Re: [RDA-L] RE : [RDA-L] Relationship designator for author of the book for a musical

[Adam L. Schiff]

Merci Daniel!  I did not catch that those definitions had been changed.

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 Tue, 11 Jun 2013, Paradis Daniel wrote:


The current definitions of librettist and lyricist in Appendix are not quite 
clear and have therefore been revised as follows in 6JSC/ALA/13/Sec final 
(http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ALA-13-Sec-final.pdf) (to be integrated in 
the Toolkit in the July update):

librettist
An author of the words of an opera or other musical stage work, or an oratorio. 
For an author of the words of just the songs from a musical, see lyricist.

lyricist
An author of the words of a popular song, including a song or songs from a 
musical. For an author of just the dialogue from a musical, see librettist.

So if the same person wrote the book (i.e. the dialogue) and the lyrics of a 
musical, the correct term would be librettist. If the book and the lyrics were 
written by different persons, librettist would be used for the author of the 
dialogue and lyricist for the author of the lyrics.

Daniel Paradis

Bibliothécaire
Direction du traitement documentaire des collections patrimoniales
Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec

2275, rue Holt
Montréal (Québec) H2G 3H1
Téléphone : 514 873-1101, poste 3721
Télécopieur : 514 873-7296
daniel.para...@banq.qc.ca
http://www.banq.qc.ca 



De: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access de la 
part de Adam Schiff
Date: mar. 2013-06-11 02:10
À: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Objet : [RDA-L] Relationship designator for author of the book for a musical



Hi all,

What are people using for the author of the book for a musical?  The RDA
designator "librettist" seems to be for the sung words in a dramatic musical
work, rather than the spoken text.  I guess perhaps the correct term would
be "author"?  Or would people just use "librettist" for both the words to
the songs in a musical as well as the words spoken that aren't sung?  Or
perhaps use "lyricist" for the author of the words to the songs and
"librettist" for the author of the spoken words?

Thanks,

Adam Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
asch...@uw.edu

[RDA-L] RE : [RDA-L] Relationship designator for author of the book for a musical

[Paradis Daniel]

The current definitions of librettist and lyricist in Appendix are not quite 
clear and have therefore been revised as follows in 6JSC/ALA/13/Sec final 
(http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ALA-13-Sec-final.pdf) (to be integrated in 
the Toolkit in the July update):
 
librettist
An author of the words of an opera or other musical stage work, or an oratorio. 
For an author of the words of just the songs from a musical, see lyricist.
 
lyricist
An author of the words of a popular song, including a song or songs from a 
musical. For an author of just the dialogue from a musical, see librettist.
 
So if the same person wrote the book (i.e. the dialogue) and the lyrics of a 
musical, the correct term would be librettist. If the book and the lyrics were 
written by different persons, librettist would be used for the author of the 
dialogue and lyricist for the author of the lyrics.
 
Daniel Paradis
 
Bibliothécaire
Direction du traitement documentaire des collections patrimoniales
Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec
 
2275, rue Holt
Montréal (Québec) H2G 3H1
Téléphone : 514 873-1101, poste 3721
Télécopieur : 514 873-7296
daniel.para...@banq.qc.ca
http://www.banq.qc.ca  



De: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access de la 
part de Adam Schiff
Date: mar. 2013-06-11 02:10
À: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Objet : [RDA-L] Relationship designator for author of the book for a musical



Hi all,

What are people using for the author of the book for a musical?  The RDA
designator "librettist" seems to be for the sung words in a dramatic musical
work, rather than the spoken text.  I guess perhaps the correct term would
be "author"?  Or would people just use "librettist" for both the words to
the songs in a musical as well as the words spoken that aren't sung?  Or
perhaps use "lyricist" for the author of the words to the songs and
"librettist" for the author of the spoken words?

Thanks,

Adam Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
asch...@uw.edu

Re: [RDA-L] Extent: Terms of common usage (RDA 3.4.1.5 c.)

[J. McRee Elrod]

Heidrun asked:

>So I wonder: What is the general practice now? Do you use things like 
>"audiodisc" and "videodisc" for the extent, or rather a straightforward 
>"CD" and "DVD"?


