Re: [RDA-L] Recording (large print)

[Joan Wang]

There would be many misleading mappings using your criterion. I am not a
person who is able to answer the question. But I believe that many people
would be happy with taking advantage of the convenience :)

Thanks,
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System


On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Arakawa, Steven wrote:

>  *I do think the mapping is misleading. The point of RDA is to avoid
> scrambling of different elements for the sake of convenience. This was the
> rationale behind 264 and its various indicators, wasn’t it? Why is it
> considered necessary to mix up font size with item subunits? Couldn’t font
> size be reassigned to 300 $b instead? *
>
> * *
>
> Steven Arakawa
>
> Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation  
>
> Catalog & Metada Services   
>
> Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University  
>
> P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 
>
> (203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu
>
> ** **
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Joan Wang
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 11, 2013 5:03 PM
> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Recording (large print)
>
> ** **
>
> I check the mapping of RDA instruction rules with MARC fields in RDA
> Toolkit. 3.13 Font size is mapped to $a of 300 fields, $n of 340 fields,
> and 500 fields. So I assume that we can record "Large print" in either of
> the three fields depending on cases and needs. 
>
> Thanks,
> Joan Wang
>
> Illinois Heartland Library System 
>
> ** **
>
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Adam L. Schiff 
> wrote:
>
> I believe in the best of worlds, large print would now only be recorded in
> an RDA record in 340 $n.  That said, in the RDA Appendix with MARC
> mappings, font size is mapped to both 300 $a and 340 $n.
>
> ^^
> 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 Wed, 10 Jul 2013, Arakawa, Steven wrote:
>
>  In the original question, it isn't clear where (Large print) would be
> entered in MARC 300. In AACR2 MARC records, it is entered in 300 $a per
> 2.5B23, but there isn't a corresponding instruction in RDA. In RDA extent
> (300 $a) is limited to the number of units and subunits (3.4.1.1). Since
> Large print is not a subunit but a font size, how would including it as
> part of the extent (300 $a) be justified in RDA? Although the RDA Toolkit
> has a link from AACR2 2.5B23 to RDA 3.13.1.3, the instruction does not
> specify where to enter the Large Print information. Some MARC alternatives
> might be MARC 500 and/or 340. Maybe also 300 $b?
>
> Is there a similar impact on AACR2 2.5B22?
>
> Steven Arakawa
> Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation
> Catalog & Metada Services
> Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University
> P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240
>
> (203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of M. E.
> Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2013 4:35 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording (large print)
>
> J. McRee Elrod mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca>> wrote:
> What is core for RDA, and what is core for patron needs, are two
> *very* different things!  AACR2 had a qualified GMD: "text (large
> print)" which worked very well.  This is but one example of AACR2's
> superiority over RDA in terms of meeting patron needs, as opposed to
> conforming to theory.
>
> To be fair, AACR2's GMDs are marked as optional and don't appear at all
> under 1.0D's first level of description (which is on par with RDA's core
> cataloging--RDA for the most part follows in AACR2's footsteps).
>
> If it's a matter of why 30-some years of GMDs and AACR2 practice never
> resulted in more elements being added to the "must have" pile irrespective
> of levels of description, I can't say.
>
> --
>
> Mark K. Ehlert
> Minitex
> 
>
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> 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] Volumes containing only images

[Kathie Coblentz]

(I posted this message on Autocat as a followup to a thread about whether 
"stories without words" should have only a 336 for "still image," and not for 
"text," given that the title page is the only textual content. The consensus 
was that, indeed, to include a 336 for "text" would be misleading. I haven't 
had an answer on Autocat, but it's probably better suited for here, anyway. 
Excuse the cross-posting.)

What about the statement of extent / illustrative content (MARC field 300)? It 
seems RDA has no equivalent to the AACR 2 option to use "all ill[ustrations]" 
or "chiefly ill[ustrations]" here. That in itself is fine with me, because if a 
work consists only of pictures, I never understood what they are supposed to be 
"illustrating," anyway.

