Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)
I can't use RDA yet, so I wasn't paying initial attention to this discussion. I understood that a fictitious character as author would now be in a 100 field, but now it sounds like all fictitious characters are to be treated like real people and placed in the 600 field as well. Is that the case?
Re: [RDA-L] French-language book ... with summary in French
Good points on both sides. Much probably depends on context. The user
looking for an item in another language than English in our public library
is likely to be more comfortable with that language than with English; in
an academic library I might expect the reverse. For us it is probably a
good policy to provide the summary in both languages where it is
practical--it isn't always, due to the usual constraints of time.
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Jack Wu j...@franciscan.edu wrote:
I suppose to assume the user is fluent in language of the item would be
sound if to use the item does need a good command of the language, as
in cases of classic in the original. While if the item can also be useful
by someone without good command of the language, the reverse would be
true.
A summary note, particularly when lengthy, is sort of a freely transcribed
table of contents, on the other hand it can be no more than a brief general
note. Table of contents is always in language of the text, on the other
hand, a general note is always in the language of cataloging.
So I think if a note exists, and is applicable, I would leave it alone,
and to construct a note, I would stop where I'm competent to do, to provide
one lengthy or brief, in either or both languages.
Jack
Jack Wu
Franciscan University of Steubenville
j...@franciscan.edu
J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca 10/10/2013 6:55 PM
Kevin said:
But that is making the assumption that the person using the catalog
to find the item is fluent in the language of the item.
More common in my experience is someone looking for an item in his/her
first languge, and having difficulty with English. That's why we add
RVM and Bilendix subject headings to records for French and Spanish
materials. I understood some US libraries were doing that now?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance
--
Richard A. Stewart
Cataloging Supervisor
Indian Trails Library District
355 Schoenbeck Road
Wheeling, Illinois 60090-4499
USA
Tel: 847-279-2214
Fax: 847-459-4760
rstew...@indiantrailslibrary.org
http://www.indiantrailslibrary.org/
Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)
Yes that is true, at least for all newly established characters. LC will (slowly, I imagine) undertake a project to convert their LCSH headings for ficititious characters to name authorities. NACO libraries will establish them as well as needed and report existing LCSH terms for cancellation. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries -Original Message- From: Gray-Williams, Donna Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 7:57 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character) I can't use RDA yet, so I wasn't paying initial attention to this discussion. I understood that a fictitious character as author would now be in a 100 field, but now it sounds like all fictitious characters are to be treated like real people and placed in the 600 field as well. Is that the case?
Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)
Donna Gray-Williams asked:
I understood that a fictitious character as author would now be in a
100 field, but now it sounds like all fictitious characters are to be
treated like real people and placed in the 600 field as well.
That's what we are doing, with $c(Fictitious character) always added.
the exceptions noted in earlier discussion, and adding the $c only to
break a conflict, create inconsistency, as do those 130 (Motion
picture) on some video records.
We used to say if a person breathed, 600, if not 650. We now say if a
personal name, fictitious or real, human or animal, 600. KISS
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)
Somehow in all these changes in establishment of name authorities for fictitious characters, I can't find anything that says the choice of main entry (or Preferred access point, or 100 field data) has changed. Although RDA 9.0 says the scope of persons does include fictitious character; it also indicates if the fictitious entry's role is only as subject, the RDA instructions do not apply. I've always learned that a fictitious character is just that, a figment of our imagination. It is not capable of authorship (or as creator) unless it's a pseudonym of some real person. I can understand Holmes, Sherlock getting an access point, but cannot understand it as the Preferred access point. 100 field of Hums of Pooh, still under Milne, not Pooh; 100 field of Dr. Snoopy's advice to pet owners. still under Schultz, not Snoopy. Are these all to change? If that happens will Schultz and Milne go to the secondary 700? The autobiography of Sherlock Holmes (OCLC#828418251) has Holmes in 100, and 600; Watson in 650. Am I just behind with the changes? Jack Jack Wu Franciscan University of Steubenville j...@franciscan.edu Adam Schiff asch...@u.washington.edu 10/11/2013 1:39 PM Yes that is true, at least for all newly established characters. LC will (slowly, I imagine) undertake a project to convert their LCSH headings for ficititious characters to name authorities. NACO libraries will establish them as well as needed and report existing LCSH terms for cancellation. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries -Original Message- From: Gray-Williams, Donna Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 7:57 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character) I can't use RDA yet, so I wasn't paying initial attention to this discussion. I understood that a fictitious character as author would now be in a 100 field, but now it sounds like all fictitious characters are to be treated like real people and placed in the 600 field as well. Is that the case? Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance
Re: [RDA-L] RDA TRAINING OR CONFERENCE
I recommend the training materials available from the Library of Congresshttp://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/RDA%20training%20materials/LC%20RDA%20Training/LC%20RDA%20course%20table.html loc.gov site. Of course, these materials are LoC-centric, so you may need to adapt some of the information to your own needs. Justin Sewell Burlington County College Princeton Public Library On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Falwa Mesfer Al Marri falma...@qma.org.qawrote: Good Morning, ** ** I would like to ask you if anyone know any workshops, training or Conference about RDA. ** ** ** ** Thanks and kind regards, Falwa Al-Marri Museum Of Islamic Art *The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential, may be privileged and/or subject to copyright. If you are not the intended recipient disclosure, copying and distribution of it is prohibited. Please notify me immediately and delete this email and do not make any copies, disclose or discuss this email, any part of it or its attachments with any other person(s), organisation or entity.* The information in this e-mail, and any attachment therein, is confidential and for use by the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, please return the email to the sender and delete it from your computer. Although Burlington County College attempts to sweep e-mail attachments for viruses, it does not guarantee that either are virus-free and accepts no liability for any damage sustained as a result of viruses.
Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)
Jack Wu said:
I've always learned that a fictitious character is just that, a figment of =
our imagination. It is not capable of authorship (or as creator) unless =
it's a pseudonym of some real person.
We should describe things as they present themselves. It the title
page says it was written by Geronimo Chilton, that should be the main
entry and basis of Cutter, as opposed to scattering them about under
title Cutters. If we know the real identify of the person writing
under the name of a fictitious character, that name should be a cross
reference in the authority record of the bibliographic identity of the
fictitious character.
I don't see all that much distinction between Mark Twain and Geronimo
Chilton. Both are on the title page as author. We stopped entering
under Clemens decades ago.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)
RDA takes at face value an assertion of creatorship. So yes, it has changed from AACR2. Any person can be a creator, and RDA asserts that persons include fictitious and legendary persons and non-humans: 9.0. Persons include persons named in religious works, fictitious and legendary persons, and real or fictitious non-human entities. RDA 19.2.1.3 has an example showing a fictitious character as creator: Kermit, the Frog Authorized access point representing the creator for: Before you leap : a frogs-eye view of lifes greatest lessons / by Kermit the Frog On Fri, 11 Oct 2013, Jack Wu wrote: Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:29:17 -0400 From: Jack Wu j...@franciscan.edu Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character) Somehow in all these changes in establishment of name authorities for fictitious characters, I can't find anything that says the choice of main entry (or Preferred access point, or 100 field data) has changed. Although RDA 9.0 says the scope of persons does include fictitious character; it also indicates if the fictitious entry's role is only as subject, the RDA instructions do not apply. I've always learned that a fictitious character is just that, a figment of our imagination. It is not capable of authorship (or as creator) unless it's a pseudonym of some real person. I can understand Holmes, Sherlock getting an access point, but cannot understand it as the Preferred access point. AS: AACR2 did not permit entry or the creation of name headings for these entities. RDA does and doesn't require the cataloger to have to know if a particular person is fictitious or not. Readers might not know either if a book written by someone named Jessica Fletcher is real or not. Some RDA examples of works created by or contributed to by fictitious persons: OCLC #837144081 100 1_ Fletcher, Jessica, $e author. 245 10 Close-up on murder : $b a novel / $c by Jessica Fletcher Donald Bain. OCLC #828418251 100 1_ Holmes, Sherlock, $e author. 245 14 The autobiography of Sherlock Holmes / $c by Sherlock Holmes ; edited by Don Libey, S.H.S.L. OCLC #2013036659 100 1_ Adler, Irene $c (Fictitious character), $e author. 240 10 Trio della Dama Nera. $l English 245 14 The dark lady / $c by Irene Adler ; illustrated by Bruno Iacopo. OCLC #664373969 245 00 Kermit unpigged $h [sound recording]. 511 0_ Performed by Kermit the Frog with various artists. 700 0_ Kermit, $c the Frog. OCLC #39875214 245 00 Dear Socks, dear Buddy : $b kids' letters to the first pets / $c [compiled, with a foreword, by] Hillary Rodham Clinton. 700 0_ Socks $c (Cat), $d 1989-2009, $e addressee. 700 0_ Buddy $c (Dog), $d 1997-2002, $e addressee. 700 1_ Clinton, Hillary Rodham, $e editor of compilation. The LC-PCC Policy Statement for 9.0 makes it clear that even when a fictitious character is just needed as a subject, a name authority should be created. Here are some examples from OCLC: OCLC #788282024 245 04 The philosophy of Sherlock Holmes / ?c edited by Philip Tallon and David Baggett. 600 10 Doyle, Arthur Conan, ?d 1859-1930 ?x Characters ?x Sherlock Holmes. 600 10 Holmes, Sherlock. 650 _0 Detective and mystery stories, English ?x History and criticism. 650 _0 Philosophy in literature. 650 _0 Private investigators in literature. OCLC #39812968 100 1_ Hammond, Diane Coplin. 245 10 Keiko's story : $b the real-life tale of the world's most famous killer whale / $c by Diane Coplin Hammond ; illustrated by Nyna Somerville. 600 00 Keiko, $d approximately 1976-2003. OCLC #39875214 245 00 Dear Socks, dear Buddy : $b kids' letters to the first pets / $c [compiled, with a foreword, by] Hillary Rodham Clinton. 600 00 Socks $c (Cat), $d 1989-2009 $v Humor. 600 00 Buddy $c (Dog), $d 1997-2002 $v Humor. Here is the LC-PCC Policy Statement 9.0 on this matter: Fictitious Entities and Real Non-Human Entities LC practice/PCC practice: Apply this chapter to fictitious entities and real non-human entities following the guidelines below: No LCSH Authority Record Exists Create a name authority record for the entity following RDA instructions and NACO guidelines, whether needed as a creator, contributor, etc., under RDA, or needed only for subject access. Do not create a subject proposal for LCSH. LCSH Authority Record Exists If needed as a creator, contributor, etc., under RDA, create a new name authority record and notify the Policy Standards Division (pol...@loc.gov) to cancel the existing subject authority record. Optionally, a new name authority record may be created for such an entity if needed only for subject access. If a name authority record is created, notify the Policy Standards Division (pol...@loc.gov) to cancel the existing subject authority record. Future activity: A project to transition all fictitious and real
Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)
Jack Wu j...@franciscan.edu wrote: I've always learned that a fictitious character is just that, a figment of our imagination. It is not capable of authorship (or as creator) unless it's a pseudonym of some real person. I can understand Holmes, Sherlock getting an access point, but cannot understand it as the Preferred access point. Another way to think about it is to consider the identity as being responsible for the work, not the flesh-and-blook human being bearing that name (real or pseudonymous). -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