In some cases, the RDA carrier term is the only option, e.g.,
"volume".  In others, our clients find these terms too general, e.g.,
"online resource", when what they have is a PDF, streaming video, or
website.  They also prefer the more exact "DVD", "CD", etc.

The "S" in SMD stood for "specific".  We should be as specific as
possible.


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

[RDA-L] ALCTS Call for 2014 Proposals

[Susan Wynne]

Forwarding on behalf of the ALCTS Program Committee.  Please excuse 
cross-posting.
Susan C. Wynne
Cataloging & Metadata Librarian
Georgia State University
100 Decatur Street SE
Atlanta, GA 30303
404-413-2729

The ALCTS Program Committee invites program and pre-conference proposals for 
the ALA Annual Conference 2014 in Las Vegas, Nevada, June 26 - July, 1. The 
committee will also accept proposals from those interested in planning virtual 
symposiums to be held before Midwinter 2014 and virtual pre-conferences prior 
to Annual 2014.

If you are interested in planning a pre-conference or program, please submit 
the appropriate web form (see below), and plan to meet with the Program 
Committee during ALA Annual 2013 in Chicago. You will be contacted to make an 
appointment for a 15 minute session during one of the committee's meetings on 
Saturday, June 29th, 8:30-11:30 or Monday July 1, 1:00-5:30.
The committee and ALCTS staff will help you develop your ideas and plan 
logistics. It isn't necessary to have all the details when you initially fill 
out the proposal form or visit the committee.
The Program Committee welcomes topics that will remain current and of interest 
in 2014, and encourages you to employ different program formats:  lightning 
rounds, learning lounge style, debates, an "unconference" model, etc. Programs 
and pre-conferences often originate with ALCTS sections or interest groups, but 
they can also come from individuals or other groups.

Proposal forms are located at:

Pre-conference: 
http://alctsprogram.wufoo.com/forms/alcts-preconference-proposal/
Virtual pre-conference: 
https://alctsprogram.wufoo.com/forms/alcts-virtual-preconferencesymposium-proposal/

Program: http://alctsprogram.wufoo.com/forms/alcts-program-proposal/

More information about the planning process can be found at 
http://www.ala.org/alcts/mgrps/howto/plan

Please  contact the ALCTS Program Committee at 
alcts-prog...@ala.org with questions.

Catherine Gardiner, ALCTS Program Committee Co-Chair, 2012/2013

Cataloging & Metadata Librarian

Supervisor, Technical Services

Florida Gulf Coast University Library Services

10501 FGCU Blvd. South

Fort Myers, FL  33965-6501

(239) 590-7640

[RDA-L] RDA implementation

[Mary Mastraccio]

If you have plans to attend the upcoming ALA Annual Meeting in Chicago, we hope 
you'll plan to attend a program of interest to technical services staff. 
MARCIVE is hosting an ALA-ERT program: "RDA Implementation: What, Why, and How 
in One Hour." It is Saturday, June 29 at 10:30am-11:30m at the McCormick Place, 
room S 103bc. Here is the agenda:
Content Outline:

* Lori Robare, University of Oregon Libraries. RDA: What's In It for You?
* Mary Mastraccio, Manager, Cataloging and Authorities, MARCIVE, Inc. RDA with 
Less Stress
* Richard Guajardo, University of Houston Libraries. Our Implementation of RDA
* Jim Noël, Manager, GPO Services, MARCIVE, Inc., RDA and GPO records
* Questions and answers

Hope to see you there!


Mary L. Mastraccio
ALA-ALCTS-CaMMS Past-Chair
Cataloging & Authorities Manager
MARCIVE, Inc.
San Antonio, TX 78265
1-800-531-7678





From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 8:50 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] RDA relationship designators in NARs, again

Cross-posting to PCC and RDA_L lists, sorry.

Following the recent discussion on this on the PCC List, I wanted to ask for 
clarity on a couple of points, before contemplating training our cataloguers to 
begin using these designators.

Assuming for the moment the current list of designators in Appendix K, and 
without anticipating those that may be added as a result of the CC:DA/TF, would 
the followings usages be considered correct?

1. Body A changes name to Body B

110 Body A
510 successor: Body B

110 Body B
510 predecessor: Body A

When we expressed this relationship in terms of "earlier names" and "later 
names", this allowed for the fact that an earlier name could still be in use. 
I'm not sure whether this works as well with the terms "predecessor" and 
"successor", so if in doubt, should we prefer a simple see-also reference with 
no designator?

2. Body A and Body B merge to form Body C

110 Body A
510 mergee: Body B
510 product of a merger: Body C

110 Body B
510 mergee: Body A
510 product of a merger: Body C

110 Body C
510 predecessor: Body A
510 predecessor: Body B

3. Body A splits to form Body B and Body C

110 Body A
510 product of a split: Body C

110 Body B
510 product of a split: Body C

110 Body C
510 predecessor: Body A
510 predecessor: Body B

Someone raised the issue of complex situations where a body may split, merge, 
or change its name, but leave a body behind still using the earlier name, or 
where we simply didn't know the nature of the change. If in doubt, should we 
prefer the simpler "successor" and "predecessor", or even a simple see-also 
reference with no designator?

Many thanks in advance for any advice.

Regards
Richard


_
Richard Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library

Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806
E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk


**
Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk

The British Library's latest Annual Report and Accounts : 
www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html

Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. 
www.bl.uk/adoptabook

The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled

*

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally 
privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the 
postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must 
not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent.

The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author 
and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British 
Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author.

*
 Think before you print

Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Access Points

[Blue, Kathryn J]

 "Justifying access points" was based on the principle that the description of 
a resource should be complete and should be able to stand on its own regardless 
of how it might be indexed in some catalog or database. The description could 
be used in other contexts than a library catalog, such as a bibliography or a 
citation. The "access points" were appended to the description in order to 
build an index which could point to the resource's detailed description. The 
"access points" were formulated in such a way that they would collocate and 
link related resources together through the catalog's indexing system. Index 
entries were supposed to be based on the information provided in the 
description (the bibliographic record), but the names needed to be manipulated 
(standardized) in order to make them perform the collocating and linking 
functions of the index, i.e. we needed to "establish" a "preferred" index form 
of each name.

Some catalogers have always complained about the redundancy of having to record 
statements in the description naming the creative and contributory entities but 
then also having to add index entries with the "preferred" names of those same 
entities. Why not just have the index entries and eliminate the transcribed 
statements? Let the relationship terms be added to the index entries to explain 
the named entities' functions.  Just append index entries (access points) to 
the basic title and publication information.

My philosophy is: If the person's or corporate body's contribution is important 
enough to have an index entry pointing to the resource's metadata, then the 
statement indicating the person's or body's contribution is important enough to 
include in the description of the resource, whether in a transcribed statement 
or in a note. That is, "access point" should be "justified". If it's not 
important enough to include in the description, then maybe it isn't important 
enough to be indexed.

In my mind the bibliographic description is a separate thing from the index 
entries assigned to it. But then I'm an old dinosaur cataloger who has worked 
in the age of "catalog records" and maybe in this new age of bits of data 
floating around and being linked up to other bits of data in various ways, the 
concept of a coherent, complete resource description existing somewhere as a 
"record" is becoming obsolete.

Kathryn

Kathryn Blue
Senior Cataloger
E.G. Swem Library
College of William and Mary
Williamsburg VA 23187-8794
kjb...@wm.edu
757-645-8082

Re: [RDA-L] Title proper choice (multiple parallel titles)

[Adam Schiff]

I am sure that both John Attig and Kathy Glennan are reading these emails, 
as are the good folks at LC.  Hopefully they agree that the instruction is 
incomplete as currently written.


Adam

-Original Message- 
From: Deborah Fritz

Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 7:34 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Title proper choice (multiple parallel titles)

I agree with Adam that a rule revision might be needed here. The original
draft for this instruction said: "If the source of information for the title
proper bears a title in more than one language or script, choose as the
title proper the one in the language or script of the main written, spoken,
or sung content of the resource. If this criterion is not applicable, choose
the title proper on the basis of the sequence, layout, or typography of the
titles on the source of information."

I think the last sentence was dropped somewhere along the line.

