Re: [RDA-L] Most appropriate language (RDA 1.4)
I'm not quite sure if I'm talking about exactly the same issue, but this is something that is worrying me: (Also, I do apologise to be mentioning a MARC subfield, which I don't think purists like, but it's useful shorthand; also not to give the RDA rule number, but I don't have access to the Toolkit, but I'm sure readers will know what I mean) Assume I am cataloguing a record for a non-English language resource (in this case Finnish, but assume any language) but I am working for a library that wants records with English as language of cataloguing, ie value 040$b eng If I am creating a 245$c and I want to make use of the option that allows abbreviation to and twelve others what is the appropriate way of expressing that? [and twelve others] ? [ja kaksitoista muuta] ? The first must stick out like a sore thumb, and I wouldn't countenance it in the case of value 040$b fin, but I just don't know how to reconcile it with RDA 1.4. Paul Davey daveyp...@tiscali.co.uk In RDA 1.4, we read: When recording an element listed above as a supplied element, record the supplied element in the most appropriate language and script. (The elements listed are those that are normally transcribed more or less exactly in the bibliographic description.) Now I was wondering what might be a good policy for the most appropriate language. The LC-PCC PS for 1.4 doesn't comment on this point, although I think there can easily be different opinions as to what is most appropriate. For instance, according to AACR2 (1.4C6.), the probable place of publication, distribution etc. is to be given in the English form of name if there is one, whereas the German RAK rules (§ 144,3) call for giving such a place if possible, in its original language form. So, you'd have to use Florence according to AACR2, but Firenze according to RAK. The example given in AACR2 1.4C6. is [Munich?], and this example is still there in RDA 2.8.2.6.2. But taking into account that RDA examples are not prescriptive, but illustrative only, I think that RDA 1.4 would also make it possible to write [München?], if one believes the original language form to be the most appropriate. Heidrun
[RDA-L] Bib records with uniform titles for the Bible
Dear RDA-Lers, On Friday my colleague loaded the new authority records for all of the New Testament headings. When we looked at our Millennium catalog this morning, all the headings had flipped. However bib records with 730s such as Bible. N.T. Acts. English aren't affected by the new authority records. Can anyone offer advice on what to do about this? Do we need to go in and change these Uniform Titles one by one? Thank you! Joan -- Joan Milligan Catalog and Metadata Specialist University of Dayton Libraries 300 College Park Dayton, Ohio 45469-1360 937-229-4075 jmillig...@udayton.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Bib records with uniform titles for the Bible
If your system can export and import a file of MARC records of interest, the program you find here may be of use. This is for all of the phase 2 changes, not just the Bible. http://files.library.northwestern.edu/public/RdaConversion Start with the documentation, whose name begins Program for the manipulation ... Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc. Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300 e-mail: mrsm...@northwestern.edu voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306 Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. BatchCat version: 2007.22.416 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joan Milligan Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 7:45 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Bib records with uniform titles for the Bible Dear RDA-Lers, On Friday my colleague loaded the new authority records for all of the New Testament headings. When we looked at our Millennium catalog this morning, all the headings had flipped. However bib records with 730s such as Bible. N.T. Acts. English aren't affected by the new authority records. Can anyone offer advice on what to do about this? Do we need to go in and change these Uniform Titles one by one? Thank you! Joan -- Joan Milligan Catalog and Metadata Specialist University of Dayton Libraries 300 College Park Dayton, Ohio 45469-1360 937-229-4075 jmillig...@udayton.edumailto:jmillig...@udayton.edu [Image removed by sender.] inline: ~WRD000.jpg
Re: [RDA-L] Most appropriate language (RDA 1.4)
Am 25.03.2013 13:30, schrieb Paul Davey: ... I do apologise to be mentioning a MARC subfield, which I don't think purists like, but it's useful shorthand; also not to give the RDA rule number, but I don't have access to the Toolkit, but I'm sure readers will know what I mean) ... no access to the toolkit? One cannot help but deplore the fact that we encounter this far too often. Esp. in the present situation of much-needed discussion, it is conterproductive, and a woeful disgrace for us as a profession, that not everyone with an interest in the matter and an understanding of the issues can make informed contributions because of a lack of access. Libraries are there to make recorded knowledge universally accessible and useful. If the new rules are to unfold their usefulness to support this mission, the rule text ought to be universally accessible. How credible is that mission if not even this can be achieved? And under such constraints, how realistic is it to get other communities interested? It is a weak excuse to say that out of economic concerns there