In pursuit of the answer, I've searched the RDA-L archives, and found my way to 
Adam Schiff's presentation on the changes from AACR 2 to RDA, specifically 
Slide 76, where it is suggested in such cases to give just "illustrations" in 
the MARC 300 $b and "Chiefly illustrations" in a note. However, in my opinion, 
this would seem to be overlooking the RDA definition of "illustrative content." 

RDA says (7.15.1.1):

"Illustrative content is content designed to illustrate the primary content of 
a resource. For instructions on recording the nature of the primary content of 
a resource, see 7.2."

(7.2 defines the "nature of the content" as "the specific character of the 
primary content of a resource (e.g., legal articles, interim report)".)

Following this logic, neither "all illustrations" nor "chiefly illustrations" 
should be allowed in a record, although I've seen a lot of RDA records for 
artists' books, photobooks and the like that use "chiefly illustrations" in its 
good old place, MARC 300 $b. 

So I still have to ask: How I can adequately record both the physical extent of 
a volume made up of pages containing still images only or predominately, and 
indicate the nature of this primary content, following RDA but working in the 
MARC 300 field?

Under 3.4.1.3, "Recording extent," we find among the "exceptions" to the basic 
instruction the following:

"Still images. For drawings, paintings, prints, photographs, etc., see 3.4.4.

"Text. For resources consisting of printed or manuscript text (with or without 
accompanying illustrations), see 3.4.5."

The section on "Extent of text" (3.4.5) describes in great detail how to record 
the extent of a volume made up of numbered or unnumbered pages or leaves, but 
by definition, the content of those pages or leaves should be primarily 
text--"with or without illustrations," which, as we've established, cannot be 
the primary content.

The section on "Extent of still image [thus in original]" (3.4.4), on the other 
hand, prescribes the counting of the images, but does not adequately explain 
how to record the way are deployed in the physical structure of a volume.

First we have the "Application" statement, 3.4.4.1:

"For a resource consisting of one or more still images in the form of drawings, 
paintings, prints, photographs, etc., record the extent by applying the 
instructions at 3.4.4.2–3.4.4.5."

The first of these, 3.4.4.2, reads:

"Record the extent of a resource consisting of one or more still images by 
giving the number of units and an appropriate term from the following list. 
Record the term in the singular or plural, as applicable."

The list includes "drawing" and "photograph," but in published resources, you 
generally have reproductions, not originals. It also includes "print," which 
could work for these types of resources, though there's no way to distinguish a 
photomechanical reproduction of a photograph from an original etching or 
lithograph. It also includes the general "picture," which could work for 
anything, as well as the permission to use "another concise term or terms to 
indicate the type of unit" if it's not on the list, which would be useful for 
original graphic works.

The next instruction, 3.4.4.3, takes us to the crux of the matter: "More Than 
One Image on One or More Carriers." This is what I deal with much of the time: 
many images in a volume consisting of many pages or leaves. Here's what it says 
(line breaks in the original):

"If:

"the resource consists of two or more carriers

"and

"each carrier contains a single image

"then:

"record the extent as instructed at 3.4.4.2.

"If:

"the resource consists of two or more images on one or more carriers

"and

"the number of images differs from the number of carriers

"then:

"record the number of images and specify the number of carriers.

"EXAMPLE 2 drawings on 1 sheet"

No further examples are given. 

Say I have a volume containing unnumbered pages. Aside from the title page, the 
content is entirely reproductions of photographs without text. Some pages 
contain a single image, some two or more, and some images are spread over two 
pages (see RDA 3.4.4.4, "one image spanning more than one carrier," for that 
variant)

Re: [RDA-L] Volumes containing only images

[J. McRee Elrod]

Kathie said:

>What about the statement of extent / illustrative content (MARC field 300=
>)? It seems RDA has no equivalent to the AACR 2 option to use "all ill[us=
>trations]" or "chiefly ill[ustrations]" here.
 
As long as our clients want helpful data such as that. we will supply
it, rules or no rules.  We have an "AACR2 Compatible" export for RDA
racers (it's in the cheat sheets).  Adding that sort of data is
outside programming possibility, so it will need to be cataloguer
supplied.  We have removed "pages of music" from the MRIs, which is a
pity.

With the mix of AACR2 and RDA features in records, I don't think this
carry over should bother anyone.


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

Re: [RDA-L] One author, with a single contribution by another author (correction)

[Dana Van Meter]

Thank you Bob, and Mac for your thoughts.   Have cataloged my book and sent 
it on its way.



-Dana



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 7:58 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] One author, with a single contribution by another 
author (correction)



This would be clearer if we were creating clear separate descriptions for 
the separate entities (e.g. work/expression/manifestation/item descriptions, 
each linked as appropriate to related entities such as the author of the 
work) instead of the grab-bag of the current MARC bibliographic record.



You could make it clearer in a bibliographic record by giving an access 
point for the work by the other author instead of giving a simple added 
access point for the person:



700 12 Name. $t Metallurgy of tanged and looped spearheads.



Otherwise, yes, “author” is the relationship designator. The person is the 
author of a resource represented in the bibliographic record. The fact that 
the access point with “author” as a relationship designator is not clearly 
linked to what the person is the author of is a problem with the MARC 
structure. Of course leaving the relationship designator off makes it even 
less clear what the person did in relationship to the bibliographic record 
(at least in my opinion).



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 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Dana Van Meter
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 5:31 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] One author, with a single contribution by another 
author (correction)



Ugh, I’m sorry, I also see now that the use of relationship designators isn’t 
core in RDA, but I’m just curious if you were to use a relationship 
designator in this case, how you feel about using author for such a slight 
contribution.



-Dana



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Dana Van Meter
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 7:27 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] One author, with a single contribution by another 
author (correction)



I guess in RDA it’s not an error to have an author listed in the s.o.r., but 
to not have an access point for them, so in LCCN 2012544079 LC did not have 
to add a 700 for the author of the contribution, but I don’t like not adding 
an access point for a person when they are named in the s.o.r., especially 
when we’re dealing with only one additional access point, as we are in this 
case.



-Dana



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Dana Van Meter
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 7:10 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] One author, with a single contribution by another author



I’m cataloging a book with a single author, which includes a single 
contribution by one other author (in my case the contribution is an Appendix 
1, Metallurgy of tanged and looped spearheads).  There is LC copy for my 
book (LCCN 2012544079), but LC didn’t even add a 700 field for the other 
author mentioned on the title page, which seems to be an error.  (I should 
note that this record employs Kevin Randall’s suggestion for enclosing the 
authors’ institutional affiliations in parentheses in the s.o.r.—the ( ) don’t 
appear on the title page).  I’ve searched LC’s catalog for other rda records 
which have “with a contribution by” in the title field and retrieve some 
records, although about half are In Process. Of the fully cataloged records, 
only 3 titles contain only a single contribution by one other author.  LC 
has added a 700 for the author of the contribution in these records, but has 
not added a |e to the 700 field (LCCN 2012030921; LCCN 2012018430;  LCCN 
2012542810 (however the last 2  records also do not have a |e for the 100)).



I pretty much know the answer to my question, but I’m a little uneasy with 
it.  My question is, what to put in the |e for the author of the 
contribution?  I know that |e author is really my only option, but it just 
feels odd to call the main author (100) author, and then to also call the 
author of the contribution author when the book is primarily the work of the 
author in the 100 field.  I also have this issue when books which contain 
papers by multiple authors list all the authors on the title page.  I know I 
can say [and six others] in the s.o.r.,  which could solve my problem, but 
the LC-PCC PS advises not to do this.