Perhaps this could even be a fast track, to get this back?

Will you bring it up with the ALA Liaison, Adam?

Deborah

-  -  -  -  -  -  -  -
Deborah Fritz
TMQ, Inc.
debo...@marcofquality.com
www.marcofquality.com

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 6:09 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Title proper choice (multiple parallel titles)

I am trying to figure out what RDA says to do when the preferred source has
parallel titles and the content is equally divided among different
languages.

2.3.2.4 says:

Title in More Than One Language or Script

If:

the content of the resource is written, spoken, or sung

and

the source of information for the title proper has a title in more than one
language or script

then:

choose as the title proper the title in the language or script of the main
content of the resource.

If the content is not written, spoken, or sung, choose the title proper on
the basis of the sequence, layout, or typography of the titles on the source
of information.

This instruction does not address what to do if there is no "main content"
of the resource.  I am wondering if something got left out of the final
paragraph or if there should be another paragraph that says what to do when
the content is multiple languages/scripts with no main content?  My
presumption is that you should choose the title proper on the basis of the
sequence, layout, or typography of the titles on the source of information,
but nothing tells us to do this.

Here's a specific real example:

Title page has titles in this order:

Arabic title
Chinese title
English title
French title
Russian title
Spanish title

(Yes, you guessed, it's a UN document).  The same content is present in all
of these language, but curiously the order of the content as you page
through the book is English text, French text, Spanish text, Chinese text,
Russian text, Arabic text.

AACR2 1.1B8 did say what to do:  If the chief source of information bears
titles in two or more languages or scripts, transcribe as the title proper
the one in the language or script of the main written, spoken, or sung
content of the item. If this criterion is not applicable, choose the title
proper by reference to the order of titles on, or the layout of, the chief
source of information. Record the other titles as parallel titles.

It seems to me that RDA as rewritten from AACR2 gets the criterion wrong.
It shouldn't be that the content is not written, spoken, or sung, it should
be that there is no main content in a single language.

In any case, there is nothing in RDA at present that tells me what title
proper to choose in the example I've given above.  Is a rule revision or
LC-PCC policy statement needed for this?

Adam Schiff

^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~ 

Re: [RDA-L] RDA relationship designators in NARs, again

[Moore, Richard]

Sorry, my third example should read:

 

3. Body A splits to form Body B and Body C

 

110 Body A

510 product of a split: Body B

510 product of a split: Body C

 

110 Body B

510 predecessor: Body A

 

110 Body C

510 predecessor: Body A

 

 

 

From: Moore, Richard 
Sent: 11 June 2013 14:50
To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging (pccl...@listserv.loc.gov);
Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
(RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA)
Subject: RDA relationship designators in NARs, again

 

Cross-posting to PCC and RDA_L lists, sorry.

 

Following the recent discussion on this on the PCC List, I wanted to ask
for clarity on a couple of points, before contemplating training our
cataloguers to begin using these designators. 

 

Assuming for the moment the current list of designators in Appendix K,
and without anticipating those that may be added as a result of the
CC:DA/TF, would the followings usages be considered correct?  

 

1. Body A changes name to Body B

 

110 Body A

510 successor: Body B

 

110 Body B

510 predecessor: Body A

 

When we expressed this relationship in terms of "earlier names" and
"later names", this allowed for the fact that an earlier name could
still be in use. I'm not sure whether this works as well with the terms
"predecessor" and "successor", so if in doubt, should we prefer a simple
see-also reference with no designator?  

 

2. Body A and Body B merge to form Body C

 

110 Body A

510 mergee: Body B

510 product of a merger: Body C

 

110 Body B

510 mergee: Body A

510 product of a merger: Body C

 

110 Body C

510 predecessor: Body A

510 predecessor: Body B

 

3. Body A splits to form Body B and Body C

 

110 Body A

510 product of a split: Body C

 

110 Body B

510 product of a split: Body C

 

110 Body C

510 predecessor: Body A

510 predecessor: Body B

 

Someone raised the issue of complex situations where a body may split,
merge, or change its name, but leave a body behind still using the
earlier name, or where we simply didn't know the nature of the change.
If in doubt, should we prefer the simpler "successor" and "predecessor",
or even a simple see-also reference with no designator?

 

Many thanks in advance for any advice.

 

Regards

Richard

 

 

_

Richard Moore 

Authority Control Team Manager 

The British Library

  

Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806   

E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk 

 

 


**
Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/
 
The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : 
http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html
 
Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. 
http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook
 
The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled
 
*
 
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally 
privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the 
mailto:postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or 
copied without the sender's consent.
 
The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author 
and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British 
Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author.
 
*
 Think before you print

Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for author of the book for a musical

[Rita Lifton]

I'm forwarding this reply on behalf of our Music Archivist, Dr. Eliott Kahn:

According to the Dramatists Guild, the correct term would be, "bookwriter."

Rita Lifton
Library of The Jewish Theological Seminary
New York, NY

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Danskin, Alan
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 6:50 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for author of the book for a 
musical

We have been having this discussion too.  I agree that "author" would be 
appropriate for the creator(s) of the  book. 

Alan


 Alan Danskin
Metadata Standards Manager

The British Library
Boston Spa
WETHERBY
West Yorkshire
LS23 7BQ

www.bl.uk

T +44 (0) 1937 546669
Mob 07833401117
F +44 (0) 1937 546586
alan.dans...@bl.uk


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam Schiff
Sent: 11 June 2013 07:10
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for author of the book for a
musical

Hi all,

What are people using for the author of the book for a musical?  The RDA
designator "librettist" seems to be for the sung words in a dramatic
musical work, rather than the spoken text.  I guess perhaps the correct
term would be "author"?  Or would people just use "librettist" for both
the words to the songs in a musical as well as the words spoken that
aren't sung?  Or perhaps use "lyricist" for the author of the words to
the songs and "librettist" for the author of the spoken words?

Thanks,

Adam Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
asch...@uw.edu 

Re: [RDA-L] Language of expression

[Joan Wang]

I recall my message. I sent it to a wrong email address. Sorry about that.



On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Joan Wang wrote:

> I have a question about MARC encoding of multiple languages in a single
> expression. RDA instructs us to record language of expression as a separate
> element, as part of an access point, or as both. RDA 6.11.1.4 says
> recording each of the languages if a single expression of a work involves
> more than one language. It has an example: a motion picture with some
> dialogue in English, some dialogue in German, and some dialogue in Russian.
> My question is: how the three languages are encoded in $l in an authorized
> access point for an expression? Are they encoded in an order like $l
> English, German, Russian, or encoded in separate fields?
>
> Many thanks for your help in advance.
>
> Joan Wang
> --
> 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

[RDA-L] Language of expression

[Joan Wang]

I have a question about MARC encoding of multiple languages in a single
expression. RDA instructs us to record language of expression as a separate
element, as part of an access point, or as both. RDA 6.11.1.4 says
recording each of the languages if a single expression of a work involves
more than one language. It has an example: a motion picture with some
dialogue in English, some dialogue in German, and some dialogue in Russian.
My question is: how the three languages are encoded in $l in an authorized
access point for an expression? Are they encoded in an order like $l
English, German, Russian, or encoded in separate fields?

Many thanks for your help in advance.

Joan Wang
-- 
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] Title proper choice (multiple parallel titles)

[Deborah Fritz]

I agree with Adam that a rule revision might be needed here. The original
draft for this instruction said: "If the source of information for the title
proper bears a title in more than one language or script, choose as the
title proper the one in the language or script of the main written, spoken,
or sung content of the resource. If this criterion is not applicable, choose
the title proper on the basis of the sequence, layout, or typography of the
titles on the source of information."

I think the last sentence was dropped somewhere along the line. 

Perhaps this could even be a fast track, to get this back?

Will you bring it up with the ALA Liaison, Adam? 

Deborah

-  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  
Deborah Fritz
TMQ, Inc.
debo...@marcofquality.com
www.marcofquality.com

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 6:09 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Title proper choice (multiple parallel titles)

I am trying to figure out what RDA says to do when the preferred source has
parallel titles and the content is equally divided among different
languages.

2.3.2.4 says:

Title in More Than One Language or Script

If:

the content of the resource is written, spoken, or sung

and

the source of information for the title proper has a title in more than one
language or script

then:

choose as the title proper the title in the language or script of the main
content of the resource.

If the content is not written, spoken, or sung, choose the title proper on
the basis of the sequence, layout, or typography of the titles on the source
of information.

This instruction does not address what to do if there is no "main content" 
of the resource.  I am wondering if something got left out of the final
paragraph or if there should be another paragraph that says what to do when
the content is multiple languages/scripts with no main content?  My
presumption is that you should choose the title proper on the basis of the
sequence, layout, or typography of the titles on the source of information,
but nothing tells us to do this.

Here's a specific real example:

Title page has titles in this order:

Arabic title
Chinese title
English title
French title
Russian title
Spanish title

(Yes, you guessed, it's a UN document).  The same content is present in all
of these language, but curiously the order of the content as you page
through the book is English text, French text, Spanish text, Chinese text,
Russian text, Arabic text.

AACR2 1.1B8 did say what to do:  If the chief source of information bears
titles in two or more languages or scripts, transcribe as the title proper
the one in the language or script of the main written, spoken, or sung
content of the item. If this criterion is not applicable, choose the title
proper by reference to the order of titles on, or the layout of, the chief
source of information. Record the other titles as parallel titles.

It seems to me that RDA as rewritten from AACR2 gets the criterion wrong. 
It shouldn't be that the content is not written, spoken, or sung, it should
be that there is no main content in a single language.

In any case, there is nothing in RDA at present that tells me what title
proper to choose in the example I've given above.  Is a rule revision or
LC-PCC policy statement needed for this?

Adam Schiff

^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~

Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designators for related expressions, works etc for a music score

[Deborah Fritz]

LC PCC PS for 1.7.1 addresses this, here:

http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=lcpschp1
 &target=lcps1-229#lcps1-229

 

Under 2b) for bib records, it says:

When subfield $i for relationship designator is used, it is the first
subfield, the first word is capitalized, and the subfield ends with a colon.

EXAMPLE

700 1# $iLibretto based on (work):$aShakespeare,
William,$d1564-1616.$tOthello.

 

Deborah

-  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  

Deborah Fritz

TMQ, Inc.

  debo...@marcofquality.com

  www.marcofquality.com

 

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 12:56 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designators for related expressions, works
etc for a music score

 

I would certainly put relationship designators for works at the beginning of
the string. It doesn't make any sense at the end, and for display purposes
it needs to be at the front. I suppose you could program your system to flip
it to the front but why, when you can just as easily put it at the front in
the first place? In my cataloging I always put this type of relationship
designator at the front of the field. Perhaps LC has some sort of indexing
problem, but it seems to me it's a lot easier to program the index to ignore
subfield $i at the beginning of a string in 7XX than it is to program the
system to flip the display so that the subfield $i, which you put at the
end, displays at the front.

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 Sian Woolcock
[sian.woolc...@adelaide.edu.au]
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 8:54 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designators for related expressions, works
etc for a music score

Thank you everyone for your responses, they were very helpful.

 

One further question if I may. There seems to be some confusion between
where these relationship designators are positioned. In my example, as well
as Andra Patterson’s and Adams the relationship designators are positioned
at the beginning of field i.e.

 

700 12 ‡i Contains (expression): ‡a Neruda, Pablo, ‡d 1904-1973. ‡t Poems.
‡k Selections. ‡l English.

 

However, in the LC example link Daniel kindly provided the i subfield is
positioned at the end i.e.

 

|a García Lorca, Federico, |d 1898-1936. |t Casa de Bernarda Alba. |i Based
on (work):

 

Which is correct?

 

Kind regards

 

Siân

 

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Paradis Daniel
Sent: Thursday, 6 June 2013 11:20 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designators for related expressions, works
etc for a music score

 

I agree with Andra that “Musical setting of (work)” is not appropriate
because the Neruda poems have been used as an inspiration for the musical
work but not actually set to music. A better designator would be “based on
(work)” (in which case the access point(s) would not include the subfield
$l) or “based on (expression)”, if you think that the composer drew his
inspiration from the English translation of the poems and not from the
original version. This LC record provides an example:
http://lccn.loc.gov/2013560310. This record is also an illustration of LC
policy regarding instrumental works that are based on, inspired by, etc.,
one or two literary works (see LC-PCC PS for 25.0
http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=lcpschp25#
 ).

 

Daniel Paradis

 

Bibliothécaire

Direction du traitement documentaire des collections patrimoniales

Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec

 

2275, rue Holt

Montréal (Québec) H2G 3H1

Téléphone : 514 873-1101, poste 3721

Télécopieur : 514 873-7296

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

http://www.banq.qc.ca

 

Avis de confidentialité

Ce courriel est une communication confidentielle et l’information qu’il
contient est réservée à l’usage exclusif du destinataire. Si vous n’êtes pas
le destinataire visé, vous n’avez aucun droit d’utiliser cette information,
de la copier, de la distribuer ou de la diffuser. Si cette communication
vous a été transmise par erreur, veuillez la détruire et nous en aviser
immédiatement par courriel.

 

  _  

De : Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] 

Re: [RDA-L] Extent: Terms of common usage (RDA 3.4.1.5 c.)

[Janet Davis]

Dear Heidrun,

	Here in Cambridge we have recommended that staff should "prefer to 
give a term in common usage" when doing original cataloguing.  When 
dealing with a downloaded record, we have said that we can simply accept 
what comes - terms in common usage and terms selected from the carrier 
types list are both ok.


	If you'd like, you can see more of the context at "RDA Module 2 
presentation (PPT slides)", Slide 40 from 
http://cambridgerda.wordpress.com/module-1/


It will be interesting to hear what other libraries are doing!

With all best wishes,

Janet.

On Tue, 11 Jun 2013, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:

Addendum: I just noticed that the present rule in 3.4.1.5 c) is going to be 
moved to 3.4.1.3 according to this proposal:

http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-LC-17-Sec-final.pdf

But I think this doesn't change the content of the instruction, only the way 
it is presented in RDA.


Heidrun



On 11.06.2013 10:36, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:
The standard rule in RDA 3.4.1.3 is to record the extent of a resource by 
using a term from the list of carrier types in 3.3.1.3, e.g.
"1 videodisc". But according to RDA 3.4.1.5 c) it is also possible to use a 
term in common usage (e.g. "1 DVD") "as an alternative to a term listed at 
3.3.1.3, if preferred by the agency preparing the description".


There is no LC-PCC PS for 3.4.1.5 c). I checked the training materials of 
LC and the Pan-Canadian Working Group, and it seems that the decision is 
left to cataloger's judgment.


So I wonder: What is the general practice now? Do you use things like 
"audiodisc" and "videodisc" for the extent, or rather a straightforward 
"CD" and "DVD"?


Heidrun


--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Wolframstrasse 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi



--
Janet Davis
Betty & Gordon Moore Library, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge, CB3 0WD.
01223 765676 * ji...@cam.ac.uk * http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/BGML/

[RDA-L] RDA relationship designators in NARs, again

[Moore, Richard]

Cross-posting to PCC and RDA_L lists, sorry.

 

Following the recent discussion on this on the PCC List, I wanted to ask
for clarity on a couple of points, before contemplating training our
cataloguers to begin using these designators. 

 

Assuming for the moment the current list of designators in Appendix K,
and without anticipating those that may be added as a result of the
CC:DA/TF, would the followings usages be considered correct?  

 

1. Body A changes name to Body B

 

110 Body A

510 successor: Body B

 

110 Body B

510 predecessor: Body A

 

When we expressed this relationship in terms of "earlier names" and
"later names", this allowed for the fact that an earlier name could
still be in use. I'm not sure whether this works as well with the terms
"predecessor" and "successor", so if in doubt, should we prefer a simple
see-also reference with no designator?  

 

2. Body A and Body B merge to form Body C

 

110 Body A

510 mergee: Body B

510 product of a merger: Body C

 

110 Body B

510 mergee: Body A

510 product of a merger: Body C

 

110 Body C

510 predecessor: Body A

510 predecessor: Body B

 

3. Body A splits to form Body B and Body C

 

110 Body A

510 product of a split: Body C

 

110 Body B

510 product of a split: Body C

 

110 Body C

510 predecessor: Body A

510 predecessor: Body B

 

Someone raised the issue of complex situations where a body may split,
merge, or change its name, but leave a body behind still using the
earlier name, or where we simply didn't know the nature of the change.
If in doubt, should we prefer the simpler "successor" and "predecessor",
or even a simple see-also reference with no designator?