is no alternative to a global monopoly on all versions and translations of the text. This would hold for MARC as well and also for BibFrame, which no one ever questioned for being open standards in the sense of freely available text, despite high costs of development and maintenance. Anyone should be welcome to provide added value by constructing all sorts of tools to make the text useful in other ways than other tools do, and they might well be allowed to derive a profit from such activities. But the text as such has to be open, and in this day and age, not just as plain text but open in a structured format that lends itself to formatted arrangements and exploitation by software to enhance its potential usefulness. For instance, out of any editing system for bibliographic data, conext-sensitive links should be enactable to display pertinent rules, free of charge. I confess to have no access to the Toolkit either. But out of principle, not lack of resources. B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] Bib records with uniform titles for the Bible
How delightful. I find we have a little puddle also... All of the bib records that I have checked so far have a previous entry for Bible.|p Acts. that was properly flipped. I wonder if they weren't busied still when the time came to flip the headings that didn't get flipped. (We have good 130s and 630s with bad 730s). Not sure what order III's AACP works on the records, but this might be what happened. If this is right, just open the authority record for Bible N.T. Acts. Suppress it. Close the record. Open it and again and unsuppress it. This will force a re-index for the record that will make it run through the AACP process again. Check tomorrow morning and see if your truants are still there. If they are, I'ld suggest using the Global update module. If this is right; there will be a lot of us in this same boat. On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Joan Milligan jmillig...@udayton.eduwrote: Dear RDA-Lers, On Friday my colleague loaded the new authority records for all of the New Testament headings. When we looked at our Millennium catalog this morning, all the headings had flipped. However bib records with 730s such as Bible. N.T. Acts. English aren't affected by the new authority records. Can anyone offer advice on what to do about this? Do we need to go in and change these Uniform Titles one by one? Thank you! Joan -- Joan Milligan Catalog and Metadata Specialist University of Dayton Libraries 300 College Park Dayton, Ohio 45469-1360 937-229-4075 jmillig...@udayton.edu -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu
[RDA-L] Phase II records
Thank you for your responses! I guess I'm a little grumpy today, but ... Does anyone have any idea which algorithm or workflow was used to create the authority record loads we're getting? I truly do not understand why the authority records for the federal government cabinet departments are coming in with subunits attached instead of just the main headings (ex. United States. $b Dept. of Justice etc.) coming through first. In my mind it would be a more logical way of doing things. Sorry, I am almost done with the first load of 10,000 plus/minus records and am facing another 20,000 records. And yes, I'm the only one who does authority work here at Kresge! Thank you! -- Jerri Swinehart MLIS Library Technician III Metadata Technician Oakland University Kresge Library Technical Services Rochester, MI 48309-4484 swine...@oakland.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Phase II records
The conversion program was told to examine records in LC's copy of the LC/NACO Authority File in sequential order, from first to last. Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc. Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300 e-mail: mrsm...@northwestern.edu voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306 Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. BatchCat version: 2007.22.416 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jerri Swinehart Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 9:57 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Phase II records Thank you for your responses! I guess I'm a little grumpy today, but ... Does anyone have any idea which algorithm or workflow was used to create the authority record loads we're getting? I truly do not understand why the authority records for the federal government cabinet departments are coming in with subunits attached instead of just the main headings (ex. United States. $b Dept. of Justice etc.) coming through first. In my mind it would be a more logical way of doing things. Sorry, I am almost done with the first load of 10,000 plus/minus records and am facing another 20,000 records. And yes, I'm the only one who does authority work here at Kresge! Thank you! -- Jerri Swinehart MLIS Library Technician III Metadata Technician Oakland University Kresge Library Technical Services Rochester, MI 48309-4484 swine...@oakland.edumailto:swine...@oakland.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Most appropriate language (RDA 1.4)
Paul, RDA is actually quite clear on this matter. In this case (unlike the one I was talking about), it's not a complete element which is supplied, but only a part of it. The basic rule for this can also be found in 1.4 (Language and script): When adding data within an element listed above, record the added data in the language and script of the other data in the element unless the instructions for a specific element indicate otherwise. So, ordinarily it should be the same language as the rest of the element, but note the exception in the last part of the sentence. There is indeed a specific instruction for your case in 2.4.1.5 (Statement naming more than one person, etc.): Optional Omission: If a single statement of responsibility names more than three persons, families, or corporate bodies performing the same function, or with the same degree of responsibility, omit all but the first of each group of such persons, families, or bodies. Indicate the omission by summarizing what has been omitted in the language and script preferred by the agency preparing the description. Indicate that the summary was taken from a source outside the resource itself as instructed under 2.2.4. So, if the library in question has decided to use English as its preferred language, than the [and twelve others] or such also has to be in English. My personal explanation for this is that the [and twelve others] is seen rather as something like a note (which traditionally is recorded in the language of the agency), and not as a different way of transcribing the statement of responsibility. I'm not really happy with this language mixture myself. And it doesn't really fit in with a rule like 1.7.5 (Symbols): Replace symbols and other characters, etc., that cannot be reproduced by the facilities available with a description of the symbol enclosed in square brackets. Here, there is no specific instruction, so according to the rules you must describe the symbol in the language of the resource, although this will certainly often be difficult for catalogers. Maybe there should at least be an option in 2.4.1.5 to use the language of the resource instead of the language of the agency. Heidrun On 25.03.2013 13:30, Paul Davey wrote: I'm not quite sure if I'm talking about exactly the same issue, but this is something that is worrying me: (Also, I do apologise to be mentioning a MARC subfield, which I don't think purists like, but it's useful shorthand; also not to give the RDA rule number, but I don't have access to the Toolkit, but I'm sure readers will know what I mean) Assume I am cataloguing a record for a non-English language resource (in this case Finnish, but assume any language) but I am working for a library that wants records with English as language of cataloguing, ie value 040$b eng If I am creating a 245$c and I want to make use of the option that allows abbreviation to and twelve others what is the appropriate way of expressing that? [and twelve others] ? [ja kaksitoista muuta] ? The first must stick out like a sore thumb, and I wouldn't countenance it in the case of value 040$b fin, but I just don't know how to reconcile it with RDA 1.4. Paul Davey daveyp...@tiscali.co.uk mailto:daveyp...@tiscali.co.uk In RDA 1.4, we read: When recording an element listed above as a supplied element, record the supplied element in the most appropriate language and script. (The elements listed are those that are normally transcribed more or less exactly in the bibliographic description.) Now I was wondering what might be a good policy for the most appropriate language. The LC-PCC PS for 1.4 doesn't comment on this point, although I think there can easily be different opinions as to what is most appropriate. For instance, according to AACR2 (1.4C6.), the probable place of publication, distribution etc. is to be given in the English form of name if there is one, whereas the German RAK rules (§ 144,3) call for giving such a place if possible, in its original language form. So, you'd have to use Florence according to AACR2, but Firenze according to RAK. The example given in AACR2 1.4C6. is [Munich?], and this example is still there in RDA 2.8.2.6.2. But taking into account that RDA examples are not prescriptive, but illustrative only, I think that RDA 1.4 would also make it possible to write [München?], if one believes the original language form to be the most appropriate. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Bib records with uniform titles for the Bible
I just checked ours. The authority records for Bible have been loaded, but none of the entries were changed, either subject or title (130 and 730) On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Adger Williams awilli...@colgate.eduwrote: How delightful. I find we have a little puddle also... All of the bib records that I have checked so far have a previous entry for Bible.|p Acts. that was properly flipped. I wonder if they weren't busied still when the time came to flip the headings that didn't get flipped. (We have good 130s and 630s with bad 730s). Not sure what order III's AACP works on the records, but this might be what happened. If this is right, just open the authority record for Bible N.T. Acts. Suppress it. Close the record. Open it and again and unsuppress it. This will force a re-index for the record that will make it run through the AACP process again. Check tomorrow morning and see if your truants are still there. If they are, I'ld suggest using the Global update module. If this is right; there will be a lot of us in this same boat. On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Joan Milligan jmillig...@udayton.eduwrote: Dear RDA-Lers, On Friday my colleague loaded the new authority records for all of the New Testament headings. When we looked at our Millennium catalog this morning, all the headings had flipped. However bib records with 730s such as Bible. N.T. Acts. English aren't affected by the new authority records. Can anyone offer advice on what to do about this? Do we need to go in and change these Uniform Titles one by one? Thank you! Joan -- Joan Milligan Catalog and Metadata Specialist University of Dayton Libraries 300 College Park Dayton, Ohio 45469-1360 937-229-4075 jmillig...@udayton.edu -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edu -- 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] Most appropriate language (RDA 1.4)
Note that RDA 0.11.2 has general information about language and script. Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote: Paul, RDA is actually quite clear on this matter. In this case (unlike the one I was talking about), it's not a complete element which is supplied, but only a part of it. The basic rule for this can also be found in 1.4 (Language and script): When adding data within an element listed above, record the added data in the language and script of the other data in the element unless the instructions for a specific element indicate otherwise. So, ordinarily it should be the same language as the rest of the element, but note the exception in the last part of the sentence. There is indeed a specific instruction for your case in 2.4.1.5 (Statement naming more than one person, etc.): Optional Omission: If a single statement of responsibility names more than three persons, families, or corporate bodies performing the same function, or with the same degree of responsibility, omit all but the first of each group of such persons, families, or bodies. Indicate the omission by summarizing what has been omitted in the language and script preferred by the agency preparing the description. Indicate that the summary was taken from a source outside the resource itself as instructed under 2.2.4. So, if the library in question has decided to use English as its preferred language, than the [and twelve others] or such also has to be in English. My personal explanation for this is that the [and twelve others] is seen rather as something like a note (which traditionally is recorded in the language of the agency), and not as a different way of transcribing the statement of responsibility. I'm not really happy with this language mixture myself. And it doesn't really fit in with a rule like 1.7.5 (Symbols): Replace symbols and other characters, etc., that cannot be reproduced by the facilities available with a description of the symbol enclosed in square brackets. Here, there is no specific instruction, so according to the rules you must describe the symbol in the language of the resource, although this will certainly often be difficult for catalogers. Maybe there should at least be an option in 2.4.1.5 to use the language of the resource instead of the language of the agency. Heidrun On 25.03.2013 13:30, Paul Davey wrote: I'm not quite sure if I'm talking about exactly the same issue, but this is something that is worrying me: (Also, I do apologise to be mentioning a MARC subfield, which I don't think purists like, but it's useful shorthand; also not to give the RDA rule number, but I don't have access to the Toolkit, but I'm sure readers will know what I mean) Assume I am cataloguing a record for a non-English language resource (in this case Finnish, but assume any language) but I am working for a library that wants records with English as language of cataloguing, ie value 040$b eng If I am creating a 245$c and I want to make use of the option that allows abbreviation to and twelve others what is the appropriate way of expressing that? [and twelve others] ? [ja kaksitoista muuta] ? The first must stick out like a sore thumb, and I wouldn't countenance it in the case of value 040$b fin, but I just don't know how to reconcile it with RDA 1.4. Paul Davey daveyp...@tiscali.co.uk In RDA 1.4, we read: When recording an element listed above as a supplied element, record the supplied element in the most appropriate language and script. (The elements listed are those that are normally transcribed more or less exactly in the bibliographic description.) Now I was wondering what might be a good policy for the most appropriate language. The LC-PCC PS for 1.4 doesn't comment on this point, although I think there can easily be different opinions as to what is most appropriate. For instance, according to AACR2 (1.4C6.), the probable place of publication, distribution etc. is to be given in the English form of name if there is one, whereas the German RAK rules (§ 144,3) call for giving such a place if possible, in its original language form. So, you'd have to use Florence according to AACR2, but Firenze according to RAK. The example given in AACR2 1.4C6. is [Munich?], and this example is still there in RDA 2.8.2.6.2. But taking into account that RDA examples are not prescriptive, but illustrative only, I think that RDA 1.4 would also make it possible to write [München?], if one believes the original language form to be the most appropriate. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germanywww.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Most appropriate language (RDA 1.4)
Paul Davey asked:
If I am creating a 245$c and I want to make use of the option that =
allows abbreviation to and twelve others what is the appropriate way
of expressing that?
[and 12 others], i.e., the language of the catalogue, in contrast
to the [by], [par] etc. we used to supply prior to ISBD's /.
SLC can't do this because of the differing language of the catalogue
among our clients. We will stick with the ISBD Latin abbreviations.
We considered Heidrun's idea of the language of the text, but coming
up with the various texts is time consuming, particularly if there are
diacritics as in French. We also like the continuity with legacy
records.
RDA if very unilingual and Anglophone centric.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Most appropriate language (RDA 1.4)
I'm aware of 0.11.2, but I'm not sure how it relates to the [and twelve others] question. True, under RDA an agency can choose its preferred language, and this doesn't have to be English. So, Paul's library could choose e.g. Finnish as the language of the catalog. But if I read RDA correctly, the library then wouldn't have a choice anymore as to the language of the [and twelve others] - it would have to be in Finnish according to 2.4.1.5. I suppose every solution which is based on recording a text string will prove somewhat unsatisfactory. A truly modern way of recording this information would probably look quite different. What about an additional element (or subelement, or whatever) called Number of additional persons, etc., in a statement of responsibility? In this element, we would only record the number, e.g. 12. The rest would be a matter of display, i.e. the catalog would show some explanatory phrase before or after the number. A Finnish catalog would give this phrase in Finnish as default, and perhaps allow switching to English or French. Storing the information in a language neutral way like this would make it mich easier to exchange data between different language communities: You wouldn't have to change the data to your preferred language, but only make a setting in your catalog as to how the element is to be displayed in your preferred language. Heidrun On 25.03.2013 17:12, JSC Secretary wrote: Note that RDA 0.11.2 has general information about language and script. Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de mailto:wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote: Paul, RDA is actually quite clear on this matter. In this case (unlike the one I was talking about), it's not a complete element which is supplied, but only a part of it. The basic rule for this can also be found in 1.4 (Language and script): When adding data within an element listed above, record the added data in the language and script of the other data in the element unless the instructions for a specific element indicate otherwise. So, ordinarily it should be the same language as the rest of the element, but note the exception in the last part of the sentence. There is indeed a specific instruction for your case in 2.4.1.5 (Statement naming more than one person, etc.): Optional Omission: If a single statement of responsibility names more than three persons, families, or corporate bodies performing the same function, or with the same degree of responsibility, omit all but the first of each group of such persons, families, or bodies. Indicate the omission by summarizing what has been omitted in the language and script preferred by the agency preparing the description. Indicate that the summary was taken from a source outside the resource itself as instructed under 2.2.4. So, if the library in question has decided to use English as its preferred language, than the [and twelve others] or such also has to be in English. My personal explanation for this is that the [and twelve others] is seen rather as something like a note (which traditionally is recorded in the language of the agency), and not as a different way of transcribing the statement of responsibility. I'm not really happy with this language mixture myself. And it doesn't really fit in with a rule like 1.7.5 (Symbols): Replace symbols and other characters, etc., that cannot be reproduced by the facilities available with a description of the symbol enclosed in square brackets. Here, there is no specific instruction, so according to the rules you must describe the symbol in the language of the resource, although this will certainly often be difficult for catalogers. Maybe there should at least be an option in 2.4.1.5 to use the language of the resource instead of the language of the agency. Heidrun On 25.03.2013 13 tel:25.03.2013%2013:30, Paul Davey wrote: I'm not quite sure if I'm talking about exactly the same issue, but this is something that is worrying me: (Also, I do apologise to be mentioning a MARC subfield, which I don't think purists like, but it's useful shorthand; also not to give the RDA rule number, but I don't have access to the Toolkit, but I'm sure readers will know what I mean) Assume I am cataloguing a record for a non-English language resource (in this case Finnish, but assume any language) but I am working for a library that wants records with English as language of cataloguing, ie value 040$b eng If I am creating a 245$c and I want to make use of the option that allows abbreviation to and twelve others what is the appropriate way of expressing that? [and twelve others] ? [ja kaksitoista muuta] ? The first must stick out like a
[RDA-L] JSC public web site: recent postings
Two announcements have been posted on the JSC public web site: -- RDA Training Materials from JSC Constituencies (information from Australia, Canada, and the United States; information from Germany and the United Kingdom to be added later) -- New JSC members (Christine Frodl, Kevin Marsh, and Dave Reser) Several revised versions of Sec final documents for approved proposals have been posted (http://www.rda-jsc.org/workingnew.html); the revisions have corrections of typographical errors and corrections to examples. Regards, Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary
