Re: [RDA-L] Illustration terms in 7.15.1.3

[Lapka, Francis]

If a resource consists wholly or predominantly of image content, then this 
content is no longer illustrative. That is, the images *are the primary 
content* in such a resource, so they no longer fulfill RDA's definition of 
illustrative content: "Content designed to illustrate the primary content of a 
resource."

Francis




-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 2:09 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustration terms in 7.15.1.3

[...]

By the way: I noticed that there doesn't seem to be an equivalent in RDA for 
AACR2 2.5C5.: "If the publication consists wholly or predominantly of 
illustrations, give all ill. or chiefly ill., as appropriate." I find this 
rather unsatisfactory because "illustrations" then will be used quite 
indifferently for a coffee table book and a book with only a couple of pictures 
(unless you give the exact number of illustrations).

The German rules did not stipulate giving exact numbers of illustrations, but 
we put them in four categories: We distinguish just "ill." for one or several 
illustrations, "numerous ill.", "predominantly ill." or "only ill.". I found 
this a quite useful rule and would be sorry to see it gone under RDA.

Heidrun

[RDA-L] Position announcement

[Beth Thornton]

*Serials Cataloger* – University of Georgia Libraries, Cataloging Department

The University of Georgia Libraries seeks a Serials Cataloger who will be
responsible for performing original and complex copy cataloging of serials
in all languages and formats.  Materials are processed for the Main and
Science Libraries, as well as off-campus research facility libraries. The
Serials Cataloger serves as a resource person in the area of serials
cataloging. In addition, the incumbent assists the Section Head in
developing serials cataloging policies and procedures. The Serials
Cataloging Section of the Cataloging Department is comprised of the Head,
one librarian, and three support staff members. The Serials Cataloger
reports to the Head of the Serials Cataloging Section.  To view a full
description of the position and application instructions please go to:
http://www.libs.uga.edu/humres/jobs/serials.html



The University of Georgia and the UGA Libraries have a strong commitment to
achieving diversity among its faculty and staff. We are particularly
interested in receiving applications from members of underrepresented
groups and strongly encourage persons of color to apply for these positions.
The University of Georgia is an equal opportunity, affirmative action
employer.


-- 
Beth Thornton

Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designators in LC Records

[Panchyshyn, Roman]

Would this not be problematic if you were trying to build a catalog or database 
based on relationships?

Roman S. Panchyshyn, MLIS
Catalog Librarian, Assistant Professor
University Libraries
Kent State University
tel: 330-672-1699
e-mail: rpanc...@kent.edu

[Description: Description: cid:340CA688-84F9-46CF-97E9-1D715D86ACB5]

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Arakawa, Steven
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 3:20 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designators in LC Records

I believe so. LC practice (as distinguished from PCC practice) is to require 
RDs only for illustrators of children's books, although that doesn't mean LC 
catalogers cannot make individual decisions to add RDs in other categories. And 
I see the PCC guidelines more as best practice rather than mandatory.

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 Panchyshyn, Roman
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 12:47 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Relationship designators in LC Records

Like many libraries, we have an approval plan set up through YBP where we get 
LC records through OCLC PromptCat for materials. With some of the new 
materials, we are getting full RDA records (all have $e rda in the 040), 
generated by LC, but there is no relationship designator ($e) in the 100 tag 
for the creator. Here are two examples from OCLC: (OCLC number)

# 805831494
# 813690891

I'm looking at a document titled:   PCC Guidelines for the Application of 
Relationship Designators in Bibliographic Records, form 05/16, that states:
Include a relationship designator for all creators, whether they are coded MARC 
1XX or MARC 7XX.  If the MARC  1XX is not a creator, the addition of a 
relationship designator is optional though strongly encouraged.  Add a 
relationship designator even if the MARC field definition already implies a 
relationship.  Relationships should be coded explicitly and not inferred from 
MARC or other parts of the record.

Is this an area where PCC and LC differ?

Roman S. Panchyshyn, MLIS
Catalog Librarian, Assistant Professor
University Libraries
Kent State University
tel: 330-672-1699
e-mail: rpanc...@kent.edu

[Description: Description: cid:340CA688-84F9-46CF-97E9-1D715D86ACB5]

<>

Re: [RDA-L] Illustration terms in 7.15.1.3

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

Francis,


If a resource consists wholly or predominantly of image content, then this content is no 
longer illustrative. That is, the images *are the primary content* in such a resource, so 
they no longer fulfill RDA's definition of illustrative content: "Content designed 
to illustrate the primary content of a resource."


I hadn't looked at it this way before, but now that I do, I cannot but 
agree. So, if my resource is mainly pictures, it follows that I should 
not record the element "illustrative content" at all.  And this is 
probably the reason why the former AACR2 rule about "chiefly ill. " and 
"only ill." was abandoned.


But then: How do we tell users of our catalog that a book is mainly 
pictures?


If we think of a typical coffee-table book, where the pictures are the 
main content, and the text is only of secondary importance, we can 
certainly bring it out by the content type (we use "still image", 
perhaps even as the only one if we apply the alternative in 6.9.1.3). 
For the extent element, I believe I still have to use "3.4.5 Extent of 
text", so here we will only record the number of pages. It's different 
in "3.4.6 Extent of image", where we give extent as something like "1 
drawing" - but as far as I can see, this element is not used for my 
coffee-table book.


So, the information that the book is mainly pictures can neither be 
recorded in the extent element nor in the element "7.15 Illustrative 
content" (as the illustrations aren't supplementary). It will only be 
visible in the content type.


Phew. Does that really work in practice??

Let's compare two resources:
A: mainly illustrations, but also some text (coffee-table book)
B: mainly text, some illustrations

For A, we record:
still image
text
386 pages

For B, we record:
text
still image
125 pages : illustrations

I don't think there is a way of marking one content type as the most 
important one. I've given the more important one first here, but I'm not 
even sure whether there is such a practice in MARC (is there?).


Now, looking at this, how could anybody arrive at the conclusion that A 
has more illustrations than B? I admit that it would work better if only 
the predominant carrier type was recorded. But still: I'm not convinced 
this is a good solution, although it seems to be in accordance with RDA 
(unless I've overlooked something - I'd be glad if I had, actually).


Now I wonder: How *are* these materials treated in practice under RDA, 
at the moment? In the BL Monograph WEMI Workflow in the Toolkit, I've 
found the following examples (in the "Expression Index"):


Under "Record illustrative content (7.15)":
300 ##:$ball photographs (black and white, and colour)

Under "Record content type (6.9)":
300 ## $a12 unnumbered pages :$bchiefly illustrations (colour) ;$c26 cm
336 ## $atext $2rdacontent
336 ## $astill image $2rdacontent
336 ## $athree-dimensional form $2rdacontent
(Resource is a children's pop-up book)

So at the British Librariy, they obviously use "illustrative content" in 
these cases, and also continue the AACR2 practice of "all" and "chiefly".


What do others do?

By the way: This is a good example of how RDA often seems like an 
iceberg to me. One puts an innocent little question, and under the 
surface it turns out to be something much bigger...


Heidrun


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

Re: [RDA-L] Illustration terms in 7.15.1.3

[Joan Wang]

There is a difference between content type and illustrative content.
Content type is at a higher level. It refers to the way a work (an idea) is
realized. It could be text, still image, and so forth. I would say that it
actually refers to the major content, the fundamental form a work is
communicated. Certainly it is not limited to one type (one fundamental
form).

I do not think that the definition for illustrative content in RDA is
correct. Illustrative content actually only apply to textual content. I do
not think that illustrative content would apply to other content, such as
still image, sound, or moving image content. Also, illustrations may not be
the primary content. When we put "portraits" in $b of 300 field, it does
not mean that this book is primarily composed of portraits.

For text books, when we put illustrations in $b of 300 field, an assumption
has been there. The assumption is that the content type is text. I believe
that we would see at least one illustration in most books. So we put 336
still image for most books? I do not think that it is correct.

When we put chiefly illustrations in 500 note, the major content (still)
seems to be text. A work is express by text with "many" illustrations :-)
In such a case, the writer (if there is one) would be in 100 field, and the
illustrator (if there is one) would be in 700 field.

For picture books like comic books, I think that we will put still image in
336 field. But I do not think that there is a necessity for "chiefly
illustrations". In such a case, the artist (if there is one) would be in
100 field. Is that right?

Any more clarification is appreciated.

Thanks
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System



On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller <
wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote:

> Francis,
>
>  If a resource consists wholly or predominantly of image content, then
>> this content is no longer illustrative. That is, the images *are the
>> primary content* in such a resource, so they no longer fulfill RDA's
>> definition of illustrative content: "Content designed to illustrate the
>> primary content of a resource."
>>
>
> I hadn't looked at it this way before, but now that I do, I cannot but
> agree. So, if my resource is mainly pictures, it follows that I should not
> record the element "illustrative content" at all.  And this is probably the
> reason why the former AACR2 rule about "chiefly ill. " and "only ill." was
> abandoned.
>
> But then: How do we tell users of our catalog that a book is mainly
> pictures?
>
> If we think of a typical coffee-table book, where the pictures are the
> main content, and the text is only of secondary importance, we can
> certainly bring it out by the content type (we use "still image", perhaps
> even as the only one if we apply the alternative in 6.9.1.3). For the
> extent element, I believe I still have to use "3.4.5 Extent of text", so
> here we will only record the number of pages. It's different in "3.4.6
> Extent of image", where we give extent as something like "1 drawing" - but
> as far as I can see, this element is not used for my coffee-table book.
>
> So, the information that the book is mainly pictures can neither be
> recorded in the extent element nor in the element "7.15 Illustrative
> content" (as the illustrations aren't supplementary). It will only be
> visible in the content type.
>
> Phew. Does that really work in practice??
>
> Let's compare two resources:
> A: mainly illustrations, but also some text (coffee-table book)
> B: mainly text, some illustrations
>
> For A, we record:
> still image
> text
> 386 pages
>
> For B, we record:
> text
> still image
> 125 pages : illustrations
>
> I don't think there is a way of marking one content type as the most
> important one. I've given the more important one first here, but I'm not
> even sure whether there is such a practice in MARC (is there?).
>
> Now, looking at this, how could anybody arrive at the conclusion that A
> has more illustrations than B? I admit that it would work better if only
> the predominant carrier type was recorded. But still: I'm not convinced
> this is a good solution, although it seems to be in accordance with RDA
> (unless I've overlooked something - I'd be glad if I had, actually).
>
> Now I wonder: How *are* these materials treated in practice under RDA, at
> the moment? In the BL Monograph WEMI Workflow in the Toolkit, I've found
> the following examples (in the "Expression Index"):
>
> Under "Record illustrative content (7.15)":
> 300 ##:$ball photographs (black and white, and colour)
>
> Under "Record content type (6.9)":
> 300 ## $a12 unnumbered pages :$bchiefly illustrations (colour) ;$c26 cm
> 336 ## $atext $2rdacontent
> 336 ## $astill image $2rdacontent
> 336 ## $athree-dimensional form $2rdacontent
> (Resource is a children's pop-up book)
>
> So at the British Librariy, they obviously use "illustrative content" in
> these cases, and also continue the AACR2 practice of "all" and "c

Re: [RDA-L] Illustration terms in 7.15.1.3

[Lapka, Francis]

Heidrun,

I think you raise excellent questions.  Your message highlights areas of RDA 
that are (to my mind at least) a bit muddy.

I believe RDA could be altered to make a clearer distinction between extent of 
carrier and extent of content. The proposal for an Extent of Expression element 
is one of the key components of a discussion paper (on machine-actionable data) 
to be brought before JSC later this year:
http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ALA-Discussion-1.pdf

One might argue that some of the terms we currently use to record Extent of 
Still Images (3.4.4.2) more accurately describe extent of content. The same 
might be said of some of the other format-specific subelements. In your example 
of the coffee-table book, we could say that the Extent of Expression (content) 
is 300 photographs, while the Extent of Carrier is 350 pages.

The manner in which we record illustrative material also depends on how we 
perceive these resources as aggregate works. Here again, there is an 
interesting discussion paper to be put forward to JSC in November:
http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-EURIG-Discussion-2.pdf


Francis
 

 

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 9:55 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustration terms in 7.15.1.3

Francis,

> If a resource consists wholly or predominantly of image content, then this 
> content is no longer illustrative. That is, the images *are the primary 
> content* in such a resource, so they no longer fulfill RDA's definition of 
> illustrative content: "Content designed to illustrate the primary content of 
> a resource."

I hadn't looked at it this way before, but now that I do, I cannot but agree. 
So, if my resource is mainly pictures, it follows that I should not record the 
element "illustrative content" at all.  And this is probably the reason why the 
former AACR2 rule about "chiefly ill. " and "only ill." was abandoned.

But then: How do we tell users of our catalog that a book is mainly pictures?

If we think of a typical coffee-table book, where the pictures are the main 
content, and the text is only of secondary importance, we can certainly bring 
it out by the content type (we use "still image", perhaps even as the only one 
if we apply the alternative in 6.9.1.3). 
For the extent element, I believe I still have to use "3.4.5 Extent of text", 
so here we will only record the number of pages. It's different in "3.4.6 
Extent of image", where we give extent as something like "1 drawing" - but as 
far as I can see, this element is not used for my coffee-table book.

So, the information that the book is mainly pictures can neither be recorded in 
the extent element nor in the element "7.15 Illustrative content" (as the 
illustrations aren't supplementary). It will only be visible in the content 
type.

Phew. Does that really work in practice??

Let's compare two resources:
A: mainly illustrations, but also some text (coffee-table book)
B: mainly text, some illustrations

For A, we record:
still image
text
386 pages

For B, we record:
text
still image
125 pages : illustrations

I don't think there is a way of marking one content type as the most important 
one. I've given the more important one first here, but I'm not even sure 
whether there is such a practice in MARC (is there?).

Now, looking at this, how could anybody arrive at the conclusion that A has 
more illustrations than B? I admit that it would work better if only the 
predominant carrier type was recorded. But still: I'm not convinced this is a 
good solution, although it seems to be in accordance with RDA (unless I've 
overlooked something - I'd be glad if I had, actually).

Now I wonder: How *are* these materials treated in practice under RDA, at the 
moment? In the BL Monograph WEMI Workflow in the Toolkit, I've found the 
following examples (in the "Expression Index"):

Under "Record illustrative content (7.15)":
300 ##:$ball photographs (black and white, and colour)

Under "Record content type (6.9)":
300 ## $a12 unnumbered pages :$bchiefly illustrations (colour) ;$c26 cm
336 ## $atext $2rdacontent
336 ## $astill image $2rdacontent
336 ## $athree-dimensional form $2rdacontent (Resource is a children's pop-up 
book)

So at the British Librariy, they obviously use "illustrative content" in these 
cases, and also continue the AACR2 practice of "all" and "chiefly".

What do others do?

By the way: This is a good example of how RDA often seems like an iceberg to 
me. One puts an innocent little question, and under the surface it turns out to 
be something much bigger...

Heidrun


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

Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date

[Khosrowpour, Shahrzad]

Could someone give an example for that, please?

I have a book that doesn't have any information on date, publication, 
manufacture, distribution, anything. Then how and in which field I can indicate 
the information is taken from


Thanks-Shahrzad

Shahrzad Khosrowpour,
Assistant Professor of Library Services
Cataloging/Metadata Librarian
Colorado State University-Pueblo
shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of JSC Secretary
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 7:55 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date

Gary,

If supplying a date per 1.9.2 is not possible, then you can apply the 2nd 
paragraph of 2.8.6.6:

"If an approximate date of publication for a single-part resource cannot 
reasonably be determined, record date of publication not identified. Indicate 
that the information was taken from a source outside the resource itself (see 
2.2.4)."

Judy Kuhagen
JSC Secretary


On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller 
mailto:wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de>> wrote:
Gary,

The rules which you need can be found in 1.9.2 (Supplied date). Under 1.9.2.4 
(Probable range of years) there are examples like this:

[between 1800 and 1899?]
[between 1400 and 1600?]

In 2.8.6.6, there is a reference to 1.9.2.

Heidrun




On 13.08.2013 21:19, Gary Oliver wrote:
I have searched the Toolkit and can not locate instructions for a
situation like this one.  If a manifestation has no date of any kind,
how is that recorded?  There are no dates associated with the author,
so I do not have either an earliest or latest possible year.   I would
say that based on the condition of the piece, I am able to assume a
century.

Thank you,

Gary Oliver
Abilene Christian University

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

Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date

[Joan Wang]

a) probable range of years

*Example:* 264*  1* $a … : $b … , $c [between 2000 and 2004]

b) known earliest and/or latest possible date

*Example:* 264*  1* $a … : $b … , $c [not after August 21, 2003]

c) Supply [date of publication not identified] if no date identified

LC Policy: supply a date of publication if possible, rather than give [date
of publication not identified]

:-)




On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Khosrowpour, Shahrzad <
shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu> wrote:

> Could someone give an example for that, please? 
>
> ** **
>
> I have a book that doesn’t have any information on date, publication,
> manufacture, distribution, anything. Then how and in which field I can
> indicate the information is taken from…. 
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks—Shahrzad
>
> ** **
>
> Shahrzad Khosrowpour,  
>
> Assistant Professor of Library Services  
>
> Cataloging/Metadata Librarian
>
> Colorado State University-Pueblo
>
> 
>
> *shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu*
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *JSC Secretary
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 14, 2013 7:55 AM
> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date
>
> ** **
>
> Gary,
>
> If supplying a date per 1.9.2 is not possible, then you can apply the 2nd
> paragraph of 2.8.6.6:
>
> "If an approximate date of publication for a single-part resource cannot
> reasonably be determined, record *date of publication not identified*.
> Indicate that the information was taken from a source outside the resource
> itself (see 2.2.4)."
>
> Judy Kuhagen
> JSC Secretary
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller <
> wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote:
>
> Gary,
>
> The rules which you need can be found in 1.9.2 (Supplied date). Under
> 1.9.2.4 (Probable range of years) there are examples like this:
>
> [between 1800 and 1899?]
> [between 1400 and 1600?]
>
> In 2.8.6.6, there is a reference to 1.9.2.
>
> Heidrun
>
>
>
>
>
> On 13.08.2013 21:19, Gary Oliver wrote:
>
> I have searched the Toolkit and can not locate instructions for a
> situation like this one.  If a manifestation has no date of any kind,
> how is that recorded?  There are no dates associated with the author,
> so I do not have either an earliest or latest possible year.   I would
> say that based on the condition of the piece, I am able to assume a
> century.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Gary Oliver
> Abilene Christian University
>
> ** **
>
> --
> -
> Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
> Stuttgart Media University
> Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
> www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
>
> ** **
>



-- 
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] Unknown date

[Adam L. Schiff]

Joan,

The between dates should have a question mark at the end according to RDA.

Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries

On Thu, 15 Aug 2013, Joan Wang wrote:


Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 11:05:22 -0500
From: Joan Wang 
Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access

To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date

a) probable range of years

*Example:* 264*  1* $a … : $b … , $c [between 2000 and 2004]

b) known earliest and/or latest possible date

*Example:* 264*  1* $a … : $b … , $c [not after August 21, 2003]

c) Supply [date of publication not identified] if no date identified

LC Policy: supply a date of publication if possible, rather than give [date
of publication not identified]

:-)




On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Khosrowpour, Shahrzad <
shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu> wrote:


Could someone give an example for that, please? 

** **

I have a book that doesn’t have any information on date, publication,
manufacture, distribution, anything. Then how and in which field I can
indicate the information is taken from…. 

** **

** **

Thanks—Shahrzad

** **

Shahrzad Khosrowpour,  

Assistant Professor of Library Services  

Cataloging/Metadata Librarian

Colorado State University-Pueblo



*shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu*

* *

* *

* *

** **

*From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *JSC Secretary
*Sent:* Wednesday, August 14, 2013 7:55 AM
*To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
*Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date

** **

Gary,

If supplying a date per 1.9.2 is not possible, then you can apply the 2nd
paragraph of 2.8.6.6:

"If an approximate date of publication for a single-part resource cannot
reasonably be determined, record *date of publication not identified*.
Indicate that the information was taken from a source outside the resource
itself (see 2.2.4)."

Judy Kuhagen
JSC Secretary

   

On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller <
wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote:

Gary,

The rules which you need can be found in 1.9.2 (Supplied date). Under
1.9.2.4 (Probable range of years) there are examples like this:

[between 1800 and 1899?]
[between 1400 and 1600?]

In 2.8.6.6, there is a reference to 1.9.2.

Heidrun





On 13.08.2013 21:19, Gary Oliver wrote:

I have searched the Toolkit and can not locate instructions for a
situation like this one.  If a manifestation has no date of any kind,
how is that recorded?  There are no dates associated with the author,
so I do not have either an earliest or latest possible year.   I would
say that based on the condition of the piece, I am able to assume a
century.

Thank you,

Gary Oliver
Abilene Christian University

** **

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

** **





--
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



^^
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] Unknown date

[Joan Wang]

Adam

Thanks a lot for letting me know :-)

Joan


On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Adam L. Schiff
wrote:

> Joan,
>
> The between dates should have a question mark at the end according to RDA.
>
> Adam Schiff
> University of Washington Libraries
>
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2013, Joan Wang wrote:
>
>  Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 11:05:22 -0500
>> From: Joan Wang 
>> Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
>> Access
>> 
>> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
>> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date
>>
>> a) probable range of years
>>
>> *Example:* 264*  1* $a … : $b … , $c [between 2000 and 2004]
>>
>> b) known earliest and/or latest possible date
>>
>> *Example:* 264*  1* $a … : $b … , $c [not after August 21, 2003]
>>
>> c) Supply [date of publication not identified] if no date identified
>>
>> LC Policy: supply a date of publication if possible, rather than give
>> [date
>> of publication not identified]
>>
>> :-)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Khosrowpour, Shahrzad <
>> shahrzad.khosrowpour@**colostate-pueblo.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  Could someone give an example for that, please? 
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> I have a book that doesn’t have any information on date, publication,
>>> manufacture, distribution, anything. Then how and in which field I can
>>> indicate the information is taken from…. 
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Thanks—Shahrzad
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Shahrzad Khosrowpour,  
>>>
>>> Assistant Professor of Library Services  
>>>
>>> Cataloging/Metadata Librarian
>>>
>>> Colorado State University-Pueblo
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> *shahrzad.khosrowpour@**colostate-pueblo.edu
>>> *
>>>
>>> * *
>>>
>>> * *
>>>
>>> * *
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
>>> [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-**BAC.GC.CA ]
>>> *On Behalf Of *JSC Secretary
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 14, 2013 7:55 AM
>>> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
>>> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Gary,
>>>
>>> If supplying a date per 1.9.2 is not possible, then you can apply the 2nd
>>> paragraph of 2.8.6.6:
>>>
>>> "If an approximate date of publication for a single-part resource cannot
>>> reasonably be determined, record *date of publication not identified*.
>>> Indicate that the information was taken from a source outside the
>>> resource
>>> itself (see 2.2.4)."
>>>
>>> Judy Kuhagen
>>> JSC Secretary
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller <
>>> wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de**> wrote:
>>>
>>> Gary,
>>>
>>> The rules which you need can be found in 1.9.2 (Supplied date). Under
>>> 1.9.2.4 (Probable range of years) there are examples like this:
>>>
>>> [between 1800 and 1899?]
>>> [between 1400 and 1600?]
>>>
>>> In 2.8.6.6, there is a reference to 1.9.2.
>>>
>>> Heidrun
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 13.08.2013 21:19, Gary Oliver wrote:
>>>
>>> I have searched the Toolkit and can not locate instructions for a
>>> situation like this one.  If a manifestation has no date of any kind,
>>> how is that recorded?  There are no dates associated with the author,
>>> so I do not have either an earliest or latest possible year.   I would
>>> say that based on the condition of the piece, I am able to assume a
>>> century.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> Gary Oliver
>>> Abilene Christian University
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> --
>>> -
>>> Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
>>> Stuttgart Media University
>>> Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
>>> www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>>
> ^^**
> 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
> ~~**
>



-- 
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] Illustration terms in 7.15.1.3

[Kathie Coblentz]

On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 15:54:56 +0200, Heidrun Wiesenmüller 
 wrote:

>Francis,
>
>> If a resource consists wholly or predominantly of image content, then this 
>> content is no longer illustrative. That is, the images *are the primary 
>> content* in such a resource, so they no longer fulfill RDA's definition of 
>> illustrative content: "Content designed to illustrate the primary content of 
>> a resource."
>
>I hadn't looked at it this way before, but now that I do, I cannot but
>agree. So, if my resource is mainly pictures, it follows that I should
>not record the element "illustrative content" at all.  And this is
>probably the reason why the former AACR2 rule about "chiefly ill. " and
>"only ill." was abandoned.
>
>But then: How do we tell users of our catalog that a book is mainly
>pictures?
>
>If we think of a typical coffee-table book, where the pictures are the
>main content, and the text is only of secondary importance, we can
>certainly bring it out by the content type (we use "still image",
>perhaps even as the only one if we apply the alternative in 6.9.1.3).
>For the extent element, I believe I still have to use "3.4.5 Extent of
>text", so here we will only record the number of pages. It's different
>in "3.4.6 Extent of image", where we give extent as something like "1
>drawing" - but as far as I can see, this element is not used for my
>coffee-table book.
>
>So, the information that the book is mainly pictures can neither be
>recorded in the extent element nor in the element "7.15 Illustrative
>content" (as the illustrations aren't supplementary). It will only be
>visible in the content type.
>
>Phew. Does that really work in practice??
>
>Let's compare two resources:
>A: mainly illustrations, but also some text (coffee-table book)
>B: mainly text, some illustrations
>
>For A, we record:
>still image
>text
>386 pages
>
>For B, we record:
>text
>still image
>125 pages : illustrations
>
>I don't think there is a way of marking one content type as the most
>important one. I've given the more important one first here, but I'm not
>even sure whether there is such a practice in MARC (is there?).
>
>Now, looking at this, how could anybody arrive at the conclusion that A
>has more illustrations than B? I admit that it would work better if only
>the predominant carrier type was recorded. But still: I'm not convinced
>this is a good solution, although it seems to be in accordance with RDA
>(unless I've overlooked something - I'd be glad if I had, actually).
>

>
>By the way: This is a good example of how RDA often seems like an
>iceberg to me. One puts an innocent little question, and under the
>surface it turns out to be something much bigger...
>
>Heidrun
>
>
>--
>-
>Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
>Stuttgart Media University
>Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
>www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

I brought up this very issue last month in a thread titled "Volumes containing 
only images." I only received one reply. (From Mac, pragmatic as always.) I'm 
not sure if URLs work to link threads in this format, but it is here: 
https://listserv.collectionscanada.gc.ca/cgi-bin/wa?A2=RDA-L;db70d096.1307

The issue is complicated further by the fact that the current RDA glossary 
limits the definition of both "leaf" and "page" to a "unit of extent of text." 
So if your resource contains no text, by definition it cannot contain either 
leaves or pages, just as it cannot logically contain illustrations, although it 
consists entirely of still images. Or of units of "extent of still image."  See 
the thread "Leaf (new RDA glossary term and 
definition)":https://listserv.collectionscanada.gc.ca/cgi-bin/wa?A2=RDA-L;9a78b4cd.1307.
 This did elicit a long discussion, and I believe changes in the definitions 
are in the works.

Honor M. Moody then posted some helpful comments under a title that related the 
two threads, "Re: Volumes containing only images/Leaf (new RDA glossary term 
and definition)": 
https://listserv.collectionscanada.gc.ca/cgi-bin/wa?A2=RDA-L;6e813709.1307


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] Unknown date

[Khosrowpour, Shahrzad]

Then my record will have:

$a [place of publication not identified] : $b [publisher not identified], $c 
[date of publication not identified]

And FF will read  for the 1st date?



Thanks-- Shahrzad


 

-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: Thursday, August 15, 2013 10:09 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date

Joan,

The between dates should have a question mark at the end according to RDA.

Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries

On Thu, 15 Aug 2013, Joan Wang wrote:

> Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 11:05:22 -0500
> From: Joan Wang 
> Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> 
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date
> 
> a) probable range of years
>
> *Example:* 264*  1* $a … : $b … , $c [between 2000 and 2004]
>
> b) known earliest and/or latest possible date
>
> *Example:* 264*  1* $a … : $b … , $c [not after August 21, 2003]
>
> c) Supply [date of publication not identified] if no date identified
>
> LC Policy: supply a date of publication if possible, rather than give 
> [date of publication not identified]
>
> :-)
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Khosrowpour, Shahrzad < 
> shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu> wrote:
>
>> Could someone give an example for that, please? 
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> I have a book that doesn’t have any information on date, publication, 
>> manufacture, distribution, anything. Then how and in which field I 
>> can indicate the information is taken from…. 
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Thanks—Shahrzad
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Shahrzad Khosrowpour,  
>>
>> Assistant Professor of Library Services  
>>
>> Cataloging/Metadata Librarian
>>
>> Colorado State University-Pueblo
>>
>> 
>>
>> *shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu*
>>
>> * *
>>
>> * *
>>
>> * *
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and 
>> Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *JSC 
>> Secretary
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 14, 2013 7:55 AM
>> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
>> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Gary,
>>
>> If supplying a date per 1.9.2 is not possible, then you can apply the 
>> 2nd paragraph of 2.8.6.6:
>>
>> "If an approximate date of publication for a single-part resource 
>> cannot reasonably be determined, record *date of publication not identified*.
>> Indicate that the information was taken from a source outside the 
>> resource itself (see 2.2.4)."
>>
>> Judy Kuhagen
>> JSC Secretary
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller < 
>> wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote:
>>
>> Gary,
>>
>> The rules which you need can be found in 1.9.2 (Supplied date). Under
>> 1.9.2.4 (Probable range of years) there are examples like this:
>>
>> [between 1800 and 1899?]
>> [between 1400 and 1600?]
>>
>> In 2.8.6.6, there is a reference to 1.9.2.
>>
>> Heidrun
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 13.08.2013 21:19, Gary Oliver wrote:
>>
>> I have searched the Toolkit and can not locate instructions for a 
>> situation like this one.  If a manifestation has no date of any kind, 
>> how is that recorded?  There are no dates associated with the author,
>> so I do not have either an earliest or latest possible year.   I would
>> say that based on the condition of the piece, I am able to assume a 
>> century.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Gary Oliver
>> Abilene Christian University
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> --
>> -
>> Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
>> Stuttgart Media University
>> Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
>> www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
>>
>> ** **
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>

^^
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] Unknown date

[Joan Wang]

Adam

Sorry. I found the following example in LC-PCC PS for 2.8.6.6. Does that
mean that the 264 field ($c) in the example is not correct?

EXAMPLE

Title page verso

Distributed in the USA in 1999
Preface signed

London, January 1993
Date of publication

not given
Transcription
  264  #1 $a … $b …
$c [between 1993 and 1999]
008/06 Type of date

q
008/07-10

1993
008/11-14

1999

Thank you very much for your time.
Regards,
Joan



On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Joan Wang wrote:

> Adam
>
> Thanks a lot for letting me know :-)
>
> Joan
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Adam L. Schiff  > wrote:
>
>> Joan,
>>
>> The between dates should have a question mark at the end according to RDA.
>>
>> Adam Schiff
>> University of Washington Libraries
>>
>> On Thu, 15 Aug 2013, Joan Wang wrote:
>>
>>  Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 11:05:22 -0500
>>> From: Joan Wang 
>>> Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
>>> Access
>>> 
>>> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
>>> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date
>>>
>>> a) probable range of years
>>>
>>> *Example:* 264*  1* $a … : $b … , $c [between 2000 and 2004]
>>>
>>> b) known earliest and/or latest possible date
>>>
>>> *Example:* 264*  1* $a … : $b … , $c [not after August 21, 2003]
>>>
>>> c) Supply [date of publication not identified] if no date identified
>>>
>>> LC Policy: supply a date of publication if possible, rather than give
>>> [date
>>> of publication not identified]
>>>
>>> :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Khosrowpour, Shahrzad <
>>> shahrzad.khosrowpour@**colostate-pueblo.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Could someone give an example for that, please? 

 ** **

 I have a book that doesn’t have any information on date, publication,
 manufacture, distribution, anything. Then how and in which field I can
 indicate the information is taken from…. 

 ** **

 ** **

 Thanks—Shahrzad

 ** **

 Shahrzad Khosrowpour,  

 Assistant Professor of Library Services  

 Cataloging/Metadata Librarian

 Colorado State University-Pueblo

 

 *shahrzad.khosrowpour@**colostate-pueblo.edu
 *

 * *

 * *

 * *

 ** **

 *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
 Access
 [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-**BAC.GC.CA ]
 *On Behalf Of *JSC Secretary
 *Sent:* Wednesday, August 14, 2013 7:55 AM
 *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
 *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date

 ** **

 Gary,

 If supplying a date per 1.9.2 is not possible, then you can apply the
 2nd
 paragraph of 2.8.6.6:

 "If an approximate date of publication for a single-part resource cannot
 reasonably be determined, record *date of publication not identified*.
 Indicate that the information was taken from a source outside the
 resource
 itself (see 2.2.4)."

 Judy Kuhagen
 JSC Secretary



 On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller <
 wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de**> wrote:

 Gary,

 The rules which you need can be found in 1.9.2 (Supplied date). Under
 1.9.2.4 (Probable range of years) there are examples like this:

 [between 1800 and 1899?]
 [between 1400 and 1600?]

 In 2.8.6.6, there is a reference to 1.9.2.

 Heidrun





 On 13.08.2013 21:19, Gary Oliver wrote:

 I have searched the Toolkit and can not locate instructions for a
 situation like this one.  If a manifestation has no date of any kind,
 how is that recorded?  There are no dates associated with the author,
 so I do not have either an earliest or latest possible year.   I would
 say that based on the condition of the piece, I am able to assume a
 century.

 Thank you,

 Gary Oliver
 Abilene Christian University

 ** **

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

 ** **


>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>> ^^**
>> 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
>> ~~**
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D.
> Cataloger -- CMC
> Illinois Heartlan

Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date

[Joan Wang]

It is possible to supply a probable county, like United States? Also,Place
(upper-cased) not place

:-)


On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Khosrowpour, Shahrzad <
shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu> wrote:

> Then my record will have:
>
> $a [place of publication not identified] : $b [publisher not identified],
> $c [date of publication not identified]
>
> And FF will read  for the 1st date?
>
>
>
> Thanks-- Shahrzad
>
>
>
>
> -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: Thursday, August 15, 2013 10:09 AM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date
>
> Joan,
>
> The between dates should have a question mark at the end according to RDA.
>
> Adam Schiff
> University of Washington Libraries
>
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2013, Joan Wang wrote:
>
> > Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 11:05:22 -0500
> > From: Joan Wang 
> > Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
> Access
> > 
> > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date
> >
> > a) probable range of years
> >
> > *Example:* 264*  1* $a … : $b … , $c [between 2000 and 2004]
> >
> > b) known earliest and/or latest possible date
> >
> > *Example:* 264*  1* $a … : $b … , $c [not after August 21, 2003]
> >
> > c) Supply [date of publication not identified] if no date identified
> >
> > LC Policy: supply a date of publication if possible, rather than give
> > [date of publication not identified]
> >
> > :-)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Khosrowpour, Shahrzad <
> > shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> Could someone give an example for that, please? 
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> I have a book that doesn’t have any information on date, publication,
> >> manufacture, distribution, anything. Then how and in which field I
> >> can indicate the information is taken from…. 
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> Thanks—Shahrzad
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> Shahrzad Khosrowpour,  
> >>
> >> Assistant Professor of Library Services  
> >>
> >> Cataloging/Metadata Librarian
> >>
> >> Colorado State University-Pueblo
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >> *shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu*
> >>
> >> * *
> >>
> >> * *
> >>
> >> * *
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
> >> Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *JSC
> >> Secretary
> >> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 14, 2013 7:55 AM
> >> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> >> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> Gary,
> >>
> >> If supplying a date per 1.9.2 is not possible, then you can apply the
> >> 2nd paragraph of 2.8.6.6:
> >>
> >> "If an approximate date of publication for a single-part resource
> >> cannot reasonably be determined, record *date of publication not
> identified*.
> >> Indicate that the information was taken from a source outside the
> >> resource itself (see 2.2.4)."
> >>
> >> Judy Kuhagen
> >> JSC Secretary
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller <
> >> wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote:
> >>
> >> Gary,
> >>
> >> The rules which you need can be found in 1.9.2 (Supplied date). Under
> >> 1.9.2.4 (Probable range of years) there are examples like this:
> >>
> >> [between 1800 and 1899?]
> >> [between 1400 and 1600?]
> >>
> >> In 2.8.6.6, there is a reference to 1.9.2.
> >>
> >> Heidrun
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 13.08.2013 21:19, Gary Oliver wrote:
> >>
> >> I have searched the Toolkit and can not locate instructions for a
> >> situation like this one.  If a manifestation has no date of any kind,
> >> how is that recorded?  There are no dates associated with the author,
> >> so I do not have either an earliest or latest possible year.   I would
> >> say that based on the condition of the piece, I am able to assume a
> >> century.
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >>
> >> Gary Oliver
> >> Abilene Christian University
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> --
> >> -
> >> Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
> >> Stuttgart Media University
> >> Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
> >> www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
>
> ^^
> 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
> ~~
>



-- 
Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D.
Cataloger -- CMC
Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office)
6725 Goshen Road
E

Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date

[Khosrowpour, Shahrzad]

Joan,

Is it the same for Publisher & Date?


Thanks so much -- Shahrzad



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joan Wang
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 10:29 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date

It is possible to supply a probable county, like United States? Also,Place
(upper-cased) not place

:-)

On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Khosrowpour, Shahrzad 
mailto:shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu>>
 wrote:
Then my record will have:

$a [place of publication not identified] : $b [publisher not identified], $c 
[date of publication not identified]

And FF will read  for the 1st date?



Thanks-- Shahrzad




-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: Thursday, August 15, 2013 10:09 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date

Joan,

The between dates should have a question mark at the end according to RDA.

Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries

On Thu, 15 Aug 2013, Joan Wang wrote:

> Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 11:05:22 -0500
> From: Joan Wang 
> mailto:jw...@illinoisheartland.org>>
> Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>>
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date
>
> a) probable range of years
>
> *Example:* 264*  1* $a ... : $b ... , $c [between 2000 and 2004]
>
> b) known earliest and/or latest possible date
>
> *Example:* 264*  1* $a ... : $b ... , $c [not after August 21, 2003]
>
> c) Supply [date of publication not identified] if no date identified
>
> LC Policy: supply a date of publication if possible, rather than give
> [date of publication not identified]
>
> :-)
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Khosrowpour, Shahrzad <
> shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu>
>  wrote:
>
>> Could someone give an example for that, please? 
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> I have a book that doesn't have any information on date, publication,
>> manufacture, distribution, anything. Then how and in which field I
>> can indicate the information is taken from 
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Thanks-Shahrzad
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Shahrzad Khosrowpour,  
>>
>> Assistant Professor of Library Services  
>>
>> Cataloging/Metadata Librarian
>>
>> Colorado State University-Pueblo
>>
>> 
>>
>> *shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu*
>>
>> * *
>>
>> * *
>>
>> * *
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
>> Access 
>> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] 
>> *On Behalf Of *JSC
>> Secretary
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 14, 2013 7:55 AM
>> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
>> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Gary,
>>
>> If supplying a date per 1.9.2 is not possible, then you can apply the
>> 2nd paragraph of 2.8.6.6:
>>
>> "If an approximate date of publication for a single-part resource
>> cannot reasonably be determined, record *date of publication not identified*.
>> Indicate that the information was taken from a source outside the
>> resource itself (see 2.2.4)."
>>
>> Judy Kuhagen
>> JSC Secretary
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller <
>> wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Gary,
>>
>> The rules which you need can be found in 1.9.2 (Supplied date). Under
>> 1.9.2.4 (Probable range of years) there are examples like this:
>>
>> [between 1800 and 1899?]
>> [between 1400 and 1600?]
>>
>> In 2.8.6.6, there is a reference to 1.9.2.
>>
>> Heidrun
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 13.08.2013 21:19, Gary Oliver wrote:
>>
>> I have searched the Toolkit and can not locate instructions for a
>> situation like this one.  If a manifestation has no date of any kind,
>> how is that recorded?  There are no dates associated with the author,
>> so I do not have either an earliest or latest possible year.   I would
>> say that based on the condition of the piece, I am able to assume a
>> century.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Gary Oliver
>> Abilene Christian University
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> --
>> -
>> Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
>> Stuttgart Media University
>> Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
>> www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
>>
>> ** **
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D.
> Cataloger -- CMC
> Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office)
> 6725 Goshen Road
> Edwardsville, IL 62025
> 618

Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date

[Joan Wang]

Forgot to say, a probable country would like this: [United States?]


On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Joan Wang wrote:

> It is possible to supply a probable county, like United States? Also,Place
> (upper-cased) not place
>
> :-)
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Khosrowpour, Shahrzad <
> shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu> wrote:
>
>> Then my record will have:
>>
>> $a [place of publication not identified] : $b [publisher not identified],
>> $c [date of publication not identified]
>>
>> And FF will read  for the 1st date?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks-- Shahrzad
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -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: Thursday, August 15, 2013 10:09 AM
>> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
>> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date
>>
>> Joan,
>>
>> The between dates should have a question mark at the end according to RDA.
>>
>> Adam Schiff
>> University of Washington Libraries
>>
>> On Thu, 15 Aug 2013, Joan Wang wrote:
>>
>> > Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 11:05:22 -0500
>> > From: Joan Wang 
>> > Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
>> Access
>> > 
>> > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
>> > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date
>> >
>> > a) probable range of years
>> >
>> > *Example:* 264*  1* $a … : $b … , $c [between 2000 and 2004]
>> >
>> > b) known earliest and/or latest possible date
>> >
>> > *Example:* 264*  1* $a … : $b … , $c [not after August 21, 2003]
>> >
>> > c) Supply [date of publication not identified] if no date identified
>> >
>> > LC Policy: supply a date of publication if possible, rather than give
>> > [date of publication not identified]
>> >
>> > :-)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Khosrowpour, Shahrzad <
>> > shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Could someone give an example for that, please? 
>> >>
>> >> ** **
>> >>
>> >> I have a book that doesn’t have any information on date, publication,
>> >> manufacture, distribution, anything. Then how and in which field I
>> >> can indicate the information is taken from…. 
>> >>
>> >> ** **
>> >>
>> >> ** **
>> >>
>> >> Thanks—Shahrzad
>> >>
>> >> ** **
>> >>
>> >> Shahrzad Khosrowpour,  
>> >>
>> >> Assistant Professor of Library Services  
>> >>
>> >> Cataloging/Metadata Librarian
>> >>
>> >> Colorado State University-Pueblo
>> >>
>> >> 
>> >>
>> >> *shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu*
>> >>
>> >> * *
>> >>
>> >> * *
>> >>
>> >> * *
>> >>
>> >> ** **
>> >>
>> >> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
>> >> Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *JSC
>> >> Secretary
>> >> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 14, 2013 7:55 AM
>> >> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
>> >> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date
>> >>
>> >> ** **
>> >>
>> >> Gary,
>> >>
>> >> If supplying a date per 1.9.2 is not possible, then you can apply the
>> >> 2nd paragraph of 2.8.6.6:
>> >>
>> >> "If an approximate date of publication for a single-part resource
>> >> cannot reasonably be determined, record *date of publication not
>> identified*.
>> >> Indicate that the information was taken from a source outside the
>> >> resource itself (see 2.2.4)."
>> >>
>> >> Judy Kuhagen
>> >> JSC Secretary
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller <
>> >> wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Gary,
>> >>
>> >> The rules which you need can be found in 1.9.2 (Supplied date). Under
>> >> 1.9.2.4 (Probable range of years) there are examples like this:
>> >>
>> >> [between 1800 and 1899?]
>> >> [between 1400 and 1600?]
>> >>
>> >> In 2.8.6.6, there is a reference to 1.9.2.
>> >>
>> >> Heidrun
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 13.08.2013 21:19, Gary Oliver wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I have searched the Toolkit and can not locate instructions for a
>> >> situation like this one.  If a manifestation has no date of any kind,
>> >> how is that recorded?  There are no dates associated with the author,
>> >> so I do not have either an earliest or latest possible year.   I would
>> >> say that based on the condition of the piece, I am able to assume a
>> >> century.
>> >>
>> >> Thank you,
>> >>
>> >> Gary Oliver
>> >> Abilene Christian University
>> >>
>> >> ** **
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> -
>> >> Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
>> >> Stuttgart Media University
>> >> Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
>> >> www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
>> >>
>> >> ** **
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > 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
>> >
>>
>> ^^
>> Adam L. Schiff
>> Principal Cataloger
>> University of Washington Librari

Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date

[Kevin M Randall]

Yes, known or probable place is certainly valid.  (I would even consider using 
the continent, if necessary; although I wonder if hemisphere or "Earth" might 
be going a bit too far...)

Interesting that it's "Place of publication not identified" and "publisher not 
identified".  The use of upper- and lowercase seems to be based on an ISBD 
publication statement.

In regard to question marks in the elements:  If they are known or reasonably 
certain, then no question marks are necessary.  But when you say that an 
element value is "probable", that indicates lack of certainty, which then 
necessitates use of a question mark.  You may KNOW that something was published 
between 2000 and 2004, or you may assume that it was PROBABLY published between 
2000 and 2004; those are two different things.

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

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!


From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joan Wang
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 11:29 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date

It is possible to supply a probable county, like United States? Also,Place
(upper-cased) not place

:-)

On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Khosrowpour, Shahrzad 
mailto:shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu>>
 wrote:
Then my record will have:

$a [place of publication not identified] : $b [publisher not identified], $c 
[date of publication not identified]

And FF will read  for the 1st date?



Thanks-- Shahrzad




-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: Thursday, August 15, 2013 10:09 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date

Joan,

The between dates should have a question mark at the end according to RDA.

Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries

On Thu, 15 Aug 2013, Joan Wang wrote:

> Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 11:05:22 -0500
> From: Joan Wang 
> mailto:jw...@illinoisheartland.org>>
> Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>>
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date
>
> a) probable range of years
>
> *Example:* 264*  1* $a ... : $b ... , $c [between 2000 and 2004]
>
> b) known earliest and/or latest possible date
>
> *Example:* 264*  1* $a ... : $b ... , $c [not after August 21, 2003]
>
> c) Supply [date of publication not identified] if no date identified
>
> LC Policy: supply a date of publication if possible, rather than give
> [date of publication not identified]
>
> :-)
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Khosrowpour, Shahrzad <
> shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu>
>  wrote:
>
>> Could someone give an example for that, please? 
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> I have a book that doesn't have any information on date, publication,
>> manufacture, distribution, anything. Then how and in which field I
>> can indicate the information is taken from 
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Thanks-Shahrzad
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Shahrzad Khosrowpour,  
>>
>> Assistant Professor of Library Services  
>>
>> Cataloging/Metadata Librarian
>>
>> Colorado State University-Pueblo
>>
>> 
>>
>> *shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu*
>>
>> * *
>>
>> * *
>>
>> * *
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
>> Access 
>> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] 
>> *On Behalf Of *JSC
>> Secretary
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 14, 2013 7:55 AM
>> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
>> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Gary,
>>
>> If supplying a date per 1.9.2 is not possible, then you can apply the
>> 2nd paragraph of 2.8.6.6:
>>
>> "If an approximate date of publication for a single-part resource
>> cannot reasonably be determined, record *date of publication not identified*.
>> Indicate that the information was taken from a source outside the
>> resource itself (see 2.2.4)."
>>
>> Judy Kuhagen
>> JSC Secretary
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller <
>> wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Gary,
>>
>> The rules which you need can be found in 1.9.2 (Supplied date). Under
>> 1.9.2.4 (Probable range of years) there are examples like this:
>>
>> [between 1800 and 1899?]
>> [between 1400 and 1600?]
>>
>> In 2.8.6.6, there is a reference to 1.9.2.
>>
>> Hei

Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date

[Joan Wang]

No, only for the first sub-field. I hope that I am right :-)


On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Khosrowpour, Shahrzad <
shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu> wrote:

> Joan,
>
> ** **
>
> Is it the same for Publisher & Date? 
>
> ** **
>
> 
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks so much -- Shahrzad
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> * ***
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Joan Wang
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 15, 2013 10:29 AM
> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date
>
> ** **
>
> It is possible to supply a probable county, like United States? Also,Place
> (upper-cased) not place
>
> :-)
>
> ** **
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Khosrowpour, Shahrzad <
> shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu> wrote:
>
> Then my record will have:
>
> $a [place of publication not identified] : $b [publisher not identified],
> $c [date of publication not identified]
>
> And FF will read  for the 1st date?
>
>
>
> Thanks-- Shahrzad
>
>
>
>
> -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: Thursday, August 15, 2013 10:09 AM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date
>
> Joan,
>
> The between dates should have a question mark at the end according to RDA.
>
> Adam Schiff
> University of Washington Libraries
>
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2013, Joan Wang wrote:
>
> > Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 11:05:22 -0500
> > From: Joan Wang 
> > Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
> Access
> > 
> > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date
> >
> > a) probable range of years
> >
> > *Example:* 264*  1* $a … : $b … , $c [between 2000 and 2004]
> >
> > b) known earliest and/or latest possible date
> >
> > *Example:* 264*  1* $a … : $b … , $c [not after August 21, 2003]
> >
> > c) Supply [date of publication not identified] if no date identified
> >
> > LC Policy: supply a date of publication if possible, rather than give
> > [date of publication not identified]
> >
> > :-)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Khosrowpour, Shahrzad <
> > shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> Could someone give an example for that, please? 
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> I have a book that doesn’t have any information on date, publication,
> >> manufacture, distribution, anything. Then how and in which field I
> >> can indicate the information is taken from…. 
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> Thanks—Shahrzad
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> Shahrzad Khosrowpour,  
> >>
> >> Assistant Professor of Library Services  
> >>
> >> Cataloging/Metadata Librarian
> >>
> >> Colorado State University-Pueblo
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >> *shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu*
> >>
> >> * *
> >>
> >> * *
> >>
> >> * *
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
> >> Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *JSC
> >> Secretary
> >> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 14, 2013 7:55 AM
> >> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> >> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> Gary,
> >>
> >> If supplying a date per 1.9.2 is not possible, then you can apply the
> >> 2nd paragraph of 2.8.6.6:
> >>
> >> "If an approximate date of publication for a single-part resource
> >> cannot reasonably be determined, record *date of publication not
> identified*.
> >> Indicate that the information was taken from a source outside the
> >> resource itself (see 2.2.4)."
> >>
> >> Judy Kuhagen
> >> JSC Secretary
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller <
> >> wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote:
> >>
> >> Gary,
> >>
> >> The rules which you need can be found in 1.9.2 (Supplied date). Under
> >> 1.9.2.4 (Probable range of years) there are examples like this:
> >>
> >> [between 1800 and 1899?]
> >> [between 1400 and 1600?]
> >>
> >> In 2.8.6.6, there is a reference to 1.9.2.
> >>
> >> Heidrun
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 13.08.2013 21:19, Gary Oliver wrote:
> >>
> >> I have searched the Toolkit and can not locate instructions for a
> >> situation like this one.  If a manifestation has no date of any kind,
> >> how is that recorded?  There are no dates associated with the author,
> >> so I do not have either an earliest or latest possible year.   I would
> >> say that based on the condition of the piece, I am able to assume a
> >> century.
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >>
> >> Gary Oliver
> >> Abilene Christian University
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> --
> >> -
> >> Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
> >> Stuttgart Media University
> >> Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
> >> www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >
> >
> 

Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date

[Khosrowpour, Shahrzad]

Thanks you Joan and everyone...

Shahrzad


From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joan Wang
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 10:37 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date

No, only for the first sub-field. I hope that I am right :-)

On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Khosrowpour, Shahrzad 
mailto:shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu>>
 wrote:
Joan,

Is it the same for Publisher & Date?


Thanks so much -- Shahrzad



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On 
Behalf Of Joan Wang
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 10:29 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date

It is possible to supply a probable county, like United States? Also,Place
(upper-cased) not place

:-)

On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Khosrowpour, Shahrzad 
mailto:shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu>>
 wrote:
Then my record will have:

$a [place of publication not identified] : $b [publisher not identified], $c 
[date of publication not identified]

And FF will read  for the 1st date?



Thanks-- Shahrzad




-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: Thursday, August 15, 2013 10:09 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date

Joan,

The between dates should have a question mark at the end according to RDA.

Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries

On Thu, 15 Aug 2013, Joan Wang wrote:

> Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 11:05:22 -0500
> From: Joan Wang 
> mailto:jw...@illinoisheartland.org>>
> Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>>
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date
>
> a) probable range of years
>
> *Example:* 264*  1* $a ... : $b ... , $c [between 2000 and 2004]
>
> b) known earliest and/or latest possible date
>
> *Example:* 264*  1* $a ... : $b ... , $c [not after August 21, 2003]
>
> c) Supply [date of publication not identified] if no date identified
>
> LC Policy: supply a date of publication if possible, rather than give
> [date of publication not identified]
>
> :-)
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Khosrowpour, Shahrzad <
> shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu>
>  wrote:
>
>> Could someone give an example for that, please? 
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> I have a book that doesn't have any information on date, publication,
>> manufacture, distribution, anything. Then how and in which field I
>> can indicate the information is taken from 
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Thanks-Shahrzad
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Shahrzad Khosrowpour,  
>>
>> Assistant Professor of Library Services  
>>
>> Cataloging/Metadata Librarian
>>
>> Colorado State University-Pueblo
>>
>> 
>>
>> *shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu*
>>
>> * *
>>
>> * *
>>
>> * *
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
>> Access 
>> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] 
>> *On Behalf Of *JSC
>> Secretary
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 14, 2013 7:55 AM
>> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
>> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Gary,
>>
>> If supplying a date per 1.9.2 is not possible, then you can apply the
>> 2nd paragraph of 2.8.6.6:
>>
>> "If an approximate date of publication for a single-part resource
>> cannot reasonably be determined, record *date of publication not identified*.
>> Indicate that the information was taken from a source outside the
>> resource itself (see 2.2.4)."
>>
>> Judy Kuhagen
>> JSC Secretary
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller <
>> wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Gary,
>>
>> The rules which you need can be found in 1.9.2 (Supplied date). Under
>> 1.9.2.4 (Probable range of years) there are examples like this:
>>
>> [between 1800 and 1899?]
>> [between 1400 and 1600?]
>>
>> In 2.8.6.6, there is a reference to 1.9.2.
>>
>> Heidrun
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 13.08.2013 21:19, Gary Oliver wrote:
>>
>> I have searched the Toolkit and can not locate instructions for a
>> situation like this one.  If a manifestation has no date of any kind,
>> how is that recorded?  There are no dates associated with the author,
>> so I do not have either an earliest or latest possible year.   I would
>> say that based on

Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date

[Joan Wang]

> In regard to question marks in the elements:  If they are known or
reasonably > certain, then no question marks are necessary.  But when you
say that an
> element value is "probable", that indicates lack of certainty, which then
> necessitates use of a question mark.  You may KNOW that something was
> published between 2000 and 2004, or you may assume that it was PROBABLY >
published between 2000 and 2004; those are two different things.

Yes, Kevin. You are right. I just read RDA 1.9.2.4 and 1.9.2.5 and found
the difference. Thanks.

Also thanks to Adam :-)

Joan Wang


On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Kevin M Randall wrote:

>  Yes, known or probable place is certainly valid.  (I would even consider
> using the continent, if necessary; although I wonder if hemisphere or
> "Earth" might be going a bit too far...)
>
> ** **
>
> Interesting that it's "Place of publication not identified" and "publisher
> not identified".  The use of upper- and lowercase seems to be based on an
> ISBD publication statement.
>
> ** **
>
> In regard to question marks in the elements:  If they are known or
> reasonably certain, then no question marks are necessary.  But when you say
> that an element value is "probable", that indicates lack of certainty,
> which then necessitates use of a question mark.  You may KNOW that
> something was published between 2000 and 2004, or you may assume that it
> was PROBABLY published between 2000 and 2004; those are two different
> things.
>
> ** **
>
> Kevin M. Randall
>
> Principal Serials Cataloger
>
> Northwestern University Library
>
> k...@northwestern.edu
>
> (847) 491-2939
>
> ** **
>
> Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Joan Wang
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 15, 2013 11:29 AM
> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date
>
> ** **
>
> It is possible to supply a probable county, like United States? Also,Place
> (upper-cased) not place
>
> :-)
>
> ** **
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Khosrowpour, Shahrzad <
> shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu> wrote:
>
> Then my record will have:
>
> $a [place of publication not identified] : $b [publisher not identified],
> $c [date of publication not identified]
>
> And FF will read  for the 1st date?
>
>
>
> Thanks-- Shahrzad
>
>
>
>
> -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: Thursday, August 15, 2013 10:09 AM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date
>
> Joan,
>
> The between dates should have a question mark at the end according to RDA.
>
> Adam Schiff
> University of Washington Libraries
>
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2013, Joan Wang wrote:
>
> > Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 11:05:22 -0500
> > From: Joan Wang 
> > Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
> Access
> > 
> > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date
> >
> > a) probable range of years
> >
> > *Example:* 264*  1* $a … : $b … , $c [between 2000 and 2004]
> >
> > b) known earliest and/or latest possible date
> >
> > *Example:* 264*  1* $a … : $b … , $c [not after August 21, 2003]
> >
> > c) Supply [date of publication not identified] if no date identified
> >
> > LC Policy: supply a date of publication if possible, rather than give
> > [date of publication not identified]
> >
> > :-)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Khosrowpour, Shahrzad <
> > shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> Could someone give an example for that, please? 
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> I have a book that doesn’t have any information on date, publication,
> >> manufacture, distribution, anything. Then how and in which field I
> >> can indicate the information is taken from…. 
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> Thanks—Shahrzad
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> Shahrzad Khosrowpour,  
> >>
> >> Assistant Professor of Library Services  
> >>
> >> Cataloging/Metadata Librarian
> >>
> >> Colorado State University-Pueblo
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >> *shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu*
> >>
> >> * *
> >>
> >> * *
> >>
> >> * *
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
> >> Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *JSC
> >> Secretary
> >> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 14, 2013 7:55 AM
> >> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> >> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> Gary,
> >>
> >> If supplying a date per 1.9.2 is not possible, then you can apply the
> >> 2nd paragraph of 2.8.6.6:
> >>
> >> "If an approximate date of publication for a single-part resource
> >> cannot reasonably be determined, record *d

Re: [RDA-L] Illustration terms in 7.15.1.3

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

Kathie wrote:


I brought up this very issue last month in a thread titled "Volumes containing only 
images." I only received one reply. (From Mac, pragmatic as always.) I'm not sure if 
URLs work to link threads in this format, but it is here: 
https://listserv.collectionscanada.gc.ca/cgi-bin/wa?A2=RDA-L;db70d096.1307


Thanks, Kathie. I had indeed missed that one.

Actually, when I wrote that mail earlier today, I was wondering whether 
perhaps I was hallucinating. It didn't seem probable to me that such 
curious things could be going on in RDA. It's reassuring to find I'm not 
the first one who noticed ;-)


Heidrun


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

Re: [RDA-L] Illustration terms in 7.15.1.3

[Greta de Groat]

I thought that if we decided something was a still image rather than 
text, that we were required to use the list of still image carriers for 
the extent at RDA 3.4.4.2.  In that case, neither pages nor volume are 
in that list, so i think you are stuck with 300 photographs.  Which 
seems rather confusing for a coffee-table book. Not to mention that 
unless there is only 1 photograph per page, i can't imagine us counting 
the photos.


Greta de Groat
Stanford University Libraries


On 8/15/2013 8:03 AM, Lapka, Francis wrote:

Heidrun,

I think you raise excellent questions.  Your message highlights areas of RDA 
that are (to my mind at least) a bit muddy.

I believe RDA could be altered to make a clearer distinction between extent of 
carrier and extent of content. The proposal for an Extent of Expression element 
is one of the key components of a discussion paper (on machine-actionable data) 
to be brought before JSC later this year:
http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ALA-Discussion-1.pdf

One might argue that some of the terms we currently use to record Extent of 
Still Images (3.4.4.2) more accurately describe extent of content. The same 
might be said of some of the other format-specific subelements. In your example 
of the coffee-table book, we could say that the Extent of Expression (content) 
is 300 photographs, while the Extent of Carrier is 350 pages.

The manner in which we record illustrative material also depends on how we 
perceive these resources as aggregate works. Here again, there is an 
interesting discussion paper to be put forward to JSC in November:
http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-EURIG-Discussion-2.pdf


Francis
  

  


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 9:55 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustration terms in 7.15.1.3

Francis,


If a resource consists wholly or predominantly of image content, then this content is no 
longer illustrative. That is, the images *are the primary content* in such a resource, so 
they no longer fulfill RDA's definition of illustrative content: "Content designed 
to illustrate the primary content of a resource."

I hadn't looked at it this way before, but now that I do, I cannot but agree. So, if my resource is mainly 
pictures, it follows that I should not record the element "illustrative content" at all.  And this 
is probably the reason why the former AACR2 rule about "chiefly ill. " and "only ill." 
was abandoned.

But then: How do we tell users of our catalog that a book is mainly pictures?

If we think of a typical coffee-table book, where the pictures are the main content, and 
the text is only of secondary importance, we can certainly bring it out by the content 
type (we use "still image", perhaps even as the only one if we apply the 
alternative in 6.9.1.3).
For the extent element, I believe I still have to use "3.4.5 Extent of text", so here we will only 
record the number of pages. It's different in "3.4.6 Extent of image", where we give extent as 
something like "1 drawing" - but as far as I can see, this element is not used for my coffee-table 
book.

So, the information that the book is mainly pictures can neither be recorded in the 
extent element nor in the element "7.15 Illustrative content" (as the 
illustrations aren't supplementary). It will only be visible in the content type.

Phew. Does that really work in practice??

Let's compare two resources:
A: mainly illustrations, but also some text (coffee-table book)
B: mainly text, some illustrations

For A, we record:
still image
text
386 pages

For B, we record:
text
still image
125 pages : illustrations

I don't think there is a way of marking one content type as the most important 
one. I've given the more important one first here, but I'm not even sure 
whether there is such a practice in MARC (is there?).

Now, looking at this, how could anybody arrive at the conclusion that A has 
more illustrations than B? I admit that it would work better if only the 
predominant carrier type was recorded. But still: I'm not convinced this is a 
good solution, although it seems to be in accordance with RDA (unless I've 
overlooked something - I'd be glad if I had, actually).

Now I wonder: How *are* these materials treated in practice under RDA, at the moment? In 
the BL Monograph WEMI Workflow in the Toolkit, I've found the following examples (in the 
"Expression Index"):

Under "Record illustrative content (7.15)":
300 ##:$ball photographs (black and white, and colour)

Under "Record content type (6.9)":
300 ## $a12 unnumbered pages :$bchiefly illustrations (colour) ;$c26 cm
336 ## $atext $2rdacontent
336 ## $astill image $2rdacontent
336 ## $athree-dimensional form $2rdacontent (Resource is a children's pop-up 
book)

So at the British Librariy, they obviously use "illustrative content" in these cas

Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date

[J. McRee Elrod]

Shahrazad asked:


>I have a book that doesn't have any information on date, publication, manuf=
>acture, distribution, anything. Then how and in which field I can indicate =
>the information is taken from

Imprint "not identified" patrons tells patrons nothing, and is space
consuming.  The cataloguer is in a better place to guess than the
patron at at the catalogue.

Total lack of information is most common for self published materials.

One could do, for example:

264  2 $a[Colorado?] :$b[Joe Smith?],$c[201-?] for a currently
received probably self published item in your state.  But a Web search
should give you the author's home city,

RDA purists would have you do $c[between 2000 and 2013?], or [before
2013], but the AACR2 form works better in a multilingual situation.

Web searches are a great help.  I find one can almost always find
something.

To record where you found data use field 588, e.g.:

588  $aPublication information based on author's website viewed ...


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

Re: [RDA-L] Illustration terms in 7.15.1.3

[J. McRee Elrod]

Heidrun said:

>The difference between maps and plans is indeed one of scale, I believe.
 
I would consider architectural drawings to be plans, not maps,
regardless of scale.  Maps usually depict the earth's surface.  There
are also maps of the moon, and of fictitious places, etc.

>For the forms, I liked Adam's example of forms used in a survey very
>much -

The ones we most often encounter are legal forms in legal texts.

Unless I come up with something >better, my explanation for my
students (who are bound to ask) will be >that with graphs, you usually
have an x-/y-axis

Don't forget bar graphs, in which you have adjacent bars representing
times, populations, etc. 

>It wouldn't have occurred to me that "photographs" should only be
>used >for real photographs and not for reproductions, as Mac
>suggested, and I >haven't made up my mind yet whether I find this a
>good idea or not.

It's been a long standing distinction, and unless explicitly changed,
we should stick with it.  Reproductions of photographs are
illustrations.  (Photographs on photo sensitive paper are becoming
more rare; we most often saw them mounted in theses and consultants'
reports.)  We should not promise the patron photographs unless there
are real photographs.  

In terms of number of illustrations, we normally give number of
plates, but not of illustrations included in the text.

RDA gives three options for content terms (paraphrased): all,
important, single most prominent.  We take a middle course.  A few
illustrations would not get 336 $astill image; an exhibition catalogue
would.  The litmus for me is, would a patron go to this item for the
illustrations?

Who will use an item for what should be at the bottom of many of our
choices.  



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

Re: [RDA-L] Illustration terms in 7.15.1.3

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

Francis,


I believe RDA could be altered to make a clearer distinction between extent of 
carrier and extent of content. The proposal for an Extent of Expression element 
is one of the key components of a discussion paper (on machine-actionable data) 
to be brought before JSC later this year:
http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ALA-Discussion-1.pdf


Thanks, I just worked my way through that.

It may be of interest that for German catalogers the idea of recording 
something like "1 atlas  (37 maps)" is rather bewildering. For a printed 
atlas, the physical description according to the German RAK rules looks 
like this:


476 p. : chiefly maps

The same principle goes for printed music. So, the German rules have a 
bit less mixing up of content and carrier here. We do record things like 
"1 map", though.




One might argue that some of the terms we currently use to record Extent of 
Still Images (3.4.4.2) more accurately describe extent of content. The same 
might be said of some of the other format-specific subelements. In your example 
of the coffee-table book, we could say that the Extent of Expression (content) 
is 300 photographs, while the Extent of Carrier is 350 pages.


That sounds very plausible to me, and I think having an "extent of 
expression" element would be a good thing. I wouldn't be happy if I had 
to count the pictures in my coffee-table book for this, but I assume 
that a subsequent proposal would not call for this.


Heidrun



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

Re: [RDA-L] Illustration terms in 7.15.1.3

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

Greta said:

I thought that if we decided something was a still image rather than 
text, that we were required to use the list of still image carriers 
for the extent at RDA 3.4.4.2. In that case, neither pages nor volume 
are in that list, so i think you are stuck with 300 photographs.


Good point. But I think that the first sentence in 3.4.4.1 only refers 
to "real" drawings, photographs etc., and not to reproductions of them: 
"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." So, in the case of the 
coffee-table book I believe 3.4.4.2-3.4.4.5 does not apply.


RDA goes on to say: "For resources consisting of still images in other 
media (e.g., slides, transparencies), apply the basic instructions at 
3.4.1." So it seems that our coffee-table book should belong there, but 
of course it is noteworthy that the examples given are slides and 
transparencies, and not printed material.


Then in 3.4.1 we stumble over the exception for text: "For resources 
consisting of printed or manuscript text (with or without accompanying 
illustrations), see 3.4.5."


We've already decided that the pictures in the book are not accompanying 
illustrations. On the other hand, in 3.4.5.1 the scope is slightly 
differently phrased: "For a printed or manuscript resource consisting of 
text (with or without illustrations) ...". I'd say as long as my book 
has a bit of text (it probably will have some introductory pages and 
captions for the photographs) I'm fine with using 3.4.5.


But I agree that it's all a bit fishy here. Also, what would we do if 
the book had only the photographs, and absolutely no text at all? Then 
we'd have to use the basic rule in 3.4.1.3. The carrier type would still 
be "volume", so my guess is: "1 volume (300 photographs)".


Isn't RDA fun?

Heidrun




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

Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date

[Adam L. Schiff]

Should be [Place of publication not identified] with the first word capitalized.  But 
better to record a probable country and probable date if you can.  At the very least you 
could do a "[not after ...]" date, e.g. [not after 2012] or [not after August 
15, 2013]

On Thu, 15 Aug 2013, Khosrowpour, Shahrzad wrote:


Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 10:21:44 -0600
From: "Khosrowpour, Shahrzad" 
Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access

To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date

Then my record will have:

$a [place of publication not identified] : $b [publisher not identified], $c 
[date of publication not identified]

And FF will read  for the 1st date?



Thanks-- Shahrzad




-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: Thursday, August 15, 2013 10:09 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date

Joan,

The between dates should have a question mark at the end according to RDA.

Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries

On Thu, 15 Aug 2013, Joan Wang wrote:


Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 11:05:22 -0500
From: Joan Wang 
Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access

To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date

a) probable range of years

*Example:* 264*  1* $a … : $b … , $c [between 2000 and 2004]

b) known earliest and/or latest possible date

*Example:* 264*  1* $a … : $b … , $c [not after August 21, 2003]

c) Supply [date of publication not identified] if no date identified

LC Policy: supply a date of publication if possible, rather than give
[date of publication not identified]

:-)




On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Khosrowpour, Shahrzad <
shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu> wrote:


Could someone give an example for that, please? 

** **

I have a book that doesn’t have any information on date, publication,
manufacture, distribution, anything. Then how and in which field I
can indicate the information is taken from…. 

** **

** **

Thanks—Shahrzad

** **

Shahrzad Khosrowpour,  

Assistant Professor of Library Services  

Cataloging/Metadata Librarian

Colorado State University-Pueblo



*shahrzad.khosrowp...@colostate-pueblo.edu*

* *

* *

* *

** **

*From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *JSC
Secretary
*Sent:* Wednesday, August 14, 2013 7:55 AM
*To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
*Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date

** **

Gary,

If supplying a date per 1.9.2 is not possible, then you can apply the
2nd paragraph of 2.8.6.6:

"If an approximate date of publication for a single-part resource
cannot reasonably be determined, record *date of publication not identified*.
Indicate that the information was taken from a source outside the
resource itself (see 2.2.4)."

Judy Kuhagen
JSC Secretary

   

On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller <
wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote:

Gary,

The rules which you need can be found in 1.9.2 (Supplied date). Under
1.9.2.4 (Probable range of years) there are examples like this:

[between 1800 and 1899?]
[between 1400 and 1600?]

In 2.8.6.6, there is a reference to 1.9.2.

Heidrun





On 13.08.2013 21:19, Gary Oliver wrote:

I have searched the Toolkit and can not locate instructions for a
situation like this one.  If a manifestation has no date of any kind,
how is that recorded?  There are no dates associated with the author,
so I do not have either an earliest or latest possible year.   I would
say that based on the condition of the piece, I am able to assume a
century.

Thank you,

Gary Oliver
Abilene Christian University

** **

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

** **





--
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



^^
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
~~



^^
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] Unknown date

[Khosrowpour, Shahrzad]

Oh,

I did lots of 

Thanks-- Shahrzad

Thank you Adam & Mac,

I did lots of Web searches before posting my question in the list. After all 
the conversation, here is what I am putting in the imprint field:

264 _1  $a[United States?] : $b[publisher not identified], $c[20--?]
 
OR is it preferable  to give the date as you suggested as:  $c [between 2000 
and 2013] but then with this form, I am just wondering what would be the dates 
at FF and in the call number! Probably the same as they would be, if I use the 
$c[20--?], right?

 

Shahrzad


-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca] 
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 11:29 AM
To: Khosrowpour, Shahrzad
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Unknown date


Shahrazad asked:


>I have a book that doesn't have any information on date, publication, 
>manuf= acture, distribution, anything. Then how and in which field I 
>can indicate = the information is taken from

Imprint "not identified" patrons tells patrons nothing, and is space consuming. 
 The cataloguer is in a better place to guess than the patron at at the 
catalogue.

Total lack of information is most common for self published materials.

One could do, for example:

264  2 $a[Colorado?] :$b[Joe Smith?],$c[201-?] for a currently received 
probably self published item in your state.  But a Web search should give you 
the author's home city,

RDA purists would have you do $c[between 2000 and 2013?], or [before 2013], but 
the AACR2 form works better in a multilingual situation.

Web searches are a great help.  I find one can almost always find something.

To record where you found data use field 588, e.g.:

588  $aPublication information based on author's website viewed ...


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

Re: [RDA-L] Illustration terms in 7.15.1.3

[J. McRee Elrod]

Greta de Groat said:

>... so i think you are stuck with 300 photographs.
  
I've never seen a coffee table book with actual photographs on
sensitive paper.  Also, the pages may be numbered, with a varying
numbers of pictures per page, but the pictures not numbered.

If one is uncomfortable with "illustrations" in 300 $b, when the
pictures are the main content as opposed to illustrating text, and we
aren't allowed "all pictures" or "chiefly illustrations" in 300 $b,
then how about:

300  $a300 pages (pictures) :$bcolour ;$c31 cm.

I agree with Hedrun that 1 atlas (300 pages) is strange, so I would
not suggest 1 picture book (300 pages).  For the atlas I would prefer
300 pages (maps).

That's the pattern suggested for large print.

Lacuna in RDA should not be an excuse for silly collations.


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