 

Many thanks in advance for any advice.

 

Regards

Richard

 

 

_

Richard Moore 

Authority Control Team Manager 

The British Library

  

Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806   

E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk 


 

 


**
Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/
 
The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : 
http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html
 
Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. 
http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook
 
The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled
 
*
 
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally 
privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the 
mailto:postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or 
copied without the sender's consent.
 
The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author 
and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British 
Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author.
 
*
 Think before you print

Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for author of the book for a musical

[Danskin, Alan]

We have been having this discussion too.  I agree that "author" would be
appropriate for the creator(s) of the  book. 

Alan



 Alan Danskin 
Metadata Standards Manager


The British Library
Boston Spa
WETHERBY
West Yorkshire
LS23 7BQ

www.bl.uk


T +44 (0) 1937 546669
Mob 07833401117
F +44 (0) 1937 546586
alan.dans...@bl.uk



See how the British Library is transforming stored knowledge into smart
knowledge here



-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam Schiff
Sent: 11 June 2013 07:10
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for author of the book for a
musical

Hi all,

What are people using for the author of the book for a musical?  The RDA
designator "librettist" seems to be for the sung words in a dramatic
musical work, rather than the spoken text.  I guess perhaps the correct
term would be "author"?  Or would people just use "librettist" for both
the words to the songs in a musical as well as the words spoken that
aren't sung?  Or perhaps use "lyricist" for the author of the words to
the songs and "librettist" for the author of the spoken words?

Thanks,

Adam Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
asch...@uw.edu 

**
Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/
 
The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : 
http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html
 
Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. 
http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook
 
The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled
 
*
 
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally 
privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the 
mailto:postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or 
copied without the sender's consent.
 
The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author 
and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British 
Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author.
 
*
 Think before you print

Re: [RDA-L] Extent: Terms of common usage (RDA 3.4.1.5 c.)

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

Addendum: I just noticed that the present rule in 3.4.1.5 c) is going to 
be moved to 3.4.1.3 according to this proposal:

http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-LC-17-Sec-final.pdf

But I think this doesn't change the content of the instruction, only the 
way it is presented in RDA.


Heidrun



On 11.06.2013 10:36, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:
The standard rule in RDA 3.4.1.3 is to record the extent of a resource 
by using a term from the list of carrier types in 3.3.1.3, e.g.
"1 videodisc". But according to RDA 3.4.1.5 c) it is also possible to 
use a term in common usage (e.g. "1 DVD") "as an alternative to a term 
listed at 3.3.1.3, if preferred by the agency preparing the description".


There is no LC-PCC PS for 3.4.1.5 c). I checked the training materials 
of LC and the Pan-Canadian Working Group, and it seems that the 
decision is left to cataloger's judgment.


So I wonder: What is the general practice now? Do you use things like 
"audiodisc" and "videodisc" for the extent, or rather a 
straightforward "CD" and "DVD"?


Heidrun





--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Wolframstrasse 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

[RDA-L] Extent: Terms of common usage (RDA 3.4.1.5 c.)

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

The standard rule in RDA 3.4.1.3 is to record the extent of a resource 
by using a term from the list of carrier types in 3.3.1.3, e.g.
"1 videodisc". But according to RDA 3.4.1.5 c) it is also possible to 
use a term in common usage (e.g. "1 DVD") "as an alternative to a term 
listed at 3.3.1.3, if preferred by the agency preparing the description".


There is no LC-PCC PS for 3.4.1.5 c). I checked the training materials 
of LC and the Pan-Canadian Working Group, and it seems that the decision 
is left to cataloger's judgment.


So I wonder: What is the general practice now? Do you use things like 
"audiodisc" and "videodisc" for the extent, or rather a straightforward 
"CD" and "DVD"?


Heidrun


--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Wolframstrasse 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi