[RDA-L] Multipart monographs - Questions about the 490 $3 and the repeat-ability of the 264

[Leigh Billings]

Hello all,

I'm learning RDA basically through copy cataloging other RDA records, and
at the moment I'm adding later volumes to a multipart monograph. The item
in hand is v.11 of a set, which is the first volume in the set to be a part
of a series as well, and a new publisher.

I'm planning on following LC PCC PS 2.12.1.5 "Not All Issues or Parts in a
Series" for the 490, which says use the $3 and not a separate note.  My
question here is, do I use the abbreviation, or not? I'm also having a hard
time figuring out whether I should put the note in English or Croatian
(Volume vs. Kniga), and then whether or not the note is abbreviated. There
are four examples given in 2.12.1.5, with three in English  and one in
Italian, and two of them use "volumes" in the $3 and two of them use "v.".
I can infer (as the Italian-language one uses "v.", which is the
English-language abbreviation and not the Italian language abbreviation (volume
(Italian) - vol.) according to Appendix B), that this really is a note that
can be in the language of the cataloging agency, so I can use v. and not
knj. However, RDA's B.5.11 implies that I shouldn't be abbreviating it at
all, so I feel like "volumes" is the correct answer (but then why are there
two examples that include abbreviations?!).

Also, there was a change in publisher in later volumes. I know the 264 is
repeatable and allows a $3, which should allow me to say things like
 "264(31) $3 volumes 11- : $a New Town : $b New Publisher Name", but in RDA
(2.8.1.5) all I see is that it says to "make a note" when the publisher
changes, with no indication as to whether I should record the change in a
264. I don't see a similar LC PCC PS for the alternate publisher as there
is for the 490, so is the only thing "required" a note, even though MARC
allows for (what I consider) better access through a second 264?

Thanks in advance for any input,

Leigh

-- 
Leigh Billings (redn...@umich.edu)
Slavic Cataloger
International Studies
University of Michigan Library
112-F North Hatcher Graduate Library
913 S. University
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1205
(734) 647-3819

Re: [RDA-L] RDA data entry form

[Deborah Fritz]

You might take a look at RIMMF, a free product (subject to a CC license) that 
demonstrates a possible GUI approach for pure RDA data entry.

URL:   
http://www.marcofquality.com/wiki/rimmf

 

 

-  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  

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 Senator Jeong
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 12:58 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] RDA data entry form

 

HI, RDA folks,

 

I'm new to this mailing list.

 

I'm designing a RDA cataloging system for Korea National Medical Library, which 
will inaugurate next year.

Is there any graphic user interface(GUI) for RDA data entry?

I mean by RDA data entry GUI which does not follow MARC data entry legacy 
(e.g., 100, 245, 260.).

 

Regards,

---

Senator Jeong, MLIS, PhD

Principal Researcher,
National Center for Medical Information & Knowledge,

Korea National Institute of Health

    
http://orcid.org/000-0002-4004-3510  
Email:   sena...@korea.kr,  
 senatorje...@gmail.com
Mobile: +82-10-4310-4013
Office: +43-719-6628
Twitter:   twitter.com/senatorjeong

 

Re: [RDA-L] RDA data entry form

[JSC Chair]

Great to hear your progress!

Any chance of having a version that runs on my MAC?  I also have a PC so
can do what you suggested, but I'd love to be able to use the screen shots
in the upcoming workshop I'm doing in Japan in September -

Steve and I will be there for 2 months (Sept-Oct).  Can't wait!  Hello to
Richard! - Barbara


On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Deborah Fritz
wrote:

> You might take a look at RIMMF, a free product (subject to a CC license)
> that demonstrates a possible GUI approach for pure RDA data entry.
>
> URL: http://www.marcofquality.com/wiki/rimmf
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  
>
> 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 *Senator Jeong
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 25, 2013 12:58 AM
> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> *Subject:* [RDA-L] RDA data entry form
>
> ** **
>
> HI, RDA folks,
>
> ** **
>
> I'm new to this mailing list.
>
> ** **
>
> I'm designing a RDA cataloging system for Korea National Medical Library,
> which will inaugurate next year.
>
> Is there any graphic user interface(GUI) for RDA data entry?
>
> I mean by RDA data entry GUI which does not follow MARC data entry legacy
> (e.g., 100, 245, 260.).
>
> ** **
>
> Regards,
>
> ---
>
> Senator Jeong, MLIS, PhD
>
> Principal Researcher,
> National Center for Medical Information & Knowledge,
>
> Korea National Institute of Health
>
>  http://orcid.org/000-0002-4004-3510
> Email: sena...@korea.kr , senatorje...@gmail.com
> Mobile: +82-10-4310-4013
> Office: +43-719-6628
> Twitter: twitter.com/senatorjeong
>
> ** **
>



-- 
Dr. Barbara B. Tillett, Ph.D.
Chair, Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA

Re: [RDA-L] 7.17 Colour content

[Kathie Coblentz]

Aside from the problems with colo(u)r content, I see another problem with some 
of the examples posted in this thread.

As I pointed out in another thread, RDA defines "illustrative content" as 
"Content designed to illustrate the primary content of a resource." (From the 
Glossary.)

Therefore it is not logical to have in 300 $b "chiefly illustrations." Nor is 
it logical to put "Chiefly illustrations" in a note.

Furthermore, if the primary content of the resource is still images, it is not 
logical to have "illustrations" in the 300 field at all. Unless, perhaps, it 
can be assumed to refer to whatever textual matter has been added to the still 
image content. 

I am still looking for an answer to this conundrum. 


Kathie Coblentz, Rare Materials Cataloger
Collections Strategy/Special Formats Processing
The New York Public Library, Stephen A. Schwarzman Building
5th Avenue and 42nd Street, Room 313
New York, NY  10018
kathiecoble...@nypl.org

My opinions, not NYPL's

Re: [RDA-L] 7.17 Colour content

[Layne, Sara]

Interesting conundrum.

However, although it may be a "text-centric" view, the relative extent of 
images and text is not necessarily an indication of which content is "primary". 
A case could be made that the text, however limited in extent, is primary, and 
the illustrative matter, however extensive, is secondary.

The alternative, especially for those of us who use MARC, would be to make 
changes to the way in which "volumes" in which images are considered to be the 
primary content are cataloged. This could be similar to the changes made some 
years ago in the cataloging of cartographic atlases. 

Sara Shatford Layne
Recently Retired Principal Cataloger, UCLA Library Cataloging & Metadata Center



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Kathie Coblentz [kcobl...@nypl.org]
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 8:33 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 7.17 Colour content

Aside from the problems with colo(u)r content, I see another problem with some 
of the examples posted in this thread.

As I pointed out in another thread, RDA defines "illustrative content" as 
"Content designed to illustrate the primary content of a resource." (From the 
Glossary.)

Therefore it is not logical to have in 300 $b "chiefly illustrations." Nor is 
it logical to put "Chiefly illustrations" in a note.

Furthermore, if the primary content of the resource is still images, it is not 
logical to have "illustrations" in the 300 field at all. Unless, perhaps, it 
can be assumed to refer to whatever textual matter has been added to the still 
image content.

I am still looking for an answer to this conundrum.


Kathie Coblentz, Rare Materials Cataloger
Collections Strategy/Special Formats Processing
The New York Public Library, Stephen A. Schwarzman Building
5th Avenue and 42nd Street, Room 313
New York, NY  10018
kathiecoble...@nypl.org

My opinions, not NYPL's

Re: [RDA-L] Multipart monographs - Questions about the 490 $3 and the repeat-ability of the 264

[J. McRee Elrod]

Leigh asked:

>(but then why are there >two examples that include abbreviations?!).

Because the abbreviations were on the item?  With a few exceptions
such and in. and min., and place qualifications, abbreviations are only
used when transcribed as found.  In your case I would use the Italian,
abbreviated or spelled out as on the item.

For imprint, you have 264  1 for first publisher, and 264 31 for
current publisher.  If a 3rd publisher should happen, the 2nd becomes
264 21.  (Of course life would have been easier if those 2nd indictors
had been added to 260; the first indicators were added.)

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

Re: [RDA-L] 7.17 Colour content

[Mitchell, Michael]

Would it make sense to consider the illustrations to be representative of the 
content of the work (rather than the expression or manifestation) since a work 
and thus its contents is really an idea? Something imagined? So if we have a 
work about red objects then a picture book of red objects would "illustrate the 
primary content of [that] resource." 

I'm not sure I follow your problem with illustrations v. still images. Seems to 
me illustrations are (usually) still and are images.


Michael Mitchell
Technical Services Librarian
Brazosport College
Lake Jackson, TX
Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu


From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Kathie Coblentz [kcobl...@nypl.org]
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 8:33 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 7.17 Colour content

Aside from the problems with colo(u)r content, I see another problem with some 
of the examples posted in this thread.

As I pointed out in another thread, RDA defines "illustrative content" as 
"Content designed to illustrate the primary content of a resource." (From the 
Glossary.)

Therefore it is not logical to have in 300 $b "chiefly illustrations." Nor is 
it logical to put "Chiefly illustrations" in a note.

Furthermore, if the primary content of the resource is still images, it is not 
logical to have "illustrations" in the 300 field at all. Unless, perhaps, it 
can be assumed to refer to whatever textual matter has been added to the still 
image content.

I am still looking for an answer to this conundrum.


Kathie Coblentz, Rare Materials Cataloger Collections Strategy/Special Formats 
Processing The New York Public Library, Stephen A. Schwarzman Building 5th 
Avenue and 42nd Street, Room 313 New York, NY  10018 kathiecoble...@nypl.org

My opinions, not NYPL's

Re: [RDA-L] 7.17 Colour content

[Joan Wang]

My understanding is that RDA uses Content Type to represent the way in
which the major content of a work is realized. Text or still image is one
of them. RDA actually uses Illustrative Content to represent illustrations
in a text content. That is why it is encoded in $b of 300 fields.

But if you look at the explanation for illustrative content. It does not
truly say its application context and purpose.

*Illustrative 
content▼is
content designed to illustrate the primary content of a resource.
*

Thanks,
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System




On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Mitchell, Michael <
michael.mitch...@brazosport.edu> wrote:

> Would it make sense to consider the illustrations to be representative of
> the content of the work (rather than the expression or manifestation) since
> a work and thus its contents is really an idea? Something imagined? So if
> we have a work about red objects then a picture book of red objects would
> "illustrate the primary content of [that] resource."
>
> I'm not sure I follow your problem with illustrations v. still images.
> Seems to me illustrations are (usually) still and are images.
>
>
> Michael Mitchell
> Technical Services Librarian
> Brazosport College
> Lake Jackson, TX
> Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu
>
> 
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [
> RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Kathie Coblentz [
> kcobl...@nypl.org]
> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 8:33 AM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 7.17 Colour content
>
> Aside from the problems with colo(u)r content, I see another problem with
> some of the examples posted in this thread.
>
> As I pointed out in another thread, RDA defines "illustrative content" as
> "Content designed to illustrate the primary content of a resource." (From
> the Glossary.)
>
> Therefore it is not logical to have in 300 $b "chiefly illustrations." Nor
> is it logical to put "Chiefly illustrations" in a note.
>
> Furthermore, if the primary content of the resource is still images, it is
> not logical to have "illustrations" in the 300 field at all. Unless,
> perhaps, it can be assumed to refer to whatever textual matter has been
> added to the still image content.
>
> I am still looking for an answer to this conundrum.
>
> 
> Kathie Coblentz, Rare Materials Cataloger Collections Strategy/Special
> Formats Processing The New York Public Library, Stephen A. Schwarzman
> Building 5th Avenue and 42nd Street, Room 313 New York, NY  10018
> kathiecoble...@nypl.org
>
> My opinions, not NYPL's
>



-- 
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] Additional proposals for JSC 2013 meeting

[JSC Secretary]

The proposals listed below have been posted on the JSC web site (
http://www.rda-jsc.org/workingnew.html):

6JSC/CILIP rep/3
6JSC/CILIP rep/3/Appendix/1
6JSC/CILIP rep/3/Appendix/2
6JSC/CILIP rep/3/Appendix/3
6JSC/CILIP rep/3/Appendix/4
6JSC/CILIP rep/3/Appendix/5

6JSC/Music/1
6JSC/Music/2


Regards, Judy Kuhagen
JSC Secretary

Re: [RDA-L] Recording colour

[J. McRee Elrod]

As a result of recent discussions, we have added examples to the MRIs
of collations with colour data in 300 $b parentheses following
"illustratons", "maps" etc., and have changed "coloured" to "colour".

Thank you for the posts.



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

[RDA-L] RDA 16.2.2.8.2 Place Names That Require a Term Indicating Type of Jurisdiction

[Robert Rendall]

The instruction in RDA 16.2.2.8.2 used to end with "apply the 
instructions given under 11.13.1.6. "  It now ends with "add the type of 
jurisdiction by applying the instructions at 11.7.1.5."  Why was this 
changed?  The instructions telling us under what circumstances the term 
indicating type of jurisdiction is required and relevant examples like 
Guadalajara (Spain : Province) are still given under 11.13.1.6, but 
there no longer seems to be any path leading there from 16.2.2.8.2.


Robert Rendall

--
Robert Rendall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Original and Special Materials Cataloging, Columbia University Libraries
102 Butler Library, 535 West 114th Street, New York, NY 10027
tel.: 212 851 2449  fax: 212 854 5167

[RDA-L] 338 field for a "volume" of art prints

[Rieger, Leslie]

Hello all!

I am cataloging a collection of art prints which are packaged in a sort of 
portfolio (basically it's a book cover, but the prints are not bound or 
attached to the spine in any way).   I am struggling with whether to use 
"volume" or "other" in the 338.  According the RDA glossary, a volume is "one 
or more sheets bound or fastened together to form a single unit."  Since my 
item is not bound, this would seem to indicate I should choose "other."

Thoughts?  Is there another term I should be considering instead?  Thanks for 
any assistance!

Leslie Y. Rieger
Music Cataloging Technician
The University of Montana
Mansfield Library
(406) 243-6733
leslie.rie...@umontana.edu

Re: [RDA-L] 338 field for a "volume" of art prints

[Peter Schouten]

This is a resource consisting of one or more sheets, etc., housed in a single 
portfolio or case, so the carrier type is sheet.

Peter



Van: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] namens Rieger, Leslie [leslie.rie...@mso.umt.edu]

Verzonden: donderdag 25 juli 2013 23:29

Aan: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA

Onderwerp: [RDA-L] 338 field for a "volume" of art prints










Hello all!
 
I am cataloging a collection of art prints which are packaged in a sort of 
portfolio (basically it’s a book cover, but the prints are not bound or 
attached to the spine in any way).   I am struggling with whether to use 
“volume” or “other”
 in the 338.  According the RDA glossary, a volume is “one or more sheets bound 
or fastened together to form a single unit.”  Since my item is not bound, this 
would seem to indicate I should choose “other.”
 
Thoughts?  Is there another term I should be considering instead?  Thanks for 
any assistance!

 
Leslie Y. Rieger
Music Cataloging Technician
The University of Montana 
Mansfield Library
(406) 243-6733
leslie.rie...@umontana.edu
 

Re: [RDA-L] 338 field for a "volume" of art prints

[Gary L Strawn]

Doesn't it depend at least in part on whether "bind" narrowly means something 
like "signatures sewn together and the result firmly affixed to covers" or 
merely "fastened in some manner into a unit"?  The closest that RDA seems to 
come (in a hasty search) is "bound with" which might be illuminating but is a 
special case.  If the securing within portfolio covers is "binding" then you 
have a volume.

Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc.   Twitter: GaryLStrawn
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: 2007.25.428

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Rieger, Leslie
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 4:30 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] 338 field for a "volume" of art prints

Hello all!

I am cataloging a collection of art prints which are packaged in a sort of 
portfolio (basically it's a book cover, but the prints are not bound or 
attached to the spine in any way).   I am struggling with whether to use 
"volume" or "other" in the 338.  According the RDA glossary, a volume is "one 
or more sheets bound or fastened together to form a single unit."  Since my 
item is not bound, this would seem to indicate I should choose "other."

Thoughts?  Is there another term I should be considering instead?  Thanks for 
any assistance!

Leslie Y. Rieger
Music Cataloging Technician
The University of Montana
Mansfield Library
(406) 243-6733
leslie.rie...@umontana.edu

Re: [RDA-L] 338 field for a "volume" of art prints

[Harden, Jean]

Sheet? That's what we use for music of this sort.


Jean Harden
Coordinator of Music Technical Services
University of North Texas
Denton, TX  76203
jean.har...@unt.edu



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Rieger, Leslie
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 4:30 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] 338 field for a "volume" of art prints

Hello all!

I am cataloging a collection of art prints which are packaged in a sort of 
portfolio (basically it's a book cover, but the prints are not bound or 
attached to the spine in any way).   I am struggling with whether to use 
"volume" or "other" in the 338.  According the RDA glossary, a volume is "one 
or more sheets bound or fastened together to form a single unit."  Since my 
item is not bound, this would seem to indicate I should choose "other."

Thoughts?  Is there another term I should be considering instead?  Thanks for 
any assistance!

Leslie Y. Rieger
Music Cataloging Technician
The University of Montana
Mansfield Library
(406) 243-6733
leslie.rie...@umontana.edu

Re: [RDA-L] 338 field for a "volume" of art prints

[J. McRee Elrod]

Leslie posted:

>I am cataloging a collection of art prints which are packaged in a sort of =
>portfolio

300 $a1 portfolio (50 sheets) :$bcolour ;$c23 x 28 cm

The advantage of using "portfolio" as unit name, is that you don't have to
say "in portfolio" in $c.

336  $astill image$2rdacontent
337  $aunmediated$2rdamedia
338  $asheet$2rdacarrier


A sheet is a sheet, whether printed on one side or two.

The singular vs. plural is a problem we had with GMDs, so it is not 
new, e.g., [slide] as GMD, whether one slide to a set.


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

Re: [RDA-L] Multipart monographs - Questions about the 490 $3 and the repeat-ability of the 264

[Trina Pundurs]

On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 6:45 AM, Leigh Billings  wrote:
[...]

> Also, there was a change in publisher in later volumes. I know the 264 is
> repeatable and allows a $3, which should allow me to say things like
>  "264(31) $3 volumes 11- : $a New Town : $b New Publisher Name", but in RDA
> (2.8.1.5) all I see is that it says to "make a note" when the publisher
> changes, with no indication as to whether I should record the change in a
> 264. I don't see a similar LC PCC PS for the alternate publisher as there
> is for the 490, so is the only thing "required" a note, even though MARC
> allows for (what I consider) better access through a second 264?
>

Leigh and all,

You can find PCC guidelines for repeatable 264 here:
http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/documents/264-Guidelines.doc

Yes, it is better to use a second 264.

Trina

Trina Pundurs
Serials Cataloger
Library Collection Services
University of California, Berkeley
tpund...@library.berkeley.edu
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1990