
documents*or consult a
specific proposal in the
*constituency proposals
section*.


If you're interested in which instructions are affected by the approved
proposals, a *table*  is
available for your use. It lists the new, revised, or deleted instructions
and indicates where changes were made (in the instruction, in the examples,
or both); it also includes the JSC document number if you want to read the
background and justification for the changes.


Regards, Judy Kuhagen

JSC Secretary