Re: [RDA-L] Access to the knowledge of cataloging
I notice that Amazon is selling RDA for Kindle @$120, which seems to be within the range of college textbooks these days. To quote: This e-book contains the 2013 Revision of RDA: Resource Description and Access, and includes the July 2013 Update. This e-book offers links within the RDA text and the capability of running rudimentary searches of RDA, but please note that this e-book does not have the full range of content or functionality provided by the subscription product RDA Toolkit. (I suppose this means there are no external links to AACR2 and the LC PCC Policy Statements; quoting again: This e-book offers links within the RDA text and the capability of running rudimentary searches of RDA ... This, coupled with free access to the LC PCC Policy Statements and PCC documentation, should be enough to suit the needs of a small collection. 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 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 2:54 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Access to the knowledge of cataloging John Hostage wrote: I think what he meant was, what use is it to have access to the PSs if you can't see the rules they annotate without paying an arm and a leg. The way Bernhard stated it gave the implication that there was something new in regard to accessing LC policy. But nothing has really changed: access to LC policy was free before (under AACR2), and it is still free now (under RDA). In both cases, there is also the need for separate access (not free) to the rules themselves. To be sure, the difference in cost between AACR2 and RDA is quite substantial, and I do think it's a very regrettable situation that the ALA budget seems to be so dependent upon the revenue from the cataloging rules. Hopefully more affordable ancillary products will crop up eventually. (And hopefully the economics of RDA will change--maybe what must have been horrific costs for the initial development of the RDA text and especially the Toolkit will be paid off, and substantially lower subscription prices will be able to support ongoing maintenance???) Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
Re: [RDA-L] Access to the knowledge of cataloging
I assumed it was not continuously updated, but I don't see that as a deal breaker for a small collection. I suspect many small collections did not attempt to purchase every update of AACR2, nor did they feel guilty about it; perfection can be the enemy of good enough, as the saying goes. 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 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Breeding, Zora Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 5:13 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Access to the knowledge of cataloging Is this Kindle version updated? That may be what is meant by less than full range of content as the subscription product. If so, it would be equivalent in content to the print version -- which, interestingly enough is listed on ALA Editions as costing $150. So, you pay less for a version with searching and links. That is a good deal. Of course, like the print, the product will become outdated quite soon and a new purchase would need to be made every year or so. Still, spending $120 per year is cheaper than $195 per year for the subscription. Zora Breeding Vanderbilt -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Arakawa, Steven Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 3:42 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Access to the knowledge of cataloging I notice that Amazon is selling RDA for Kindle @$120, which seems to be within the range of college textbooks these days. To quote: This e-book contains the 2013 Revision of RDA: Resource Description and Access, and includes the July 2013 Update. This e-book offers links within the RDA text and the capability of running rudimentary searches of RDA, but please note that this e-book does not have the full range of content or functionality provided by the subscription product RDA Toolkit. (I suppose this means there are no external links to AACR2 and the LC PCC Policy Statements; quoting again: This e-book offers links within the RDA text and the capability of running rudimentary searches of RDA ... This, coupled with free access to the LC PCC Policy Statements and PCC documentation, should be enough to suit the needs of a small collection. 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 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 2:54 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Access to the knowledge of cataloging John Hostage wrote: I think what he meant was, what use is it to have access to the PSs if you can't see the rules they annotate without paying an arm and a leg. The way Bernhard stated it gave the implication that there was something new in regard to accessing LC policy. But nothing has really changed: access to LC policy was free before (under AACR2), and it is still free now (under RDA). In both cases, there is also the need for separate access (not free) to the rules themselves. To be sure, the difference in cost between AACR2 and RDA is quite substantial, and I do think it's a very regrettable situation that the ALA budget seems to be so dependent upon the revenue from the cataloging rules. Hopefully more affordable ancillary products will crop up eventually. (And hopefully the economics of RDA will change--maybe what must have been horrific costs for the initial development of the RDA text and especially the Toolkit will be paid off, and substantially lower subscription prices will be able to support ongoing maintenance???) Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
Re: [RDA-L] Question about multiple authors on an OCLC record
Isn't the decision based on whether the manifestation in hand represents a
revised edition of the original work or a new work in itself? If it's simply a
revision, changing the creator/work relationship seems problematic. If the
changes have resulted in a new work, then a new creator/work relationship is
implied. On the other hand, it's been argued that the work is represented by
the preferred title alone, so that might justify changing the primary creator
from edition to edition. I tend to think of a work as having a stable
relationship to a creator and not based on the vagaries of publisher
presentation, but a case could be made for the other approach. But then,
determining when a new manifestation represents a new work is difficult if the
original creator is irrelevant.
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
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 1:45 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about multiple authors on an OCLC record
I asked Michael Gorman what I should add to the MRIs concerning using the main
entry of an earlier edition as the main entry of a later edition, with a
different order of authors in the statement of responsibility.
He responded in part:
Not sure how to respond. It's a small point but it represents a snapping of
the fundamental Lubetzkyan principle in choosing access points--i.e., the
determination of who is chiefly responsible for the intellectual or artistic
content of the work being catalogued, and assigning other access points flowing
from that basic decision. That snapped, the rule just says choose any access
points associated with what you are cataloguing. No theoretical underpinning,
no *consistency of application. In other words, that rule can't be fixed and I
would suggest the MRI's say 'ignore this rule; choose the name of the person
who is chiefly responsible for the intellectual or artistic content of the
edition of the work being catalogued as the basis for the access point' (in
this case, the author/first author of the edition of the work being
catalogued).
I'm open to other suggestions. But choosing the main entry on the basis of the
main entry of an earlier edition strikes me as ridiculous. For every later
edition we catalogue, are we supposed to research the main entry of earlier
editions? What if we have the 5th ed., and the main entry has changed before?
How far back are we supposed to go? The first edition? The preceding edition?
Cheez.
As John described it, we are not to use the earlier main entry if that name is
not in the statement of responsibility of the later edition.
What if it is in the title proper as mentioned earlier, e.g., Smith's Torts,
fifth edition by Tom Jones. Earlier entry was Smith, later Jones, now?
I seems to me our long standing tradition is to catalogue the item in hand. For
reproductions, RDA (like AACR2 but contra the LCRI) has moved in that
direction. But in relation to later editions, it has abandoned that very basic
practice.
Like Michael, I am inclined to ignore that rule, as LAC and SLC did the
reproduction LCRI.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Pseudonyms under RDA
As an example, the cataloger has an early edition of Jane Eyre. The author name on the title page is Currer Bell. Although Currer Bell is a pseudonym for Charlotte Bronte, we wouldn't want the cataloger to enter under Bell, Currer rather than Bronte, Charlotte, because it is commonly known -- now -- that Charlotte Bronte is the author of Jane Eyre. I think RDA assumes the cataloger is working in a bibliographic present that has a bibliographic past, and what is commonly known changes as time passes. If Donald Westlake initially publishes The Outfit under the pseudonym Richard Stark, but 10 later re-publications credit The Outfit to Donald Westlake on the title page, common usage eventually trumps 9.2.2.8. I hope that makes sense. 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 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kathie Coblentz Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 6:33 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Pseudonyms under RDA On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 21:45:08 +, Arakawa, Steven steven.arak...@yale.edu wrote: The question came up, as I recall, at one of the Bibco training sessions, with Voltaire as the example. If I recall correctly, the trainer referred to RDA 9.2.2.3: When choosing the preferred name for the person, generally choose the name by which the person is commonly known. The name chosen can be the person’s real name, pseudonym, title of nobility, nickname, initials, or other appellation. At this point in time, the author is no longer known by his various pseudonyms; he is 'commonly known' as 'Voltaire.' That is one way to look at it (and I like it). However there is that word generally, and the same 9.2.2.3 goes on to say: When a person is known by more than one name, see additional instructions on choosing the preferred name at 9.2.2.6–9.2.2.8. Which takes me to the instructions on Individuals with More Than One Identity in 9.2.2.8. And there is no caveat there to apply them only in cases where the cataloger has decided that the individual is not commonly known only by his real identity. One of the things impressed on me in RDA training was that the distinction between contemporary authors and others was no longer made when deciding the fate of authors who used pseudonyms. Therefore, for non-contemporaries, the instruction to choose, as the basis for the heading, the name by which that person has come to be identified in later editions of his or her works, in critical works, or in other reference source no longer exists. 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 athiecoble...@nypl.org My opinions, not NYPL's
Re: [RDA-L] Pseudonyms under RDA
(KC) I am really asking about variant access points for the works. If there is an authorized access point for a work under an author's real identity, and we have decided that he/she is so well-known that none of his/her alternate identities need to be given life as NARs in their own right, do we still need or want variant access points for the works written under these identities, beginning with the appropriate variant name? For instance, a variant access point for Bronte, Charlotte, 1816-1855. Jane Eyre that reads: Bell, Currer, 1816-1855. Jane Eyre? I suspect the answer is No, but I hoped to tap the collective wisdom on this. 6.27.4.1. The instructions for variant forms for works/expressions are restricted to variant forms for works/expressions. If the AAP for the work is a combination of the AAP of the creator followed by the preferred title, variant titles using the creator/title combination use the AAP, not the variant form, of the creator name. So, to account for variant forms of the creator name, the cataloger would consult, in the Charlotte Bronte/Currer Bell situation, 9.19. In practice, it seems to me that this implies that you record the variant forms of Charlotte Bronte's name in the authority record for Charlotte Bronte, and in the authority record for Jane Eyre, you limit your variations to title variations. (KC) In the case of the example I gave, Voltaire's Le diner du comte de Boulainvilliers, by Mr. St. Hiacinte, the pseudonym is actually the name of a real person, namely the long-dead Themiseul de Saint-Hyacinthe, and Voltaire insisted in his correspondence that the work was by this real person and not by himself. I am inclined to treat this as a fictitious attribution rather than an alternate identity. -It seems to me I would only have a conflict or source of confusion if the form of name on the resource by Voltaire was Themiseul de Saint-Hyacinthe, or if the real Saint-Hyacinthe had published a resource under the name Mr. St. Hiacinte. That Voltaire is fictionally attributing authorship of Le diner to Saint-Hyacinthe could be explained in a note (678?) in Voltaire's record. (KC) Unfortunately, there is no clearly worded equivalent in RDA to AACR 2's 21.4C1: If responsibility for a work is known to be erroneously or fictitiously attributed to a person, enter under the actual personal author or under title if the actual personal author is not known. Make an added entry under the heading for the person to whom the authorship is attributed, unless he or she is not a real person. --I would enter under Voltaire since Le diner is now commonly associated with the Voltaire pseudonym. RDA doesn't say I can't make an added entry for the real person, though a good relationship designator would be something to ponder. $e hoax victim or $e prankee? (KC) RDA does provide for the case where authorship is attributed to a fictitious person or other being; such an entity is now capable of being considered a creator in its own right. However, as far as I can discover, it is nowhere clearly stated that a real person to whom authorship is fictitiously attributed in a statement of responsibility should not be considered the creator of the work in question. Still, I would like to make a leap of faith and assume that this is the case. That is, to revert to the clear language of AACR 2, we continue to enter under the actual personal author (if known). --So someone writes a fictional memoir and attributes it to a real Washington insider: Obama : the secret history / by Eric Cantor. Investigative reporting succeeds in dis-attributing the real person as the author, and identifying Eric Cantor as a fictional identity, but we don't know who the actual creator is. Initially, the fiction may have been mistaken for non-fiction and entered under the name of the real Eric Cantor. However, once the cat is out of the bag, we can qualify Eric Cantor and establish: Cantor, Eric (Fictional character), thus breaking the conflict of AAPs and differentiating real from fictional entity with one new NAR. For the situation where the real Eric Cantor was never established so technically there is no conflict, I believe the British Library has a remedy in the JSC queue. If further investigative reporting determines that the real author was Senator Ted Cruz, then the fictional Eric Cantor is, in effect a pseudonym of Cruz, so there would be no need to change the established AAP of the fictional Cantor. (KC) In the case of Le diner du comte de Boulainvilliers, I would like to delete the variant form St. Hiacinte, Mr. from the NAR for Voltaire, and add it as a variant form to the NAR for Saint-Hyacinthe. I would then create an NAR for the work with the authorized access point Voltaire, 1694-1778. Diner du comte de Boulainvilliers, and add as a variant form Saint-Hyacinthe, Themiseul de, 1684-1746. Diner du comte de Boulainvilliers.
Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)
When training, I like to use the LC cataloging for ISBN 9781401310646 (LCCN 2011015148). The record was cataloged following AACR2, but it’s easy to see how a fictitious character AAP would be used in RDA. This is clearly not a pseudonym situation. 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.edumailto:steven.arak...@yale.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jack Wu Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 9:12 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character) I must thank Mac and others for taking time to explain to me RDA's decision to treat ALL fictitious characters equally, Nevertheless, I also have much less difficulty accepting the change from Clemens to Twain than accepting the authorship of Pooh, $c the Bear; or Snoopy, $c the Dog; or Kermit, $c the Frog. While one may just dress less formally, to have a bear, a dog, or a frog utter anything but growls, and groans, is hard to grasp. Perhaps the relationship designator of $e author should here be changed to $e Dubious author, or perhaps $e attributed name, or $e Pretended author. Perhaps $c (fictional non-person), $c (fictional animal) can be added to $c (fictional character). It is less likely the patron will fail to associate Milnes with Pooh, or Schultz with Snoopy, or know that Kermit is just a puppet from previous encounters with similar books, than to accept, or assume that Pooh, Snoopy, and Kermit actually wrote anything . Such pretense will not make catalogers, cataloging, or the cataloging code more intelligent or more intelligible than they are not. Jack Jack Wu Franciscan University of Steubenville j...@franciscan.edumailto:j...@franciscan.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Pseudonyms under RDA
The question came up, as I recall, at one of the Bibco training sessions, with Voltaire as the example. If I recall correctly, the trainer referred to RDA 9.2.2.3: When choosing the preferred name for the person, generally choose the name by which the person is commonly known. The name chosen can be the person’s real name, pseudonym, title of nobility, nickname, initials, or other appellation. At this point in time, the author is no longer known by his various pseudonyms; he is commonly known as Voltaire. 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 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kathie Coblentz Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 5:10 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Pseudonyms under RDA Has anyone working with RDA ever taken a look at the NAR for Voltaire? It contains no fewer than 58 variant access points (the MARC fields formerly known as see references). Of these, by my quick count, at least 31 are pseudonyms, and I know that list is not complete; the printed catalog of the Bibliothèque nationale has an extensive list, which covers ten columns. Under RDA (9.2.2.8), each and every one of these alternate identities ought to have an NAR of its own, and each and every work of Voltaire's that was published under a pseudonym needs to be at least considered a candidate to receive one of them as the front end of its authorized access point. This would include Candide, which in its early editions was said to be traduit de l'allemand de Mr. le docteur Ralph. Fortunately, RDA 6.27.1.7 provides an out in the case of an author this well-known. Though many of the obscurer works Voltaire wrote under pseudonyms were never reprinted separately after his lifetime, all are included in most of the many collected editions of his works, and thus they may be assumed to be covered by the instruction to use the authorized access point representing the identity most frequently used on resources embodying the work. I certainly hope I am correct. I do not see the utility of admonishing users of the catalog who search for Voltaire that for works of this author written under other names they must search also under ... followed by a list of several dozen obscure pseudonyms. But even so, I wonder if I would still be obliged to at least create NARs for these alternate identities as I encounter them? The LC-PCC PS for 9.2.2.8 says, If an authorized access point is needed for a bibliographic identity recorded as a variant name in a 400 field in an existing name authority record, create a separate RDA name authority record for that identity. Modify the existing authority record to convert the 400 field to a 500 field. For Voltaire's works written under pseudonyms, I believe I should be setting up authorized access points for each work in question under the real identity plus the preferred title, with a variant access points for the alternate identity plus the preferred title, but does the alternate identity then need to appear in a NAR of its own? And what about a work by Voltaire that was published under the name of a real person? Le diner du comte de Boulainvilliers was published in late 1767 or early 1768 as par Mr. St. Hiacinte with the title page date 1728. The Mr. St. Hiacinte in question was supposed to be understood as Themiseul de Saint-Hyacinthe, whose dates are 1684-1746. The work quickly went through multiple editions, all the while Voltaire repeatedly insisted in correspondence that he wasn't the cook for this dinner, and couldn't understand why people would charge him with the authorship when Saint-Hyacinthe's name and a date from four decades ago were on the title page. The NAR for Voltaire includes a 400 for St. Hiacinte, Mr., 1694-1778. Should this alternate identity now be created for Voltaire, or should the AAP for the real Saint-Hyacinthe have the variant form of the name added (St. Hiacinte, Mr., 1684-1746)? Which should be used as the first element in a variant access point for the work Le diner du comte de Boulainvilliers? Or should both be used? Thanks for any insights anyone can provide. 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] alternative titles and variant access points
If all work/expression AAPs are entered as 700 a/t analytics, the title in 245 is exposed and the incidence of conflicts requiring 130 would increase substantially, no? And if pcc requires an AR for the 130, that would mean more authority work or, more likely, fewer bib records coded as pcc. Also, given the number of potential title conflicts in OCLC, it might be better practice to make the 130 with qualifier mandatory rather than to expend time and energy searching for conflicting titles. In current practice, the relationship designator is not used with a/t analytics. If 700 a/t is used exclusively, I could see some indexing and display problems in current MARC based systems, whether it is inserted between $a and $t or after $t. If, however, the thinking is that with a 700 a/t AAP the creator-work/expression relationship is clearly defined w/out the designator, that would mean one less thing to do, so that would be a plus. With a better mark-up system based on BibFrame, the MARC limitations could be overcome, but trying to do this in the MARC environment may be more trouble than it's worth. 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 -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, October 03, 2013 10:24 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points My comments below Bob's. --Adam Schiff UW Libraries Seattle, WA AS: Without the relationship designator, it is not clear whether the access point represents a work or an expression. I'm not sure how much that matters. We could make the second indicator value obsolete if we consistently used the designators. I regularly see it misused - it seems many catalogers don't fully understand what it means. For example I regularly see it in OCLC on video records for a film adapted from a novel where the cataloger has used second indicator value 2 with an access point for the novel. Possibly having to assign a relationship designator would alleviate some of these coding errors. Are there any arguments for continuing to use 1XX/240 instead of recording all authorized access points for works in 7XX (aside from we've always done it that way)? AS: Well one argument that could be made is that if you record all work access points in 7XX, then you have to also when the 1XX/245 uniquely represents a work, or when you have a work without a creator whose title proper for a manifestation is in 245 with no 1XX. This means that every record would need an additional access point, and there is the concomitant authority work that would potentially be needed in order to control those authorized access points. At the moment we're recording an authorized access point for a work using 1XX/240 if there's only one work or expression involved in the resource; if there's more than one, all are recorded in 7XX. Why do we have this exception for just one work/expression? AS: You have a very good point here I think, Bob.
Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
What I was thinking of was: 100 Smith, John 240 Poems. Selections 245 Nature / poems by John Smith and Joan Jones. 700 12 Jones, Joan. Poems. Selections. In catalog: 245 Nature : festschrift for Jacques Cousteau. If 100/240 is eliminated: 130 Nature (Vanity Press) 245 Nature / selected poems by John Smith and Joan Jones. 700 12 Smith, John. Poems. Selections. 700 12 Jones, Joan. Poems. Selections. If a one author compilation: 100 Smith, John. 240 Poems. Selections. 245 The sea / John Smith. 100 Jones, Joan. 240 Poems. Selections 245 The sea : selected poems / Joan Jones. 100 Jones, Joan. 240 Poems. Selections. French 245 La mer / Joan Jones. In catalog: 245 The sea : essays by 20th century authors. 245 La mer : essays on Debussy's tone poem. If 100/240 is eliminated, becomes: 130 Sea (Smith) 245 The sea / selected poems by John Smith. 700 12 Smith, John. Poems. Selections. 130 Sea (Jones) 245 The sea : poems of a sailor / Joan Jones. 700 12 Jones, Joan. Poems. Selections. 130 Mer (Jones) 245 La mer / Joan Jones. 700 12 Jones, Joan. Poems. Selections. French. 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 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 10:35 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points Steven Arakawa wrote: If all work/expression AAPs are entered as 700 a/t analytics, the title in 245 is exposed and the incidence of conflicts requiring 130 would increase substantially, no? There would be no increase resulting from such a change, because there would not be a change in the guidelines for constructing the AAP. Also, if we stopped using 240, it would also make sense to stop using 130. Just like 100/240 would be replaced by 700 a/t, the 130 would be replaced by 730. What I see as the point here is that we should finally divorce the title proper (a *manifestation* attribute) from the AAP (a *work/expression* attribute). When we're beyond MARC, I'm pretty sure that'll happen. (If it doesn't, we'll have done a poor job of replacing MARC...) But whether or not we should also move in that direction *with* MARC is something to think about. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
For the compilation with poems by Smith and Jones, you are providing access to the works of Smith and the works of Jones via 700 a/t, but the title of the compilation as a work in itself is conflicting with other compilation titles in 245 $a with the same title proper. I think you are a right with regard to single author compilations, but then that leaves 245 $a for the single author compilation still conflicting with multi-author compilations with the same title proper. So, it means we can't break the conflict because it would effectively create a second AAP for the same work/expression. We would then have one practice for single author compilations and a different practice for multiauthor compilations which would result in what appears to be an inconsistent display in the catalog. This is probably limited to the MARC environment. 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 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 12:10 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points But what *is* the 130 in your examples? The AAP for the work/expression is in the 700 field. In MARC, the meaning of the 130 is uniform title main entry heading (AACR2) or authorized access point for a work entered under title (RDA). What kind of construction is Nature (Vanity Press), and where in RDA do you find any kind of guidelines calling for it? Kevin -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Arakawa, Steven Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 11:01 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points What I was thinking of was: 100 Smith, John 240 Poems. Selections 245 Nature / poems by John Smith and Joan Jones. 700 12 Jones, Joan. Poems. Selections. In catalog: 245 Nature : festschrift for Jacques Cousteau. If 100/240 is eliminated: 130 Nature (Vanity Press) 245 Nature / selected poems by John Smith and Joan Jones. 700 12 Smith, John. Poems. Selections. 700 12 Jones, Joan. Poems. Selections. If a one author compilation: 100 Smith, John. 240 Poems. Selections. 245 The sea / John Smith. 100 Jones, Joan. 240 Poems. Selections 245 The sea : selected poems / Joan Jones. 100 Jones, Joan. 240 Poems. Selections. French 245 La mer / Joan Jones. In catalog: 245 The sea : essays by 20th century authors. 245 La mer : essays on Debussy's tone poem. If 100/240 is eliminated, becomes: 130 Sea (Smith) 245 The sea / selected poems by John Smith. 700 12 Smith, John. Poems. Selections. 130 Sea (Jones) 245 The sea : poems of a sailor / Joan Jones. 700 12 Jones, Joan. Poems. Selections. 130 Mer (Jones) 245 La mer / Joan Jones. 700 12 Jones, Joan. Poems. Selections. French. 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 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 10:35 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points Steven Arakawa wrote: If all work/expression AAPs are entered as 700 a/t analytics, the title in 245 is exposed and the incidence of conflicts requiring 130 would increase substantially, no? There would be no increase resulting from such a change, because there would not be a change in the guidelines for constructing the AAP. Also, if we stopped using 240, it would also make sense to stop using 130. Just like 100/240 would be replaced by 700 a/t, the 130 would be replaced by 730. What I see as the point here is that we should finally divorce the title proper (a *manifestation* attribute) from the AAP (a *work/expression* attribute). When we're beyond MARC, I'm pretty sure that'll happen. (If it doesn't, we'll have done a poor job of replacing MARC...) But whether or not we should also move in that direction *with* MARC is something to think about. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
Both work titles and conventional collective titles fall under the category of preferred titles. I understand that work titles can conflict and we would need to break the conflict in such cases, but conventional collective titles are assigned deliberately to collocate different works/expressions. I thought that was the rationale for dropping $f from conventional collective titles. My understanding is that a compilation is a collection of distinct works, and that the compilation is in itself a work. Unless the compilation has been published multiple times with different titles, its work title is for all practical purposes its manifestation title. Don't we currently treat a monograph published for the first time in the same way? (I believe it has been argued that all bibliographic records should include MARC 130 or 240 for the work title even if it is the same as the manifestation title, though it seems impractical at present.) So, that would imply that different works with the same manifestation title proper can have conflicting work titles (here I mean work titles, not conventional collective titles) and in that case the work title is made explicit in 130 with a qualifier to break the conflict. If you have 2 compilations of essays about John Rawls, and both have the title proper John Rawls, under RDA one of the records will need a 130 John Rawls (qualifier). Isn't something similar done with serials? With regard to 6.2.2.10, I don't agree with this interpretation. The plural resources would exclude compilations published for the first time. The intent clearly is meant to apply to works that were popular or significant enough to be published or cited multiple times. It then follows that, for a first time publication, you either follow 6.2.2.10.1 for complete works or 6.2.2.10.3 for selected works. For the latter, you either follow the default rule to record each of the titles in the compilation or the alternative in the PS to assign a conventional collective title and (piling it on!) optionally recording the individual titles as well. Since the alternative is identified as LC practice, technically other PCC libraries have the option to follow the default rule and not make a conventional collective title for selections, but it would seem to me that this would create an unfortunate inconsistency in our catalogs and possibly in the Name Authority File used by PCC and most other libraries. The made up examples were created under the assumption that the Alternative was being applied. 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 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 2:17 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points If the creator's name is part of the AAP, there is no conflict, unless the combination of name and preferred title are the same[footnote]. The title proper of one work being the same as the title proper of a different work is not in itself a conflict. Conflicts only apply to *authorized access points*. If no creator's name is part of the AAP, *then* there would be a conflict between Nature and other resources that have the preferred title Nature and no creator's name as part of the AAP. If we're saying that we'll put the AAP into 700 a/t instead of 100/24X, then you need to view the 245 as being *only the title proper*. It can be the same as thousands of other things, but that doesn't matter because it's only the title proper of the manifestation. The job of identifying the work/expression falls to the AAP (as RDA is currently being applied in our environment). --Kevin [footnote] There is a problem in the examples you give: you do not have unique AAPs for the works by John Smith. They all have the same AAP: Nature is called: Smith, John. Poems. Selections The Sea is called: Smith, John. Poems. Selections This is contrary to RDA, which requires that there be something to distinguish them. Interestingly, these examples actually lead me to that other discussion that's been going on, about RDA 6.2.2.10. What titles are these works *known* by? I very strongly argue that the preferred titles for these works should be Nature and The sea, since that is what everyone knows them by (the creator, the publisher, bookstores, library selectors, researchers, etc.). It makes considerably more sense to have the following AAPs: Smith, John. Nature Smith, John. Sea -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Arakawa
Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points
Adam, that makes sense, but we still end up with an additional AAP (and an authority record?) in whichever tag, don't we? 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 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam Schiff Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 3:43 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points Steven, If all work/expression AAPs are entered in 7XX, then there would not be a 130 either. Those would become 730s. I think Kevin is correct that each record would start with 245, with no 1XXs at all. So for you compilation of selections of two poets' works, if the compilation title wasn't unique, in addition to the two 700s for the two poets' selected works, you would have a 730 for the compilation as a work (if that is judged necessary at all). The choice of qualifier is up to the cataloger. You suggested the name of the publisher, as in Sea (Vanity Press). But it could just have easily been something like Sea (Poetry anthology : 2005) or many other formulations. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries -Original Message- From: Arakawa, Steven Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 6:18 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points If all work/expression AAPs are entered as 700 a/t analytics, the title in 245 is exposed and the incidence of conflicts requiring 130 would increase substantially, no? And if pcc requires an AR for the 130, that would mean more authority work or, more likely, fewer bib records coded as pcc. Also, given the number of potential title conflicts in OCLC, it might be better practice to make the 130 with qualifier mandatory rather than to expend time and energy searching for conflicting titles. In current practice, the relationship designator is not used with a/t analytics. If 700 a/t is used exclusively, I could see some indexing and display problems in current MARC based systems, whether it is inserted between $a and $t or after $t. If, however, the thinking is that with a 700 a/t AAP the creator-work/expression relationship is clearly defined w/out the designator, that would mean one less thing to do, so that would be a plus. With a better mark-up system based on BibFrame, the MARC limitations could be overcome, but trying to do this in the MARC environment may be more trouble than it's worth. 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 -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, October 03, 2013 10:24 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points My comments below Bob's. --Adam Schiff UW Libraries Seattle, WA AS: Without the relationship designator, it is not clear whether the access point represents a work or an expression. I'm not sure how much that matters. We could make the second indicator value obsolete if we consistently used the designators. I regularly see it misused - it seems many catalogers don't fully understand what it means. For example I regularly see it in OCLC on video records for a film adapted from a novel where the cataloger has used second indicator value 2 with an access point for the novel. Possibly having to assign a relationship designator would alleviate some of these coding errors. Are there any arguments for continuing to use 1XX/240 instead of recording all authorized access points for works in 7XX (aside from we've always done it that way)? AS: Well one argument that could be made is that if you record all work access points in 7XX, then you have to also when the 1XX/245 uniquely represents a work, or when you have a work without a creator whose title proper for a manifestation is in 245 with no 1XX. This means that every record would need an additional access point, and there is the concomitant authority work that would potentially be needed in order to control those authorized access points. At the moment we're recording an authorized access point for a work using 1XX/240 if there's only one work or expression involved in the resource; if there's more than one, all are recorded in 7XX. Why do we have this exception for just one work/expression? AS: You have a very good point here I think, Bob.
Re: [RDA-L] Punctuation at end of 250 field
Adam, that has always been my understanding. If I recall correctly, in the very early introductions to RDA done by Judy Kuhagen, the double punctuation was pointed out; I believe the PS was updated later to avoid the absurdity. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, 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 [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Adam L. Schiff [asch...@u.washington.edu] Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 7:55 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Punctuation at end of 250 field Hi all, I've got a question regarding ending punctuation in the 250 field. RDA D.1.2.1 indicates that in ISBD display, an full stop would be added after an edition statement, even if the statement ends in an abbreviation: 3rd ed.. -- not 3rd ed. -- LC-PCC Policy Statement for 1.7.1 says: If either field 245 or 250 does not end in a period, add one. Am I correct in my thinking that the implication of this policy statement is that if an edition statement ends in an abbreviation, a second period would NOT be added? In other words, which of the following is expected in a PCC record?: 250 ## $a 3rd ed.. or 250 ## $a 3rd ed. [Note: the examples are predicated on the abbreviation being found and transcribed as is from the resource]. Thanks, Adam ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~
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.edumailto: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.edumailto:rpanc...@kent.edu [Description: Description: cid:340CA688-84F9-46CF-97E9-1D715D86ACB5] inline: image001.png
Re: [RDA-L] Illustration terms in 7.15.1.3
I can't offer much help in situations 1.-3., but I do catalog a lot of brochures for one of our special collections devoted to color-- sales catalogs for paint and fabrics, where the paint chip and fabric samples need to be distinguished from the period illustrations that are also featured (at least from the perspective of that particular collection). A subject search on Paint--Catalogs in an OCLC browse search retrieves 2000 plus records. A number of these catalogs probably include samples. 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 -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: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 2:47 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Illustration terms in 7.15.1.3 I find it really difficult to understand what is meant by some of the terms for the various kinds of illustrations in 7.15 (in German cataloging, we only distinguish four kinds of illustrations). The German RDA translation isn't much help either. So, could anybody help with my questions? 1. charts vs. graphs: I believe both are some kind of diagrams. Wikipedia distinguishes graph-based diagrams and chart-like diagrams - is that what is meant by the distinction? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagram If so, is it really necesssary to distinguish this (wouldn't diagrams be good enough to cover both types)? 2. forms: Does that really refer to forms as in fill in this form, please? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_(document) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_%28document%29 If so, I'm not sure I would have counted this as an illustration at all. I think it's not much different from tables containing only words and/or numbers, which we're told to ignore. 3. illuminations: I assume that this refers to manuscripts (or facsimiles of manuscripts), so I would use it for miniatures, decorated initials a.s.o. Is that the correct interpretation? 4. samples: Here, I must say, I'm totally at a loss. If it's used in the ordinary meaning, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_(material) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_%28material%29 I find it very difficult to think of an example in the field of illustrations . Many thanks for your help! Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Correct use of relationship designators for corporate bodies
Kevin, thanks for the thoughtful response. Irrespective of the term main entry the necessities of AAP for citations, and of one's preferences in the future organization of RDA, in Appendix I in the current version, RDA itself is saying that architect represents a corporate body/work relationship while 19.2.1 does not consider this to be a valid corporate body/work relationship, or am I misunderstanding? If we are pretending that certain relationships have creator status for the sake of the AAP, then why add RDs for author or creator to bring out pretend relationships in MARC 110/240/245? Cui bono? In the current MARC environment, we would not add an RD to a 610 a/t, a 710 12 analytic, or a 7xx linking field to bring out the pretend relationship in any case, and these seem to me to be the situation where the AAP citation concept is needed, so why insist on adding an RD to 110 if the creator relationship is really a convenient fiction to justify an AAP in 610 or 7xx? If 19.2.1. is really a compromise with the legacy main entry / MARC environment, wouldn't adding a pretend RD in MARC records created today cause problems in a future non-MARC bib framework reorganization or even a revised RDA chapter 6? Shouldn't we be thinking First do no harm when cataloging surgeons operate on the corporate body (sorry!)? 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 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 6:17 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Correct use of relationship designators for corporate bodies I think it would be better to get all thought of main entry out of mind when working with the RDs I.2.1. There are two entirely separate determinations going on: the relationships between people/families/corporate bodies and works (chapter 19), and authorized access points for works (chapter 6). The creation of an AAP requires determining those relationships in chapter 19, and most of the names that appear in an AAP for a work are those of creators. But not ALL of the names in AAPs are creators (most notably defendants), and BY FAR not all of the names of creators become part the AAP for a work. We have become too used equating main entry and creator status, and they are not at all equivalent concepts. Even in some PCC training, there have been statements about MARC 100-111 standing for creator, which I bristle at. I have long objected to the placement of many of the guidelines in 19.2.1.1. What seems to be going on there is pretending that certain relationships have a creator status, in order that we can then put those particular names into the AAP for the work. We don't say that a defendant is a creator in order to make that person part of the AAP; instead, we explain in 6.29.1.4 that we use the name of the person or body prosecuted in the AAP. For laws governing a jurisdiction, we're told in 6.29.1.2 to use the name of the jurisdiction in the AAP; this makes some of the pretending in 19.2.1.1 unnecessary. It would just seem to make much more sense to have most of the considered to be creators guidelines be a part of chapter 6, where we make the determination of which names of persons/families/bodies need to be part of the AAP. Of course, it's all stated more *simply* the way it is now. On the one hand, it might require some more significant reorganization to put the guidelines in the more logical place; but on the other hand, it might help lessen some of the confusion between main entry and creator that we have. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Arakawa, Steven Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 4:28 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Correct use of relationship designators for corporate bodies A question on relationship designators and corporate bodies that perhaps someone with more expertise can explain. Appendix I, I.2. is divided into 2 sections. I.2.1. Relationship designators for creators and I.2.2. Relationship designators for other persons, families or corporate bodies associated with a work. My understanding has been that the RDs in I.2.1. are used for the creator with the primary relationship to the work, what we used to call main entry. In I.2.1., the definitions usually begin with the phrase A person, body, or family responsible for ... Corporate bodies are identified
Re: [RDA-L] Names of conferences as title proper, other title information or statement of responsiblity
Based on the layout in the scan, I would have transcribed the 100. Deutscher Bibliothekartag as the title proper, Bibliotheken fur die Zukunft as the other title, and Herausgaben von Ulrich Hohoff etc as the statement of responsibility. I would have provided variant access for the other title. I think the user in the U.S. who has seen the title page but who isn't relying on keyword is going to search 100. Deutscher ... and Bibliotheken fur die ... as left anchor titles. Since the conference is going to be the main entry, it should be retrievable on a name search if it occurs to anyone that it's a name. I don't see how this changes significantly in RDA. If the title page was in the form Future of libraries proceedings of the 100. German Library Conference there would be a better case for entering proceedings of ... etc in MARC 245 $c. But in my judgment the search is more likely to be on title keyword, so I would have entered proceedings of the ... in MARC 245 $b. Or, if the name of the conference was searched just as keyword, with a large number of hits, I think the user would be more likely to select the title facet rather than the author facet to refine the search, another reason to enter the name of the conference in a field indexed as title. In RDA one can add a relationship designator author or creator to a conference AAP, but that doesn't mean the non-cataloger will search as if the conference was an author on the first couple of tries. 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 -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: Monday, August 05, 2013 1:33 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Names of conferences as title proper, other title information or statement of responsiblity Gene, Without seeing the actual item, I would place it in the area of resp. Sorry, that was too much shorthand for a non-native speaker: Does resp here mean the same as depends? If so, on what - the layout? If you want to have a closer look, here's a scan of the title page: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2aFdx26Qi9sMDhIb1lZMFE2SlU/edit It's a typical case of conference proceedings, a collection of papers given at the so-called Bibliothekartag (the German equivalent to the ALA conference, with about 4.000 participants). My reading is that such proceedings originate with the conference, and therefore that the conference is seen as the creator. I apologize for being so insistent. But it's an example from my teaching collection, and I would very much like to get a sound RDA solution for it (or perhaps several acceptable solutions, if that's how it is). Thanks again, Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Correct use of relationship designators for corporate bodies
A question on relationship designators and corporate bodies that perhaps
someone with more expertise can explain.
Appendix I, I.2. is divided into 2 sections. I.2.1. Relationship designators
for creators and I.2.2. Relationship designators for other persons, families or
corporate bodies associated with a work. My understanding has been that the RDs
in I.2.1. are used for the creator with the primary relationship to the work,
what we used to call main entry. In I.2.1., the definitions usually begin with
the phrase A person, body, or family responsible for ... Corporate bodies
are identified as the primary creator under a limited set of circumstances
listed in 19.2.1., not all that different from the AACR2 rules for choice of
entry. But not all of the RDs listed in I.2.1. fit into the 19.2.1. criteria.
For example, 19.2.1 does not have a category for designers, yet corporate
bodies are included in the definitions for architect and designer. I understand
that we can have artists as corporate bodies and creators (19.2.1.1.1.,
category h, e.g. Gilbert and George) but I don't see the extension to
architectural firms, choreographers, designers, photographers, or composers. In
ordinary discourse, architectural firms are often credited with the design of
buildings; it's just that the scope of the rules in 19.2.1. does not allow for
such a relationship at the creator level. A photography archive can be
responsible for a collection of photographs, but the relationship is
administrative (19.2.1.1.1. category a), not the relationship of photographer
to work. Can someone explain this?
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
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Bernadette Mary O'Reilly
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 2:54 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Correct use of relationship designators for corporate
bodies
What about liturgical works? The main entry (i.e., the name in a name-title
AAP) is the associated church or denomination, but this is nevertheless
categorised as 'other corporate body associated with the work', in which case
'issuing body' is correct.
'issuing body' could also be used as a second relator in 1XX if the entity had
multiple roles; and if no creator-relator could be assigned because RDA offered
no suitable relator for the entity's creator role (and arguably in the case of
conferences it does not), it might by default end up as the only relator.
Best wishes,
Bernadette
***
Bernadette O'Reilly
Catalogue Support Librarian
01865 2-77134
Bodleian Libraries,
Osney One Building
Osney Mead
Oxford OX2 0EW.
***
-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: 02 August 2013 19:42
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Correct use of relationship designators for corportate
bodies
Using issuing body in a 1XX field would not be a correct use of RDA, since
issuing bodies are not defined as creators. The only designator that I see in
I.2.2 that can for sure be used with a 1XX access point is defendant, since
RDA allows you to name legal works with a defendant's name.
On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 11:15:26 -0700
From: J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca
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] Correct use of relationship designators for
corportate
bodies
Cathy Crum asked:
I have questions about the correct use of the relationship
designators, is= suing body and author, especially for corporate
bodies.
We would limit the use of author with a corporate body, to resources
entered under the corporate body, i.e., administrative resources about
the body such as annual reports.
We plan to use issuing body for conference names, in the absence of
anything better.
We assume commercial publishers would not be issuing bodies, but
rather private and government agencies. Often the publisher differs
from the issuing body, e.g., a government publications office may be
the publisher, while an agency is the issuing body.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
^^
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
Re: [RDA-L] Content notes
I believe there are guidelines in LC PCC PS 25.1.1.3? 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 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Don Charuk Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 11:36 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Content notes We are trying to find the specific rule that provides instruction on how to record chapter headings as part of a 505 note. (Cataloguers want/demand specific rule numbers) We are certain it does not fall under Chapters 25, 26 and 27. We are to presume it comes under rule 7.10. but, this rule seems to address notes code in the 520 tag. Thank you Don Charuk Cataloguer Toronto Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Recording (large print)
I do think the mapping is misleading. The point of RDA is to avoid scrambling of different elements for the sake of convenience. This was the rationale behind 264 and its various indicators, wasn't it? Why is it considered necessary to mix up font size with item subunits? Couldn't font size be reassigned to 300 $b instead? Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metada Services Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edumailto:steven.arak...@yale.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joan Wang Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 5:03 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording (large print) I check the mapping of RDA instruction rules with MARC fields in RDA Toolkit. 3.13 Font size is mapped to $a of 300 fields, $n of 340 fields, and 500 fields. So I assume that we can record Large print in either of the three fields depending on cases and needs. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.edumailto:asch...@u.washington.edu wrote: I believe in the best of worlds, large print would now only be recorded in an RDA record in 340 $n. That said, in the RDA Appendix with MARC mappings, font size is mapped to both 300 $a and 340 $n. ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409tel:%28206%29%20543-8409 (206) 685-8782tel:%28206%29%20685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edumailto:asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Wed, 10 Jul 2013, Arakawa, Steven wrote: In the original question, it isn't clear where (Large print) would be entered in MARC 300. In AACR2 MARC records, it is entered in 300 $a per 2.5B23, but there isn't a corresponding instruction in RDA. In RDA extent (300 $a) is limited to the number of units and subunits (3.4.1.1). Since Large print is not a subunit but a font size, how would including it as part of the extent (300 $a) be justified in RDA? Although the RDA Toolkit has a link from AACR2 2.5B23 to RDA 3.13.1.3, the instruction does not specify where to enter the Large Print information. Some MARC alternatives might be MARC 500 and/or 340. Maybe also 300 $b? Is there a similar impact on AACR2 2.5B22? Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metada Services Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203) 432-8286tel:%28203%29%20432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edumailto:steven.arak...@yale.edumailto:steven.arak...@yale.edumailto:steven.arak...@yale.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of M. E. Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2013 4:35 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording (large print) J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.camailto:m...@slc.bc.camailto:m...@slc.bc.camailto:m...@slc.bc.ca wrote: What is core for RDA, and what is core for patron needs, are two *very* different things! AACR2 had a qualified GMD: text (large print) which worked very well. This is but one example of AACR2's superiority over RDA in terms of meeting patron needs, as opposed to conforming to theory. To be fair, AACR2's GMDs are marked as optional and don't appear at all under 1.0D's first level of description (which is on par with RDA's core cataloging--RDA for the most part follows in AACR2's footsteps). If it's a matter of why 30-some years of GMDs and AACR2 practice never resulted in more elements being added to the must have pile irrespective of levels of description, I can't say. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex http://www.minitex.umn.edu/ -- 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] Recording (large print)
In the original question, it isn't clear where (Large print) would be entered in MARC 300. In AACR2 MARC records, it is entered in 300 $a per 2.5B23, but there isn't a corresponding instruction in RDA. In RDA extent (300 $a) is limited to the number of units and subunits (3.4.1.1). Since Large print is not a subunit but a font size, how would including it as part of the extent (300 $a) be justified in RDA? Although the RDA Toolkit has a link from AACR2 2.5B23 to RDA 3.13.1.3, the instruction does not specify where to enter the Large Print information. Some MARC alternatives might be MARC 500 and/or 340. Maybe also 300 $b? Is there a similar impact on AACR2 2.5B22? Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metada Services Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edumailto:steven.arak...@yale.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of M. E. Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2013 4:35 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording (large print) J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.camailto:m...@slc.bc.ca wrote: What is core for RDA, and what is core for patron needs, are two *very* different things! AACR2 had a qualified GMD: text (large print) which worked very well. This is but one example of AACR2's superiority over RDA in terms of meeting patron needs, as opposed to conforming to theory. To be fair, AACR2's GMDs are marked as optional and don't appear at all under 1.0D's first level of description (which is on par with RDA's core cataloging--RDA for the most part follows in AACR2's footsteps). If it's a matter of why 30-some years of GMDs and AACR2 practice never resulted in more elements being added to the must have pile irrespective of levels of description, I can't say. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
Re: [RDA-L] SOR from copyright statement
RDA 2.4.2.2. lists the same source as the title proper only as first in order of preference. Second in order of preference is another source within the resource. I believe it is the other title that must come from the same source as the title proper, but the SoR is not covered by the other title instruction. Since an SoR taken from the verso t.p. is within the resource, it isn't bracketed. 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 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Don Charuk Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 1:22 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] SOR from copyright statement This raises another question. If the author is provided on the title page and the illustrator is provide on the title page verso can they both be transcribe in the statement of the responsibility? Does not the rule 2.4.2.2 state the SOR should come from the same source as the title proper. If so interpreted, would/could you not make a note for the illustrator according to rule 2.20.3?
Re: [RDA-L] Interviews expressions
How about a translation of the interview? 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.edumailto:steven.arak...@yale.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Bernadette Mary O'Reilly Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:14 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Interviews expressions Hello, Can anyone elucidate where it would be correct to use the relators 'interviewer (expression) and 'interviewee (expression)? My original take was that the decision would depend on whether the interviewer or the interviewee was providing the real content. If the interviewer was just prompting the interviewee to talk, the interviewer would be 'interviewer (expression)' while the interviewee would be 'interviewee'; but if the interviewer was bringing all the ideas and controlling the direction of the conversation while the interviewee was just giving brief answers, the interviewer would be 'interviewer' while the interviewee would be 'interviewee (expression)'. But my impression from the RDA examples is that interviewer and interviewee are both regarded as creators if the interview is the primary content of the resource. So would 'interviewer (expression)' and 'interviewee (expression)' be used only if the interview itself were expression-level, e.g. if it served as a kind of commentary on or supplement to the primary content? Best wishes, Bernadette *** Bernadette O'Reilly Catalogue Support Librarian 01865 2-77134 Bodleian Libraries, Osney One Building Osney Mead Oxford OX2 0EW. ***
Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization of approximately in 300
Curiously, in AACR2 2.5B7, the initial term in the extent examples is ca. which is now approximately in RDA, but it's ca. not Ca. Was AACR2 being inconsistent with ISBD in the examples? 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 -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: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 3:25 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization of approximately in 300 Amanda, All of the examples have approximately in lower case: approximately 60 slides approximately 600 pages Granted that RDA doesn't give things in MARC format, but as the first element shouldn't the approximately be capitalized? 300 Approximately 60 slides : $b etc. I believe nobody has answered your question yet, so I'll give it a try. I think the examples with approximately in lower case are correct according to RDA. If you look at appendix A, you'll find that there are only very few elements where the first word is to be capitalized, e.g. titles of manifestations (A.4), designation of edition (A.5) and notes (A.8). As the extent element is not among them, you simply use the ordinary spelling of the words as if they would appear in a running text. I guess this is another point where RDA differs from the ISBD. There, we have a general rule that each area starts with a capitalized word (ISBD consolidated, A.7: In general, in those scripts where capitalization is relevant, the first letter of the first word of each area should be a capital). Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] 2.4.3.3 Parallel statements of responsibility
Taking both rules into account, I think what it's saying is to identify the statement of responsibility for the title proper when there are statements of resp. in multiple languages by choosing the statement of responsibility in the same language as the title proper. The remaining statements of responsibility in the other languages then become the parallel statements of responsibility. But remember that only the one statement of responsibility identified in 2.4.2.4. is core; the parallel statements of responsibility are optional. Whew! 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.edumailto:steven.arak...@yale.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 4:12 PM To: rd...@listserv.lac-BAC.G Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 2.4.3.3 Parallel statements of responsibility As I just said: It's really not well presented. But now I see that it's even worse than I thought. I still believe that 2.4.2.4 is all about deciding which statement(s) is/are the normal ones, when you're confronted with statements in different languages. Once you've managed that, you can go on to 2.4.3 to handle the others. But 2.4.2.4 makes it sound as if _all_ the statements are statements of responsibility relating to title proper, so one wonders why they can't be all recorded in the statement of responsibiity relating to title proper element. But according to 2.4.3.1 we find that only one of them can be recorded in this element, whereas the others have to be recorded as parallel statement of responsibility relating to title proper. I've just read 2.4.3.1 again, veeerrry slowly: A parallel statement of responsibility relating to title proper is a statement of responsibility relating to title proper (see 2.4.2.1) in a language and/or script that differs from that recorded in the statement of responsibility relating to title proper element. So now: Is such a thing a statement of responsibility relating to title proper??? Well, it seems that it is and it isn't. Curiouser and curiouser... Heidrun Ben wrote: Hm, now I'm getting confused. 2.4.2.4 applies to a statement of responsibility relating to title proper [that] appears on the source of information in more than one language. But the scope statement to 2.4.3 defines parallel statement of responsibility as a statement of responsibility relating to title proper (see 2.4.2.1) in a language and/or script that differs from that recorded in the statement of responsibility relating to title proper element. Is it just me, or do they seem to be talking about the same thing? Or is 2.4.3ff limited to cases where you already have parallel titles AND parallel s-o-r's? (On a closer look, it's not--2.4.3.2 says, If there is no corresponding parallel title proper, take parallel statements of responsibility relating to title proper from the same source as the title proper so clearly it also applies to situations where there is no parallel title proper, only parallel statements of responsibility.) So, what's going on here?? --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Arakawa, Steven Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 3:36 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.camailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 2.4.3.3 Parallel statements of responsibility If you have a single title proper and statements of responsibility in multiple languages, I think 2.4.2.4. applies: If a statement of responsibility relating to title proper appears on the source of information in more than one language or script, record the statement in the language or script of the title proper. If this criterion does not apply, record the statement that appears first. The examples are helpful. 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.edumailto:steven.arak...@yale.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 3:06 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 2.4.3.3 Parallel statements of responsibility No parallel title, just the s-o-r's. And certainly the mit should not be capitalized (and isn't on the piece) that was my mistake. I don't know if there's a character limit in OCLC or not. But there is a character limit to my brain, so I'm going to use the optional
Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date
Per LC PCC PS 2.8.6.6 adding the copyright 264 _4 field is optional as long as 264 _1 doesn't have [date of publication not identified]. LC training's best practice is to supply an inferred date instead of [date of publication not identified] since when the not identified filler is used, RDA requires the additional transcription of a distributor or manufacturer 264 if either has an explicit date, or, lacking distribution or manufacturer dates, as a last resort, the copyright date. Optionally you could create additional 264s for distributor, manufacturer, and copyright date even if you have an inferred date of publication, but I do not recommend the option to my trainees. It seems to me the whole point of providing bracketed inferred data in 264 _1 is so you don't have to create additional 264s. I'm aware that the copyright date might be considered important by rare book/special collections cataloging, but I don't think the rare book perspective should drive general cataloging practices. 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 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Deborah Fritz Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 10:33 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date However, there is an LC PCC PS for 2.8.6.6 that says 2. If the copyright date is for the year following the year in which the publication is received, supply a date of publication that corresponds to the copyright date. And this is a carryover from an LCRI that said, basically, the same thing. So, I would recommend: 264 #1 $c [2014] 264 #4 $c (c)2014 Adding the Copyright Date in this case, would help to explain the choice of the supplied Date of Publication Deborah - - - - - - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. debo...@marcofquality.com www.marcofquality.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jenny Wright Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 9:52 AM My understanding is that if the best information you have for a publication date is the copyright date, then the appropriate 264s would be: 264 #1 $c [2014] 264 #4 $c (c)2014 But if you are supplying the publication date and believe 2013 would be more accurate, then 264 #1 $c [2013] 264 #4 $c (c)2014 would be perfectly correct, too. Regards -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Goldfarb, Kathie Sent: 28 March 2013 13:48 The book I have in hand lists a copyright date of 2014. Should the 264 be: 264 1 ...$c [2013] 264 4 4a @2014 Or 264 1 $c [2014] No 264 4 I am leaning toward the second, since many libraries may receive this book in 2014, and the first option might be confusing, since they would not know for a fact that some were distributed in 2013.
Re: [RDA-L] Matter of possible concern
There is no equivalent to LCRI 25.8/25.9 (adding a date to Works/Selections) in RDA or the LC PCC PS as far as I know, so maybe you don’t have a problem? 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.edumailto:steven.arak...@yale.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adger Williams Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 11:19 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Matter of possible concern I notice with the flood of Phase 2 authority records that there are a number of preferred access points (used to be uniform titles) of the form Works. Selections. English. date, where the date does not conform to the date in my catalog for the particular item (embodying a work). I have been wondering how to handle these. 1. 240 Works Selections English 1993 245 Antonio Gramsci : pre-prison writings 260 |c1994 where the 240 matches the authority record or 2. 240 Works. Selections. English. 1994 245 Antonio Gramsci : pre-prison writings 260 |c1994 where I have to create a new authority record (yuck) or edit the one sent from LC/NACO (yucker) or just leave the mismatch as it is (yuckest) I have seen enough dates in authority records that came from CIP or eCIP and are not accurate when compared to the piece in hand to have very little doubt where the root of the problem is. The long term solution is to change over to unchanging numeric identifiers with varying forms of display (as we all know), but before we reach Nirvana, what do we do? Any thoughts? -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edumailto:awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4
Joan, I think you're assuming that an authority record will be created for every new name cataloged under RDA. In practice, I doubt this will happen.. Does AACR2 state explicitly that affiliations are to be left out of the statement of responsibility? I don't see anything in 1.1F7 that seems to apply. We are told to omit, except under certain circumstances: titles and abbreviations of titles of nobility, address, honour, and distinction, initials of societies, qualifications, date(s) of founding, mottoes, etc. [followed by the exceptions]. The only term I could pick out was qualifications, but it seems a stretch to include affiliations under that category. None of the examples address affiliations so one could infer that the rule does not apply to such cases. In the actual examples of omissions, leaving out Dr. in Dr. Harry Smith detracts from identification (ex. 1), the Library Association (ex. 2) seems like a pretty generic name so including the date of founding can't hurt, and the late from by the late T.A. Rennard (ex. 3) tells us that the manifestation was published posthumously. I think leaving in the extras enhances identification. It is not clear to me whether the list of omissions is to include religious titles, although this seems to be a common practice. The advantage of the representation principle for the statement of responsibility is simplicity. If you follow the AACR2 path it results in a whole mess of complicated decisions on what to leave in and what to leave out. I also think the RDA principle supports identification of the persons listed in the statement of responsibility, and, in some cases, suggests the author's point of view. It would help in making an authority record created retroactively (remembering the pre AACR2 practice of leaving out the statement of responsibility which was much deplored). The best practice for punctuation in order to demarcate person from affiliation has been a problem for me so very much like Kevin Randall's suggestion. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metada Services Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joan Wang Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 1:27 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4 All of this information on persons' affiliations could be recorded in our authority records -- is it really necessary to repeat it all in our bibliographic records as well? I got an impression that one day data represented in authority records could be viewed or searched in end-users' clients. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Charles Croissant crois...@slu.edu wrote: I too would like to add my voice in support of Ben's position. Applying 2.4.1.4 as it stands, without applying the optional admission, is bound to lead in some cases to extremely lengthy and hard-to-read statements of responsibility, especially when four or more authors and/or editors are named on the title page, with each name followed by an affiliation. Is this truly what the JSC and LC/PCC intended with this wording and this policy statement? I understand the value of RDA's principle of representation, but, like Ben, I see a need for balance as well. All of this information on persons' affiliations could be recorded in our authority records -- is it really necessary to repeat it all in our bibliographic records as well? Charles Croissant Senior Catalog Librarian Pius XII Memorial Library Saint Louis University St. Louis, MO 63108 On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.edu wrote: Gene, I wish it were so. But 2.4.1.4 states, Transcribe a statement of responsibility in the form in which it appears on the source of information. Immediately followed by the optional omission, Abridge a statement of responsibility only if it can be abridged without loss of essential information. I have looked in vain for something similar to AACR2 1.1F7., Include titles and abbreviations of titles of nobility, address, honour, and distinction ... Otherwise, omit all such data from statements of responsibility, and not found it. I have also queried the RDA luminaries on this list and been told that including affiliations if they appear on the t.p. is part of RDA's adherence to principle of representation. The fact that there are no examples of this in RDA just means JSC either didn't think of it or didn't want to get into it. Moreover the example I copied to the list was one I found in OCLC (there are plenty more of them, if you start looking). So, if this is not what RDA intends, the rules need to be made clearer, as it's how catalogers are interpreting it. Personally I
Re: [RDA-L] [Un]bracketed page numbers
LC PCC PS 1.7.1. Punctuation in Notes. 3. Square brackets. 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 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Michael Cohen Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 9:41 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] [Un]bracketed page numbers I understand that in RDA you do not bracket page numbers when listing the bibliography in 504, even if the beginning or ending page number is not printed on the page, but I'm having difficulty finding the exact RDA or LC-PCC PS rule that states this. Can anyone help me out? -- Michael L. Cohen Interim Head, Cataloging Department General Library System University of Wisconsin-Madison 324C Memorial Library 728 State Street Madison, WI 53706-1494 Phone: (608) 262-3246Fax: (608) 262-4861 Email: mco...@library.wisc.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Use of ISBD punctuation with RDA. And a workshop.
I believe the LC PCC PS for 1.7.1 (the section on end punctuation of variable fields) does allow the cataloger to avoid the absurdity of adding an additional period when the edition statement ends with an abbreviation. I've often wondered why we can leave off the brackets in 240 or ISSN in the 490 but are still expected to account for the area full stop in MARC records. Does it say something about MARC or ISBD that programmers can't seem to come up with a decent solution to this egregious time waster? John Hostage's explanation is similar to what I tell trainees; it will get harder as the ISBD catalog card model becomes incomprehensible to the generations who only know the online catalogs. Maybe Bibframe will be the future ISBD, based on a different model? 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 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of M. E. Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 4:02 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Use of ISBD punctuation with RDA. And a workshop. Fox, Chris c...@byui.edu wrote: I had forgotten the whole double punctuation thing, and hadn't been doing that up to now. It still looks weird to me. If our patrons even notice, I imagine it will look even weirder to them. A bit of context: I created the cheat-sheet to give copy catalogers an idea of what they might encounter with RDA records rather than to provide a how to for original catalogers. As I mention during training, I don't worry too much about the double-punctuation. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
Re: [RDA-L] Color: an attribute at the manifestation or content level?
I don't think the definition of color would apply to illustrations, since the rule explicitly excludes black and white or shades of grey. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joan Wang Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 11:22 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Color: an attribute at the manifestation or content level? Also, according to the definition, color includes black and white. So for any illustrations, we can encode them color, unless we give more precise descriptions such as black and white, or taupe and blue green. [Steven Arakawa] Regarding illustrations, 7.17.1.3: If the content of the resource is in colours other than black and white or shades of grey, record the presence of colour using an appropriate term. Disregard coloured matter outside the actual content of the resource (e.g., the border of a map). Thanks, Joan Wang -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] question about dates in 264 fields
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Deborah Fritz Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 9:15 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] question about dates in 264 fields From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA]mailto:[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Ian Fairclough Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 9:05 AM And, do you put a period in the other 264 field in that record, the field with second indicator 4 in which you record the copyright date as found? [SA]if you have a bracketed date in 264 _1 based on the copyright date, the 264 _4 is optional, if I'm interpreting LC PCC PS correctly [DF:] LC-PCC PS for 1.7.1http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=lcpschp1target=lcps1-471#lcps1-471 says When field 264 is used for the Copyright Notice Date, it does not have ending punctuation. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Sources of information for other title information
I was also concerned about clarity in both training and MARC 246 applications if in practice we used variant title for what I would have called the other title on the cover. Reworded the guidelines would result in: If the presentation on the cover is ambiguous -- the variant title could possibly be interpreted as the variant title -- make a 246 14 $a variant title ... What's wrong with making the title information on the cover analogous to the title page organization, especially considering that the cover could function as the preferred source in the absence of an actual title page, and the distinction between title proper and other title would be applicable? I think even catalogers would be confused interpreting what was intended when trying to interpret what the original cataloger was trying to express. I do appreciate the careful analysis by Deborah, but in this particular case I also don't want to create situations where our catalogers agonize over the correct terminology. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, 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 Cary Isley Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 10:02 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Sources of information for other title information Steven Awakara wrote, and Deborah Fritz replied: b. If the presentation on the cover is ambiguous -- the other title could possibly be interpreted as the title proper -- make a 246 1 $i Other title on cover: $a other title -- Just as you would if you had the same situation on the title page. Do not transcribe the other title in 245 $b with or without brackets. [DF:] Yes, but based on John's explanation again, this would be: 246 1# $i Variant title on cover: $a variant title In looking at the examples in 2.20.2.3 (b) for variant title notes, there is no use of variant title, only the standard formulations that are part of MARC documentation for 246 1-8. I don't think the note info in $i needs to specify that the title is variant. Cary T. Isley Catalog Metadata Librarian Tulsa Community College 918-595-7177 On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.demailto:wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote: Bernhard Eversberg wrote: 1. What about the rewording? Does it reduce the amount of necessary exegesis? Perhaps a bit, but not dramatically so. Readability has certainly increased considerably in the reworded chapters. But the rewording doesn't help with matters of arrangement. E.g. in the case of rule 2.3.4.2 (Take other title information from the same source as the title proper) there should be a reference saying roughly: Information which looks like other title information but is not positioned on the same source as the title proper can be recorded as a variant title (see 2.3.6). 2. Based on the fact that next to no one will have all the time it would take to do all this careful reading and reasoning, what will be the chances for consistent data? I often wonder how many catalogers will really work with the text of RDA itself, at least in the long run. Because of the costs, I expect that even at larger libraries there will often be only a license for one concurrent user. People will turn to other materials instead. Hopefully, we'll have a couple of good general textbooks on RDA soon which will explain things much better than the rules itself. In my opinion, the 20/80 rule also applies to cataloging, i.e. only a fairly small number of rules is needed to cope with the majority of the stuff catalogers are confronted with in their everyday work. So, although a general textbook won't be able to cover every rule of RDA, it will still make the life of catalogers a lot easier. Add a couple of more specialized textbooks for different kinds of media. Then it should be no longer necessary for everybody to work through all the minutiae and find their path through the labyrinth of RDA for themselves. By the way: When exactly will Robert Maxwell's Handbook for RDA be published? 3. Hadn't one of the objectives for RDA been to make cataloging more economical? Who's going to evaluate this and to determine if the results fit the business case for RDA? Who indeed. But it certainly needs to be done, and my prognosis is that RDA won't look too good when it comes to easy cataloging. A few things may be easier than before, but on the whole I'd argue that RDA is no less complex than AACR2. 4. How will all of this appeal to the other communities? (If they can be persuaded to buy access to the rules, that is.) Well, I've always been rather sceptical in this respect. Here in Germany, even archivists claim that RDA has nothing to do with them - and that's certainly a community
Re: [RDA-L] Sources of information for other title information
Did I understand this correctly? 1. Parallel title proper on the cover but not on the title page: transcribe parallel title from cover as part of the title statement transcription (in MARC 245) without brackets. (which has been my practice) It's hard to imagine any justification for recording a parallel title external to the resource. 2. Other title on the cover but not on the title page: make a combination note and variant other title in 246 under certain circumstances, but do not transcribe the other title in MARC 245. Some alternatives that occur to me since all parallel titles are core but the other title is not core (while the other title is core in LCPS, this might explain the difference in the handling of the other title vs the parallel title in RDA) a. Just make a note in 500 if the other title is considered to be important for keyword access; unless your system cannot do keyword indexing of the 500 note, make a 246 only if you routinely make a 246 for other titles when they appear on the title page. Do not transcribe the other title in 245 $b with or without brackets. b. If the presentation on the cover is ambiguous -- the other title could possibly be interpreted as the title proper -- make a 246 1 $i Other title on cover: $a other title -- Just as you would if you had the same situation on the title page. Do not transcribe the other title in 245 $b with or without brackets. I suppose most of these 246 $i or 500 notes will be comprehensible only to catalogers conversant in ISBD. If considered to be important ... Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Deborah Fritz Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 9:28 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Sources of information for other title information Mulling over 2.3.4.2, for myself, I see it says: Take other title information from the same source as the title proper (see 2.3.2.2). OK, that is a very direct instruction--take it from the same source. Then 2.3.2.2 says: Take the title proper from the preferred source of information for the identification of the resource as specified under 2.2.2-2.2.3 Then 2.2.2.2 says: For a book use the title page, title sheet, or title card (or image thereof) as the preferred source of information. So, I agree with Heidrun that RDA is saying that if you find a Title Proper on the title page, then that is the only source that you can use for the Other Title Information. 2.2.4 says If information taken from a source outside the resource itself is supplied [including for other title information], indicate that fact either by means of a note or by some other means (e.g., through coding or the use of square brackets). But the other title information is not from outside the resource, so, as Heidrun says, this does not apply to our situation But there is the Note instruction at: 2.20.2 Note on Title. Don't forget that 'Title' covers all the elements listed under 2.3, so this note covers Other Title Information. 2.20.2.3 specifically mentions making a note for a Parallel Title Proper: If a parallel title proper is taken from a different source than the title proper, make a note on the source of the parallel title proper if it is considered important And then there is 2.20.2.5: Make notes on other details relating to a title if they are considered to be important for identification or access. So, I would apply the reasoning given at 2.20.2.3 for Parallel Title Proper to Other Title Information and say that if Other Title Information is taken from a different source than the Title Proper, we can make a note on the source of the Other Title Information if it is considered important. And in MARC terms that would mean that a note about a subtitle from a cover would be given in the 246 (just as we have been doing under AACR) as: 246 1# $i Subtitle from cover: $a VF-17's Top Guns in World War II Does this sound logical? Deborah -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: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 2:59 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Sources of information for other title information I'm mulling over RDA 2.3.4.2: Take other title information from the same source as the title proper. With books, the title proper is usually found on the title page. Does that really mean that under RDA I can only take other title information which is also placed on the t.p.? It's certainly not uncommon to find useful other title information elsewhere in the resource, e.g. on the cover.
Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designators for commentators and corporate bodies Was: Relationship designators (with typo corrections; thanks
Appendix I definition: writer of added commentary: A person, family, or corporate body contributing to an expression of a work by providing an interpretation or critical explanation of the original work. I do not think of authors of introductions as writers of added commentary; these seem to be separate functions based on the examples in 6.27.1.6. The MARC code list for relators has Commentator for written text and, with perhaps too much granularity, Author of afterword, colophon, etc. and Author of introduction, etc. The function of introductions in my experience is often closer to a blurb or a My friend x is as funny today as when we were at Harvard. A commentary seems to me to be a generally scholarly or pseudo-scholarly explication of the original text. Not that I have a better suggestion. On a related note, what would be the best relationship designator for a corporate body functioning as a creator when applying RDA 19.2.1.1.1 a. works of an administrative nature -- b. works that reflect the collective thought or c. report the collective activity of the body? My reading of enacting jurisdiction as a designator term would be that it should not be applied to the annual report of a government department--the designation seems to apply to a limited set of legal applications, such as constitutions. Sponsoring body also seems to be intended for a narrow set of conditions and in any case is in the category of other corporate bodies associated with the work rather than creator. Author seems too broad. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu -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: Friday, December 07, 2012 5:01 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designators (with typo corrections; thanks writer of added commentary ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Fri, 7 Dec 2012, Goldfarb, Kathie wrote: I have been reading the discussions that there are too many relationship designators, differences between types of editors, etc. However, reading through this list - is there a relationship designator for the person who wrote the foreword? The book in hand is: Thorton Wilder, a life ... foreword by Edward Albee. If I use Edward Albee as an added entry, what relationship designator should I use? Or none? With RDA is it expected that all name added entries have the relationship to the book spelled out? I am using some of the books I am cataloging today to 'practice' some of the RDA changes. Thanks kathie Kathleen Goldfarb Technical Services Librarian College of the Mainland Texas City, TX 77539 409 933 8202 ? Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email.
Re: [RDA-L] Exhibition catalog relationships
As a follow-up, I did give it a try in our catalog, i.e. to bring out the relationship of the artist to the reproductions in the exhibition catalog but also to bring out the relationship of the exhibition catalog to the Skira publication. The linking field doesn’t display in our OPAC but can be viewed in MARC by clicking on the staff view link to the right. The link below is supposed to work inside or outside the network: http://hdl.handle.net/10079/bibid/2574 Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, 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 Adger Williams Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 9:47 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Exhibition catalog relationships I won't speak to issues a, b, or c, as they aren't common for us. But the addendum about including entries for artists in exhibition catalogs is of considerable interest to our institution. We have found that RDA records for exhibition catalogs tend to include no entry (except as a subject) for the artist. (no 100 or 700 entry). Since this is the equivalent of declining to make a link between the artist and the main body of work that the artist is likely to have in our library, (we collect more exhibition catalogs than we do individual works of art) this strikes us as an oversight of some significance. We therefore have a policy of adding an entry for the artist in a 700 field. We are less sure about whether it should be: 7001_ Smith, Jane or 70012 Smith, Jane.|tWorks.|kSelections The analytic is rather funny-looking to the AACR2-trained eye, but is logical and reasonably transparent. What are other people thinking? On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Arakawa, Steven steven.arak...@yale.edumailto:steven.arak...@yale.edu wrote: On the topic of linking in the earlier thread, what would be the relationship for the Group 1 category for exhibition catalogs in these situations? a. An exhibition catalog and a commercial publication of the catalog. 775 $i Related (manifestation): citation?? b. A travelling exhibition where the catalog stays pretty much the same but the imprint changes to match the various institutions where the exhibition “visits”: Also a manifestation relationship? c. And, based on an actual cataloging situation I was working on a few days ago: a travelling exhibition where the catalog content changes significantly (the exhibition at the Yale School of Architecture was about 80 pages and the original catalog was considerably over a 100 pages). Related (expression)? Related (work)? Also, if the author of the catalog essay is presented as the primary creator, but the catalog has numerous reproductions of an artist’s works, I would normally choose to make an additional access point for the artist, but what kind of relationship designator would be appropriate? I would like to use $e artist, but would this imply that the artist relationship to the catalog is as a co-creator? “Illustrator” would also seem misleading. What I really want to show is the relationship of the artist to her own works in reproduction. Come to think of it, should the 700 be tagged as an analytic: 700 12 Smith, Susan, $e artist. $t Works. $k Selections? Would that solve the problem? Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286tel:%28203%29432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edumailto:steven.arak...@yale.edu -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edumailto:awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Reproduction
I don't think you can use 533 since it is intended to apply to the reproduction. I was wondering if 534 $p should read Reproduction of (manifestation): followed by the details of the original in the appropriate subfields. The current LCPS uses 775 or 776, but both examples seem to assume an existing catalog record for the original, but a linking control number isn't mandatory as far as I know, so I don't see why you couldn't use those fields and set the indicator to display the information as a note. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joan Wang Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 4:07 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Reproduction Hi, I got an impression from the 2012 OLAC conference. For reproductions, transcribe information based on the reproduction in your hands such as in the three new 33x fields, and record data related to its original manifestation in linking fields such as 776 and 787, and also use relationship terms such as reprint of (manifestation). Do not use 533/534 fields anymore. I actually went back RDA Toolkit and found the following general guideline: When describing a facsimile or reproduction, record the data relating to the facsimile or reproduction in the appropriate element. Record any data relating to the original manifestation as an element pertaining to a related work or manifestation, as applicable. My understanding is that RDA treats reproduction as a type of relationship. That is consistent with FRBR. So catalog the reproduction in your hands and reflect relevant relationships if necessary. If my understanding is correct, the above impression I got is just one of solutions. The solution has an assumption that the related manifestation (its original version) has been cataloged, and therefore we can link a record for the reproduction to another for the original version.But what is the solution for those that have not been cataloged? It is possible that the original manifestations have not been cataloged? Use notes? Can we use 533/534 fields? Or my impression is completely incorrect? Anybody would like to clarify my question and give me some record examples? I would appreciate it. Many thanks, Joan -- 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] Reproduction
If the OCLC BFS considers the $w to be mandatory if a 775 is created, then I think your only recourse is a note, preferably formatted (in my opinion). Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joan Wang Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 4:55 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Reproduction Come out another question: if OCLC control numbers are not mandatory, how can we can these fields as linking entry fields? :D Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Joan Wang jw...@illinoisheartland.orgmailto:jw...@illinoisheartland.org wrote: Hi, Steven Thanks. I thought that OCLC control number is mandatory. If it is not, there would be no problem. Thanks again, Joan On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Arakawa, Steven steven.arak...@yale.edumailto:steven.arak...@yale.edu wrote: I don't think you can use 533 since it is intended to apply to the reproduction. I was wondering if 534 $p should read Reproduction of (manifestation): followed by the details of the original in the appropriate subfields. The current LCPS uses 775 or 776, but both examples seem to assume an existing catalog record for the original, but a linking control number isn't mandatory as far as I know, so I don't see why you couldn't use those fields and set the indicator to display the information as a note. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286tel:%28203%29432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edumailto:steven.arak...@yale.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joan Wang Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 4:07 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Reproduction Hi, I got an impression from the 2012 OLAC conference. For reproductions, transcribe information based on the reproduction in your hands such as in the three new 33x fields, and record data related to its original manifestation in linking fields such as 776 and 787, and also use relationship terms such as reprint of (manifestation). Do not use 533/534 fields anymore. I actually went back RDA Toolkit and found the following general guideline: When describing a facsimile or reproduction, record the data relating to the facsimile or reproduction in the appropriate element. Record any data relating to the original manifestation as an element pertaining to a related work or manifestation, as applicable. My understanding is that RDA treats reproduction as a type of relationship. That is consistent with FRBR. So catalog the reproduction in your hands and reflect relevant relationships if necessary. If my understanding is correct, the above impression I got is just one of solutions. The solution has an assumption that the related manifestation (its original version) has been cataloged, and therefore we can link a record for the reproduction to another for the original version.But what is the solution for those that have not been cataloged? It is possible that the original manifestations have not been cataloged? Use notes? Can we use 533/534 fields? Or my impression is completely incorrect? Anybody would like to clarify my question and give me some record examples? I would appreciate it. Many thanks, Joan -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409tel:618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409tel:618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
[RDA-L] Exhibition catalog relationships
On the topic of linking in the earlier thread, what would be the relationship for the Group 1 category for exhibition catalogs in these situations? a. An exhibition catalog and a commercial publication of the catalog. 775 $i Related (manifestation): citation?? b. A travelling exhibition where the catalog stays pretty much the same but the imprint changes to match the various institutions where the exhibition visits: Also a manifestation relationship? c. And, based on an actual cataloging situation I was working on a few days ago: a travelling exhibition where the catalog content changes significantly (the exhibition at the Yale School of Architecture was about 80 pages and the original catalog was considerably over a 100 pages). Related (expression)? Related (work)? Also, if the author of the catalog essay is presented as the primary creator, but the catalog has numerous reproductions of an artist's works, I would normally choose to make an additional access point for the artist, but what kind of relationship designator would be appropriate? I would like to use $e artist, but would this imply that the artist relationship to the catalog is as a co-creator? Illustrator would also seem misleading. What I really want to show is the relationship of the artist to her own works in reproduction. Come to think of it, should the 700 be tagged as an analytic: 700 12 Smith, Susan, $e artist. $t Works. $k Selections? Would that solve the problem? Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu
Re: [RDA-L] RDA reproduction question
The record doesn't appear to be following the current LC PCC Policy Statements. The 347 field I believe applies to the online resource, not the printed version. Since RDA emphasizes showing relationships to the extent possible, you might find a useful model in the LCPS 27.1.1.3 Referencing Related Manifestations. The relationship is brought out in either MARC 775 (reproduction is the same carrier as the original, e.g. a facsimile of a book originally published in the 19th century) or 776 (where the reproduction is a different carrier from the original, which appears to be the case in your example.) The LCPS gives an example of each with the appropriate subfields. Someone who catalogs directly on OCLC would know whether there was a macro to generate the 775 or 776. In your case, I believe the link would be to the online resource record. Note that RDA descriptive rules apply to the reproduction record. The original record link is left as found on its bibliographic record. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of FOGLER, PATRICIA A GS-11 USAF AETC AUL/LTSC Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 8:08 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] RDA reproduction question I've an expedite request for a local printout copy of what I think is OCLC# 811622782. I don't understand this RDA record. I was hoping someone could direct me to RDA documentation about cataloging reprints? We are not creating original RDA records as yet. We are incorporating RDA (mainly LC records) as we come across them, but I haven't run into this particular flavor of RDA record. I do not understand how the 336/337/338/347 work to describe a printout and if incorrect, exactly how to edit to describe a printout correctly under RDA. We catalog a LOT of printouts so this is an important concept for me. I need to understand so as to be able to explain to my section. I've done some looking in the archives, but am not finding anything that answers my question in a real-world manner. Many thanks for any direction. //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135
Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates
I don't recall that anyone has mentioned that during the RDA test period, the copyright date was core. Since 264 had not yet been implemented, it would explain why 260 fields in RDA records include both the publication date and the copyright date or the inferred publication date and the copyright date. In the current PCC/LC PS, the copyright date is no longer core. In the PCC/LC PS transcription of the copyright date is not mandatory if an inferred date of publication has been supplied, so the cataloger has the option to transcribe or omit the copyright date. I wouldn't be surprised if some catalogers who got their initial training during the test period continued to transcribe the copyright date even when it was no longer core and even if there was a publication date transcribed in 264 #1. I don't know whether the 440 vs. 490/830 analogy works. The problem with 440 was that it combined description and controlled access in one MARC field; 490/830 clearly recorded the distinction between the series as it appeared vs. the series as controlled access. In the 264 situation, controlled access does not factor in; it's a question of what is worth transcribing or recording in a wholly descriptive context. With regard to copyright dates, there doesn't seem to be agreement on whether these are worth including as part of the description, so no best practice has been defined so far. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 6:49 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication not identified DtSt, Dates Gene Fieg wrote: Why include both dates when one will do. When one will do for what? Date of publication and date of copyright are *not* the same thing. They may often (one might argue most of the time) appear identical. But they are two entirely different things. Just like the series statement, and the series access point, are two entirely different things. Recently we were *finally* able to do away with the all-purpose 440 field in MARC. And now we're starting to move away from the all-purpose 260 $c. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
We don't display the new 3xx fields in our OPAC either; I've always thought it was obvious from the controlled, technical vocabulary used in $a $2 that 336-338 $a and $2 were not intended for display. However, in our system the fields are keyword indexed. In the current and near future catalog, they should be relatively easy to apply to keyword filters running in the background. Although the $a terms may be incomprehensible to the public, locally you could selectively add $3 to 338 with more appropriate carrier terms and include the more specific terms in the display; you would have more control over the terminology that best suits your user community. The 338 $3 carrier term could be keyword indexed and could be set to display with the brief title and/or as part of a labeled, full record display with the $3 terms for content and media type. The MARC Authorities example 338 ## $asheet$2rdacarrier$3liner notes Other possibilities? (throwing these out for consideration). At your next cataloger cocktail party, think up your own opac labels and index displays! For jazz performance recordings on an Ipod 336 ## $aperformed music$2rdacontent$3jazz 337 ## $aaudio$2rdamedia$3mp3 audio 338 ## $aother$2rdacarrier$3Ipod Public labels in record display: Format: jazz Access via: mp3 audio On: Ipod Index display: authortitle icon of loudspeaker used in Windows tray (Ipod) term pulled from 338 $3 For an online map: 336 ## $acartographic image$2rdacontent$3e-map 337 ## $acomputer$2rdamedia$3any university computer 338 ## $aonline resource$2rdacarrier$3Internet website Public labels: Format: e-map Access via: any university computer On: Internet website Index display: authortitleicon of globe(Internet website) For an e-book: 336 ## $atext$2rdacontent$3e-book 337 ## $acomputer$rdamedia$3e-reader 338 ## $acomputer card$2rdacarrier$3Kindle Public labels: Format: e-book Access via: e-reader On: Kindle Index display: authortitleicon of book(Kindle) Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kathleen Lamantia Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 9:02 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Or, you can just keep it locally, which is what we plan to do. When staff have a patron standing in front of them, or on the phone, seeking help, they use the #h [gmd] description to quickly distinguish which type of material is wanted by the patron. That is supposed to be the basis of the entire FRBR/RDA changeover. If I told them they had to read 336, 337 and 338 to determine item type, especially once I showed them the terms used (oh yes and and 'unmediated text' is a book) they would troop down to Tech Services en masse and ask me if I had lost my mind. In the OPAC, III's field 30 Mat Type generates an a very specific icon, so we are okay there. We are currently suppressing the 3xxs in the public display. They take up too much room in the display because of where they fall, and they convey no useful information to searchers. Kathleen F. Lamantia, MLIS Technical Services Librarian Stark County District Library 715 Market Avenue North Canton, OH 44702 330-458-2723 klaman...@starklibrary.org Inspiring Ideas ∙ Enriching Lives ∙ Creating Community -Original Message- From: Kelleher, Martin [mailto:mart...@liverpool.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 8:17 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Well, it would still be nonstandard, plus probably isn't set up in most systems to act like GMDs. Assuming the cataloguers at our institution decide on such a direction, we'll probably just keep using $h unless the systems stop accepting them. Given the widespread support for GMD, it may be supported for some time to come, hopefully until the RDA powers-that-be come up with a more effective alternative Failing that, I guess we could use the same terminologies in one of the 330 fields, or perhaps a local field, and either suppress from display or delete the remainder. If we're talking revising RDA, I'd prefer to re-instate the GMDs (with revised terminology) and abolish the 330s - I think that would be quite a popular revision! Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Elizabeth O'Keefe Sent: 23 October 2012 13:03 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA How about using the $k subfield instead? Here is the current MARC definition of this
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
Kevin, you're right--thanks for pointing this out. The example would have been helped with an additional 3xx for the primary content/media/carrier type. However, I still think the fields themselves could be translated into more comprehensible terms in the OPAC, especially if labels were assigned. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 1:39 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Steven Arakawa wrote: Although the $a terms may be incomprehensible to the public, locally you could selectively add $3 to 338 with more appropriate carrier terms and include the more specific terms in the display; you would have more control over the terminology that best suits your user community. The 338 $3 carrier term could be keyword indexed and could be set to display with the brief title and/or as part of a labeled, full record display with the $3 terms for content and media type. 33X subfield $3 is for Materials specified, meaning the portion of the resource to which the field applies. The example: 338 ## $a sheet $2 rdacarrier $3 liner notes means that for the resource being described, the carrier type term sheet applies to the liner notes, not to the audiodisc or videodisc that it accompanies. Subfield $3 is not for an alternative term to the one given in $a. The definition of subfield $3 for the 33X fields parallels the definition in other fields such as 490. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
Re: [RDA-L] accompanying material
Refer to LC/PCC PS 3.1.4 Lots of examples given. 336, 337,338 can be repeated. See MARC 21 for Bibliographic Records for examples. If the accompanying material differs, use separate 33x's where applicable. See also the LC Training Materials, Module 1. http://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/RDA%20training%20materials/LC%20RDA%20Training/LC%20RDA%20course%20table.html Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, 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 Julie Moore Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 3:53 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] accompanying material For many of the special formats materials that I catalog, there is often accompanying material -- a CD-ROM, a DVD, a guide, a cassette, etc. The last I looked, there was no new way of dealing with accompanying material, and RDA had not spoken to it. So are we supposed to just keep adding these accompanying materials pieces as a 300 $e? Thanks, Julie Moore -- Julie Renee Moore Catalog Librarian California State University, Fresno julie.renee.mo...@gmail.commailto:julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com 559-278-5813 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1985!
Re: [RDA-L] Quick question about RDA 2.4.1.8
I think that is the intention. It was brought up as an RDA change from AACR2 at an early ALA pre-conference I attended. AACR2 1.1F12: Treat a noun phrase occurring in conjunction with a statement of responsibility as other title information if it is indicative of the nature of the work. RDA 2.4.1.8: If a noun or noun phrase occurs with the statement of responsibility , treat the noun or noun phrase as part of the statement of responsibility. I later noticed that the second example in RDA 2.4.1.8 has dramatised adaptations as part of the statement of responsibility. AACR2 uses the same example and has dramatised adaptations as other title in 1.1F12. I also think that cataloger judgment is involved. RDA 2.3.4: Other title information may include any phrase appearing with a title proper that is indicative of the character, contents, etc., of the resource or the motives for, or occasion of, its production, publication, etc. If you had Tome 1 / a novel by X, it is still a statement. If you had Tome 1 / novel X it really isn't a statement anymore, and it could be said that novel lacking a grammatical connection to X is an example of not occurring with the statement of responsibility. You still have the latitude to consider the noun phrase as indicative of the character, contents, etc. of the resource: Davy Jones : a pirate novel / by Y, not Davy Jones / a pirate novel by Y. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, 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 Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 2:24 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Quick question about RDA 2.4.1.8 RDA 2.4.1.8 reads, If a noun or noun phrase occurs with a statement of responsibility, treat the noun or noun phrase as part of the statement of responsibility. Does this mean that if we had the following two title pages: Tome a novel John Smith Another Tome a novel by John Smith The phrase a novel would be considered subtitle (in the first example), but part of the statement of responsibility (in the second), solely depending on whether or not the word by was there? -- Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137
Re: [RDA-L] Added elements for expressions
Since we don't enter parentheses around the series statement or add ISSN to it when we create MARC records, I've always assumed it was a convention that the punctuation and text would be provided by the computer when the MARC data was output as card or OPAC display. Since all of the elements in 240 are probably subfielded, couldn't the convention be $f represents parenthesis before the date and at the end of any subsequent text following, and any subfield after $f represents space colon space? (Just as we assume that the 240 tag will tell the program to print brackets at either end of the statement) So your punctuation could be retained if the MARC record was crosswalked to some future MARC replacement if that's a concern. In the Catholic Church. Pope example I don't think the qualifiers are subfielded. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu -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: Friday, June 01, 2012 4:09 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Added elements for expressions It appears that these two examples, Wilde, Oscar, 1854-1900. Works. 2000 Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Works. 2003. Yale University Press while formulated in the same way we have been doing it in AACR2, probably do not conform to the punctuation instructions in E.1.2.5: Enclose a word, phrase, date, or other designation used for conflict resolution in parentheses. Separate a word, phrase, date, or other designation used for conflict resolution from another word, phrase, date, or other designation also used for conflict resolution by a space, colon, space. If these instructions are followed, the examples should be rendered as: Wilde, Oscar, 1854-1900. Works (2000) Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Works (2003 : Yale University Press) John, probably these two examples need to be corrected with fast-track process. Note however, that this change from AACR2 requires many existing authority records to be changed in order to be coded as RDA. Perhaps this is something the JSC needs to have a look at. I don't think this came up on the list of changes needed to AACR2 records when recoding as RDA. I do see that there are indeed two examples illustrating the prescribed punctuation in 6.28.4.4: Beethoven, Ludwig van, 1770-1827. Ludwig van Beethovens Werke (1862) Authorized access point for the compilation: Beethoven, Ludwig van, 1770-1827. Works (1862) Beethoven, Ludwig van, 1770-1827. Ludwig van Beethovens Werke (1949) Authorized access point for the compilation: Beethoven, Ludwig van, 1770-1827. Works (1949) And also in 6.31.3.2: Catholic Church. Pope (1978-2005 : John Paul II). Vita consecrata. English (Simplified version) Catholic Church. Pope (1978-2005 : John Paul II). Vita consecrata. English (Institute on Religious Life) Authorized access point for the expression: Catholic Church. Pope (1978-2005 : John Paul II). Vita consecrata. English (2004) Catholic Church. Pope. Tutte le encicliche dei sommi pontefici (1940) Authorized access point for the expression: Catholic Church. Pope. Encyclicals. Italian (1940) Catholic Church. Pope. Tutte le encicliche dei sommi pontefici (1959) Authorized access point for the expression: Catholic Church. Pope. Encyclicals. Italian (1959) Catholic Church. Pope. Tutte le encicliche dei sommi pontefici (1964) Authorized access point for the expression: Catholic Church. Pope. Encyclicals. Italian (1964) --Adam Schiff ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Fri, 1 Jun 2012, JOHN C ATTIG wrote: See Appendix E.1.1 Presentation of Access Points. There is a section called Uniform Titles (presumably because this is an attempt to reflect the punctuation in AACR2 Chapter 25). John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu From: Bernadette Mary O'Reilly bernadette.orei...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Sent: Friday, June 1, 2012 5:29:53 AM Subject: [RDA-L] Added elements for expressions Hallo In the near future I will need to draft some guidelines for colleagues who will be using RDA with ISBD and MARC21. Most of them are multi-skilled and do fairly small amounts of cataloguing, so the training has to be quick and simple. I will have to include guidelines for creating RDA
[RDA-L] Presentations of the ALA Midwinter 2012 Copy Cataloging Interest Group are posted on ALA Connect
Forwarding for Angela Kinney. Link at the bottom of the message is to the ppt or Word presentations for Midwinter 2012 2011 Annual 2011. Apologies in advance for duplication. Here's the agenda for the Midwinter 2012 meeting: ALCTS CaMMS Copy Cataloging Interest Group Dallas Convention Center, Room D227 January 21, 2012, 8:00-10:00am, ALA Midwinter Agenda I.Introductions and report from the Library of Congress: 5 minutes Summary: Semi-annual report on the status of copy cataloging at the Library of Congress, including statistics on the number of copy cataloging records produced in the Acquisitions Bibliographic Access and Collections Services directorates in 2012. Angela Kinney, Chief , African, Latin American Western European Division, Library of Congress a...@loc.govmailto:a...@loc.gov II. Library of Congress Decisions for Copy Cataloging with RDA: 50 minutes Summary: What's a cataloger to do if headings or the entire bibliographic record is coded as RDA? This presentation will review LC decisions for its own staff, and share information about the documentation and training materials that are available on LC's Web page relevant to copy cataloging with RDA. Dr. Barbara B.Tillett, Chief Policy Standards Division, Library of Congress b...@loc.govmailto:b...@loc.gov III. CIP Metadata for E-books: 25 minutes Summary: The Library of Congress has a new pilot project to create cataloging in publication metadata for electronic books that are simultaneously published with their print equivalents. The rationale for providing pre-publication metadata for electronic books will be discussed, as will the scope of the pilot and the process created by the Library of Congress to create the metadata. Library of Congress created CIP e-book pre-publication data for the pilot participants is currently available in OCLC for use by libraries and vendors as a source of copy cataloging. Karl Debus-López, Chief of the U.S. General Division and Acting Chief of the U.S. and Publisher Liaison Division, Library of Congress k...@loc.govmailto:k...@loc.gov IV. Copy Cataloging Gets Some Respect From Administrators: 20 minutes Summary: The University of California, Davis has rebranded copy cataloging to show its value to administrators. Much of what would have been handled by beginning copy catalogers is now outsourced for shelf-ready processing. The loss of librarian positions over the last few years has meant that copy catalogers are taking more responsibility for complex copy cataloging. Copy catalogers at UC Davis are now authorized and trained to edit OCLC master records, a capability previously limited to original catalogers. As a result, UC Davis is now seeing a dramatic rise in its OCLC credits. Elaine A. Franco, Principal Cataloger, Cataloging Metadata Services, University of California, Davis eafra...@ucdavis.edumailto:eafra...@ucdavis.edu V. Questions and Discussion 20 minutes Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edumailto:steven.arak...@yale.edu Forwarding: From: Kinney, Angela [mailto:a...@loc.gov]mailto:[mailto:a...@loc.gov] Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 2:25 PM To: 'alctslead...@ala.org' Subject: [alctsleaders] Copy Cataloging Interest Group The presentations of the ALA Midwinter 2012 Copy Cataloging Interest Group are posted on ALA Connect at: http://connect.ala.org/node/64545 Angela Kinney Chief, African, Latin American Western European Division Library of Congress (202) 707-5572 Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edumailto:steven.arak...@yale.edu Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu
Re: [RDA-L] RDA 2.4.1.8 Noun Phrase Occurring with a Statement of Responsibility
Kevin, As a rule of thumb, I was interpreting 2.4.1.8 as applying to situations where there was a grammatical connection between the noun/noun phrase. I, robot : a novel / by Arthur C. Clarke would be an example of the noun/noun phrase with a grammatical connection (through by), an example of 2.4.1.8. But I, robot : a novel / Arthur C. Clarke would be an example where there is no grammatical connection, so by default 2.3.4.1 would apply. After all, if the noun phrase without grammatical connection was used as part of the statement of responsibility in the latter situation, you would be left with I, robot / novel, Arthur C. Clarke. So it doesn't necessarily have to be used only when the statement of responsibility includes entities identified as having different functions (... / novel by X ; illustrations by Y). Where the noun phrase clearly functions to explain the title proper, the grammatical connection would be ignored. I was actually thinking of including something like Turbulence : a novel of the atmosphere / by Giles Foden as an example of a noun phrase that was indicative of the character, contents, etc. of the resource. Most publishers of recent fiction finesse the ambiguity by leaving out the by -- I really had to hunt around to find the Turbulence example. I think there are ramifications for where the noun phrase is located. In most results displays on a title search in OPACs that use the browse function, the statement of responsibility does not affect the sorting, but the absence/presence of the other title often does. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 10:51 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA 2.4.1.8 Noun Phrase Occurring with a Statement of Responsibility I think the line between 2.4.1.8 and 2.3.4 is very blurry. In 2.3.4.1, it says Other title information may include any phrase appearing with a title proper that is indicative of the character, contents, etc. of the resource ... That could very well be interpreted as meaning that a phrase such as a novel is other title information; but then 2.4.1.8 is quite helpful when you have something like text by Person A, drawings by Person B. I wouldn't necessarily say that it would be right or wrong to record the phrase a novel by Author C as either (in ISBD form) : a novel / by Author C or / a novel by Author C. It all depends on how the cataloger is interpreting the information. Wouldn't a phrase such as a novel of the Old West fit better as other title information, even if it was connected to the author's name with the word by? On the other hand, it wouldn't affect access very much (if at all?) by being recorded as part of the statement of responsibility. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Bibliographic Services Dept. Northwestern University Library 1970 Campus Drive Evanston, IL 60208-2300 email: k...@northwestern.edu phone: (847) 491-2939 fax: (847) 491-4345 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Arakawa, Steven Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 5:56 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] RDA 2.4.1.8 Noun Phrase Occurring with a Statement of Responsibility When I attended the RDA 101 ALA preconference, one of the things that stuck with me was the RDA rule 2.4.1.8. AACR2 1.1F12 makes a fine distinction between noun phrases that are indicative of the nature of the work and noun phrases that are indicative of the role of the person named in the statement of responsibility. The former category is considered to be part of the title; the latter category is considered to be part of the statement of responsibility. RDA 2.4.1.8 simply states that if a noun phrase occurs with a statement of responsibility, it is part of the statement of responsibility. In fact, RDA takes the same examples used by AACR2 to represent the 2 categories and puts both of them in the statement of responsibility. Dr. Robert Ellett, the presenter at RDA 101, had a much more striking example of a noun phrase than the ones used by RDA and AACR2: a novel by ... which we have all seen at one time or another. AACR2 cataloging rather consistently interprets a novel as indicative of the nature of the work, with a novel in 245 $b, usually immediately preceding the ISBD slash and by Ruth Latta in 245 $c, following the ISBD slash. Explaining AACR2 1.1F12 has always been a headache for me when training staff, so I welcomed the rule simplification in RDA. However, if there is no grammatical connection
[RDA-L] RDA 2.4.1.8 Noun Phrase Occurring with a Statement of Responsibility
When I attended the RDA 101 ALA preconference, one of the things that stuck with me was the RDA rule 2.4.1.8. AACR2 1.1F12 makes a fine distinction between noun phrases that are indicative of the nature of the work and noun phrases that are indicative of the role of the person named in the statement of responsibility. The former category is considered to be part of the title; the latter category is considered to be part of the statement of responsibility. RDA 2.4.1.8 simply states that if a noun phrase occurs with a statement of responsibility, it is part of the statement of responsibility. In fact, RDA takes the same examples used by AACR2 to represent the 2 categories and puts both of them in the statement of responsibility. Dr. Robert Ellett, the presenter at RDA 101, had a much more striking example of a noun phrase than the ones used by RDA and AACR2: a novel by ... which we have all seen at one time or another. AACR2 cataloging rather consistently interprets a novel as indicative of the nature of the work, with a novel in 245 $b, usually immediately preceding the ISBD slash and by Ruth Latta in 245 $c, following the ISBD slash. Explaining AACR2 1.1F12 has always been a headache for me when training staff, so I welcomed the rule simplification in RDA. However, if there is no grammatical connection to the author, my understanding has been that the noun (or the noun phrase) in RDA remains part of the title. So, ... / a novel by Ruth Latta but ... : a novel / Ruth Latta. For training purposes, I wanted to have a couple of RDA examples, so I went to our LC resource file and did a combined keyword search on a novel and rda for all books cataloged from 2008. All of the records continued the practice of leaving a novel in the other title and by so and so in the statement of responsibility. I then searched on a novel in the extra set file of the RDA test and the results were no different from the search limited to LC cataloging. I've checked the LCPS and 2.4.1.8 is without comment, and the rule is not covered in any of the LC Training presentations I'm aware of. The only reference to 2.4.1.8 I've been able to discover is in Adam Schiff's AACR2/RDA comparison presentation, but the AACR2/RDA examples are taken from AACR2 1.1.F12 and RDA 2.4.1.8. So I'm wondering if I understand the RDA rule, or if the wisdom of the crowd has resulted in the correct application of the rule. One interesting note--I found quite a few poem collections in the same LC resource file where poems by is in the statement of responsibility; there are certainly examples of poems / by but the number of grammatically connected poem phrases in the statement of responsibility seemed to be noticeably different from the number of grammatically connected novel phrases. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu
[RDA-L] RDA content terminology
If I am cataloging a book and describe it in the physical description other physical details as all color illustrations or chiefly color illustrations or chiefly illustrations etc should the rda content term be still image or text or both? Should it have an impact on the MARC Leader? Am I overlooking something in the RDA definition of still image? (or in the definition of text?) I took a look at some of the extra set bibliographic records and some assign both still image and text, but others assign text only--I would guess this is the majority. thanks, Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Justification of added entries
Just wondering--if the statement of responsibility does not need to be
bracketed (or justified) if not transcribed from the chief source--does this
change the concept of usage in the determination of preferred form of access?
What exactly is usage in the RDA environment?
Steven Arakawa
Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation
Catalog Metadata Services, SML, 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
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 12:20 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Justification of added entries
Casey Mullin said:
The example I cited in my original post was intended to
show a straightforward example of redundant entry.
But if the form of name in the entry changes, having transcribed the
form on the item is no longer redundant.
SLC made quite a bit of money in early days of automating, dealing
with clients' older records which omitted statement of responsibility
and/or names of publisher, when they were the same an an earlier form
of main entry, which had changed or become an added entry. As
another poster pointed out, the form of entry is not a static element.
The form of name on the item remains the same, and is needed for
identification.
If we are unwilling to accept redundancy between entry and
transcription, transcription is more important for item identification.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Justification of added entries
If a statement of responsibility is not available on the source for the title
proper, the statement of responsibility for the title proper can be taken from
anywhere in the resource [2.4.2.2]. If the SoR is not anywhere in the resource,
the 2.2.4 rule requires a note. While only the first SoR is core, cataloger
judgment would generally transcribe any SoR that wasn't the first if an added
entry were made for a name not transcribed in the first SoR. Recourse to a note
as in AACR2 is not emphasized because RDA provides wider latitude for the
source of the SoR perhaps. This recognizes that many brief displays do not
display 5xx, so preference for the SoR rather than a note. Taking the SoR from
anywhere in the resource when not on the same source as the title proper might
be the part that conflicts with the user's ability to identify, insofar as that
information would not be bracketed. But I suspect that identification for the
user would be served adequately by a citation that included the title proper
and the relevant entities responsible, brackets or no brackets. I think it's
too much to ask the user to parse the distinction between brackets and no
brackets in the SoR.
Steven Arakawa
Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation
Catalog Metadata Services, SML, 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
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 2:10 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Justification of added entries
Thomas said:
To make justification of added entries a requirement one could make
RDA 18.6 a core element. RDA 18.6 is the instruction for adding
explanations regarding attribution.
It would also be needed, I think, to restore a relationship between
transcription of authors, and tracing. At present, RDA allows
transcription (in statement of responsibility or note) without
tracing, and tracing without transcription.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Why RDA deals so poorly with equipment?
I'm struggling with the theoretical foundations myself, so take it with a grain
of salt as I try to walk my way through it. With regard to electronic readers,
library cataloging focuses on the content as modeled by the FRBR WEMI. You
catalog the e-book, not the Kindle reader. You catalog the sound recording, not
the iPod. The user's primary need is for a specific work/expression (or
form/genre, or series, or topic), not 'whatever' the library has loaded on the
Kindle this month. (Secondary needs are taken care of with the SMD, notes, or
faceting.) You can certainly uses an ILS system to inventory the carrier
equipment, but to present this to the public view I would argue is misleading;
the library catalog represents an intellectual collection; it's not the Best
Buy catalog. A carrier could still be categorized under the WEMI model if the
collection is treating it as an artifact rather than a carrier, for example a
special collection of reading tools, but for the purposes you describe, the
Kindle or Playaway is a carrier for the intellectual content.
Steven Arakawa
Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation
Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University
P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240
(203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 8:18 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Why RDA deals so poorly with equipment?
http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/alcts/confevents/past/ala/annual/04/Tillett.pdf
In the fourth slide of this FRBR presentation, materials listed to be
catalogued include:
What Are We Cataloging?
Library collections
- Books
- Serials
- Maps, globes, etc
- Manuscripts.
- Musical scores
- A-V
sound recordings
motion pictures
photographs, slides
- Multimedia
- Remote digital
materials
Missing is equipment, e.g. electronic readers and players now being
acquired and circulated by libraries, whether with prerecorded
material, or as carriers for electronic resources available from the
library. Perhaps A-V could be interpreted to include A-V equipment?
Is a Kindle or Kobo A-V?
Also missing is realia.
I'll admit it is difficult to see items of equipment and much realia
(apart from works of art) as intellectual or artistic works. But we
do need to catalogue them. Is this early (2004) omission related to
RDA's failure to address this growing body of library material?
Is it too late to include such material in the redrafted RDA?
Computer would need to change from being a media type (replaced by
ISBD's electronic?), becoming instead a carrier term under a new
media term equipment, along with readers, players, etc. Many present
content terms would apply, but perhaps computer program shoud be added.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Why RDA deals so poorly with equipment?
In basing the catalog record on the manifestation, the carrier elements must be
included, but in the library model, the work/expression is primary. A
bibliographic record that simply describes the carrier seems out of place in
the catalog, to me. The record is being used by the patron to access the movie
Lord of the rings, not the piece of aluminum/plastic on which it is burned,
so I don't see the logic of creating a separate record for the aluminum/plastic
object, other than for internal staff inventory.
Steven Arakawa
Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation
Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University
P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240
(203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mercante, Mary Ann
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 10:38 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Why RDA deals so poorly with equipment?
Isn't the traditional print book a carrier for its intellectual content? With
books, we catalog both the carrier (descriptive cataloging, including
pagination and size) and the content (subject cataloging and classification).
At our library, we do likewise with our Kindles and Nooks, cataloging both the
carrier and the content.
Mary Ann Mercante,
Assistant Dean Head, Technical Services
Maryville University Library
650 Maryville University Drive
St. Louis, MO. 63141
314-529-9650
fax: 314-529-9941
mmerca...@maryville.edu
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Arakawa, Steven
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 9:09 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Why RDA deals so poorly with equipment?
I'm struggling with the theoretical foundations myself, so take it with a grain
of salt as I try to walk my way through it. With regard to electronic readers,
library cataloging focuses on the content as modeled by the FRBR WEMI. You
catalog the e-book, not the Kindle reader. You catalog the sound recording, not
the iPod. The user's primary need is for a specific work/expression (or
form/genre, or series, or topic), not 'whatever' the library has loaded on the
Kindle this month. (Secondary needs are taken care of with the SMD, notes, or
faceting.) You can certainly uses an ILS system to inventory the carrier
equipment, but to present this to the public view I would argue is misleading;
the library catalog represents an intellectual collection; it's not the Best
Buy catalog. A carrier could still be categorized under the WEMI model if the
collection is treating it as an artifact rather than a carrier, for example a
special collection of reading tools, but for the purposes you describe, the
Kindle or Playaway is a carrier for the intellectual content.
Steven Arakawa
Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation
Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University
P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240
(203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 8:18 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Why RDA deals so poorly with equipment?
http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/alcts/confevents/past/ala/annual/04/Tillett.pdf
In the fourth slide of this FRBR presentation, materials listed to be
catalogued include:
What Are We Cataloging?
Library collections
- Books
- Serials
- Maps, globes, etc
- Manuscripts.
- Musical scores
- A-V
sound recordings
motion pictures
photographs, slides
- Multimedia
- Remote digital
materials
Missing is equipment, e.g. electronic readers and players now being
acquired and circulated by libraries, whether with prerecorded
material, or as carriers for electronic resources available from the
library. Perhaps A-V could be interpreted to include A-V equipment?
Is a Kindle or Kobo A-V?
Also missing is realia.
I'll admit it is difficult to see items of equipment and much realia
(apart from works of art) as intellectual or artistic works. But we
do need to catalogue them. Is this early (2004) omission related to
RDA's failure to address this growing body of library material?
Is it too late to include such material in the redrafted RDA?
Computer would need to change from being a media type (replaced by
ISBD's electronic?), becoming instead a carrier term under a new
media term equipment, along with readers, players, etc. Many present
content terms would apply, but perhaps computer program shoud be added.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] What do I tell the others?
So, better to leave it at all caps? Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Patt Leonard Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 5:51 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] What do I tell the others? The downside to capitalizing every word in a title is that it makes the entire library profession look incompetent and ignorant. Patt Leonard Collins Memorial Library University of Puget Sound 1500 N. Warner St. CMB 1021 Tacoma, WA 98416-1021 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Arakawa, Steven Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 1:55 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] What do I tell the others? [Text deleted] Regarding capitalization--I looked at a sample of the all caps 100/245 Matthew Beacom ran through MARCEDIT. MARCEDIT converted to lower case but capitalized the first letters of all of the words. Looked readable enough to me! What's the downside of transcribing a title using the simplified capitalization? (Surely there's some loophole in RDA that would allow this.) 100/245 in bib record from ProQuest for the dissertation: Before: 100 1\$aHANKINS, JOHN ERSKINE. 245 14$aTHE POEMS OF GEORGE TURBERVILE $h[electronic resource] /$c EDITED WITH CRITICAL NOTES AND A STUDY OFHIS LIFE AND WORKS. After: 100 1\$aHankins, John Erskine. 245 14$aThe Poems Of George Turbervile $h[electronic resource] /$c Edited With Critical Notes And A Study Of His Life And Works. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu
Re: [RDA-L] actual RDA
Or, wait for Maxwell's handbook for RDA. I'm sure there will be a market for a how-to book or books for libraries that only need to perform original cataloging once in a while, and there will be plenty of lead time to develop such a text. As Mike implies, there will undoubtedly be a long transition period before everyone is on board. I wouldn't be shocked to learn that even today some records are being contributed to OCLC that are not based on the most current version of AACR2. At the same time, if one wants to participate in an online discussion about the rules themselves, I agree with Adam that the current iteration needs to be referenced. I think this thread is mixing up different needs. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mike Tribby Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 3:18 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] actual RDA I wrote: So far we at QBI are leaning toward utilizing Mac's cheat sheets. To which Adam Schiff replied: Which were put together based on drafts that might not represent the final published instructions. I haven't compared them to see if they accurately reflect the current RDA, but users of them should proceed with caution. They also won't be able to be kept current if Mac does not have the RDA Toolkit available. It's also highly likely that there will be further RDA revisions as a result of the U.S. RDA test, and any such revisions would need to be taken into consideration when creating cheat sheets. Information on the current pricing of the RDA Toolkit and the print version is available at http://www.rdatoolkit.org/pricing; Thanks for all the cautionary verbiage, Adam, but as you may have noted I also said that not a single customer of ours has expressed any interest, positive or negative, in RDA. Moreover we, like many libraries and other cataloging agencies, are not in a position to afford the subscription and, as you and others have made abundantly clear, the print version will never be current for very long at a time whenever one might purchase it. I don't think smaller libraries and cataloging operations were targeted for disenfranchisement by the backers of RDA, but I do think that to varying degrees disenfranchisement will result. I would be interested in hearing what remedies--other than buy the printed version and hope--RDA enthusiasts would offer us. It seems obvious that in the planning and creating of RDA the emphasis would be on getting it right rather than planning for the have-nots who will always exist regardless of what initiative is undertaken. If all cataloging matters were held up until all cataloging agencies were in a position to participate fully, no initiatives could ever be successfully undertaken. When we get to the end of the adoption consideration process, it will be interesting to see what suggestions are made for non-adopters, if any are. So far it seems to pretty much be: Go fish. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Linked data
This might be of interest-- http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/alcts/confevents/upcoming/webinar/cat/031611.cfm Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, 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 Adger Williams Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 7:58 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Linked data Kevin Randall said snip I think of linked data as something that *functionally* would be something akin to a relational database on steroids, but in its architecture is not really a relational database. I don't think I would be very good at explaining it, but you can look up linked data in Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linked_Data and also look at http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html snip Like Mac, I'm struggling to understand what precisely people mean when they use the phrase linked data, since it doesn't seem to mean just any kind of data with links in. Kevin's second link was very suggestive and helpful and leads me to understand linked data to mean data that is presented in accordance with semantic web standards and conventions. Is this correct? It is the unexpected re-use of information which is the value added by the web. says http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html. http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html I am a little uneasy about substituting this goal for Cutter's long-standing goals. But that's almost a marketing question. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Bibliographic Services Dept. Northwestern University Library 1970 Campus Drive Evanston, IL 60208-2300 email: k...@northwestern.edumailto:k...@northwestern.edu phone: (847) 491-2939 fax: (847) 491-4345 -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 awilli...@colgate.edumailto:awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Browse and search RDA test data
The rules for capitalization in AACR2 (and default RDA, which carries them over) are very complex and quite difficult for trainees to grasp, even more so when working with multiple languages. If one is running a minimal level project, it eats into training time, and, since it is pretty much impossible to get right, it is then necessary to set up boundaries for revision. The transcribe what you see approach is also extremely helpful when working with foreign languages that use a lot of diacritics, like French or Vietnamese for those title page designer who leave out a mark here or there. The notion of a cataloger recataloging a record to revert the RDA transcription to AACR2 rules is to me a (nightmarish) legacy of 20th century cataloging which I hope will not infect the younger generations who come to cataloging. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, 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 [rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind [rochk...@jhu.edu] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 10:32 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Browse and search RDA test data I don't see value in all caps, I am just not disturbed by them, and see some sense in transcribing what's on the item in a transcribed field, especially if it will make cataloging simpler or cheaper or easier. Basically, I just don't see it matters too much either way. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Mike Tribby [mike.tri...@quality-books.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 10:14 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Browse and search RDA test data Quoting J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca: Capitalization as found would be acceptable in 505 contents and 520 summaries, but 245 titles are seen in hitlists with other titles, so uniformity is more important. In the upper case examples I checked, the all caps do not reflect the source, according to Amazon images. There is no rationalization apart from bone laziness in harvesting data. Quoting Hal Cain: Contents notes rendered all uppercase have attracted hostile comment already (perhaps not here, but certainly on Autocat), when incorporated into (AACR2) LC records from linked data produced or captured elsewhere. It's widely understood that continuous uppercase text is more difficult for most people to read. I fail to understand what reasonable purpose can be served in using uppercase. If it's as a paltry attempt to represent the style of the titlepage (or other source of primary identifying data for a document), that purpose would be better served by attaching a link to a titlepage image -- which is a strategy I'm considering for a forthcoming project with early printed books. Perhaps not surprisingly, I find myself in agreement with both Mac and Hal. And I would ask Jonathan and any other list members who see value in all-caps display of titles if they have any thoughts on how to transcribe a title in which all letters are caps, but the letters at the start of the title (and possibly at the start of each word) are _larger_ caps than the caps that make up the rest of the title. I don't think my keyboard or my cataloging software is capable of creating caps in different sizes in the same field, at least not easily. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] 300 Punctuation
I have been trying to figure out how end punctuation in MARC 21 is applied in RDA in combination with ISBD and my conclusion is that the editors of RDA the LCPS decided to make using ISBD with RDA so complicated that the cataloging world would hasten to abandon ISBD, which I assume is one of RDA's hidden agendas. With ISBD in MARC, the initial punctuation of an area is entered in the preceding MARC field, which makes combining ISBD with MARC such a headache. It appears to me that RDA D.1.2.1 is saying that since the separate paragraphing of the notes is optional, and notes ISBN by default are not preceded by a period space dash space in the RDA rule, then normally the 300 ends with a period if it precedes the series area but not if it precedes a note or ISBN or nothing. Only the area in 300 could have a scenario where there was no subsequent area beginning with period space dash space. Which is what the LCPS 1.7.1 is saying, so the North American paragraphing (card catalog legacy) is therefore being ignored (at least in the LCPS). However, note that the LCPS is written so that a 300 field ending with an abbreviation does not result in 2 periods if there is a series, which I think would happen if D 1.2.1. was followed to the letter. RDA would then seem to be leaving the end punctuation of notes up to the cataloger or cataloging agency, and the LCPS provides guidelines. The LCPS does something similar For field 250, an edition statement ending with an abbreviation would end with 2 periods per D.1.2.1; the LCPS allows the abbreviation period to do double duty (the LCPS also applies to 245, so if it ends with by John Smith, Jr. you don't end the field with two periods). On the other hand, the LCPS seems to be using the card paragraphing model when applied to 260. If the extent /series areas are not considered to be a separate paragraph following the North American card arrangement, then 260 is preceding the physical description area, which is preceded by period space dash space. In which case 260 must end with a period, double punctuating if necessary (e.g. if it ended with a bracketed date). But the LCPS instruction is to close 260 with end punctuation not restricted to the period, although, again, the LCPS intentionally overrides the double punctuation situation. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Manon Theroux Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 1:04 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 300 Punctuation When following Appendix D, I think one problem is that D.1.2.8 says Precede each note by a full stop, space, dash, space, or start a new paragraph for each. We are given the choice, so it would seem that we could either end a 300 field preceding the note area (when there is no intervening 4XX field) with a full stop or not. There is nothing in the LCPS to specify using the paragraph approach. How can we expect a new cataloger to know that it is North American practice to start a new paragraph (especially when most of our OPAC displays no longer mimic catalog cards)? In AACR2, this is spelled out in LCRI 1.0C but there is no equivalent for RDA. That LCRI also provided the explanation that, in a MARC environment, the space-dash-space part of the ISBD full stop-space-dash-space preceding certain areas is supposed to be generated by one's display software. I've been wondering why RDA wasn't written to follow the actual ISBD text more closely. ISBD says: 0.3.2.3. Each area of the ISBD other than area 1 is preceded by a point, space, dash, space (. -- ), unless that area is clearly separated from the preceding area by paragraphing, typography or indentation, in which case the point, space, dash, space may be replaced by a point (.) given at the end of the preceding area. RDA says: D.1.2.1. Precede each area, other than the first area, or each occurrence of a note or standard number, etc., area, by a full stop, space, dash, space (. - ) unless the area begins a new paragraph. If RDA had included that last bit, with the option to replace the full stop, space, dash, space with simply a full stop before a new paragraph, then it wouldn't matter if the 300 field was followed by a 4XX or a 5XX field, right? We could just end the 300 field with a full stop as we always have. I'm assuming it was simply a matter of wanting the RDA text to match AACR2 1.0.C.1? -- Manon Théroux Head of Technical Services U.S. Senate Library SR-B15 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510-7112 On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Robert Maxwell robert_maxw...@byu.edu wrote: I do not presume to speak for LC's reasons, but as a testing library BYU is following the
[RDA-L] Parallel Title Proper RDA 2.3.3
Is there no cataloger option to limit the number of parallel titles proper to transcribe? Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Parallel Title Proper RDA 2.3.3
And, since the parallel titles proper can be taken from anywhere on the resource, I can imagine this being an occasional problem with the publications of international bodies. Maybe there will be an amendment or LCPS revision following testing if enough people catalog UN publications. -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Mark Ehlert Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 11:55 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Parallel Title Proper RDA 2.3.3 Steven Arakawa steven.arak...@yale.edu wrote: Is there no cataloger option to limit the number of parallel titles proper to transcribe? No, there is none--probably goes against the principle of representation or some such. The LCPS on parallel titles proper merely turns the thing into a core element, with no limitations mentioned. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex Coordinator University of Minnesota Bibliographic Technical 15 Andersen Library Services (BATS) Unit 222 21st Avenue South Phone: 612-624-0805 Minneapolis, MN 55455-0439 http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
[RDA-L] RDA Toolkit Concurrent users
Since today is Sept. 1, I am assuming our subscription for x number of concurrent users is in place. We are accessing via IP address. In Cataloger's Desktop and ClassWeb, there are buttons to log out when a user session is done. I don't find one in the RDA Toolkit display. Do we just need to close the browser tab? Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu
Re: [RDA-L] The RDA Toolkit Workflow
Is anyone else having problems using the Workflow function? I particularly dislike the way it jumps to the beginning whenever I toggle back to the Workflow window. Is there a color or highlighter function that I'm overlooking? The program does considerable reformatting for copy pasted into it from RDA. It pretty much stripped all the formatting out of the Word document I pasted. As a result, the editing took much longer than expected. Is there a size limit? To save time, I tried copying pasting Section 1/part 2 into a new personal Workflow, then deleted the rules applying to categories of resources that were irrelevant to the category of resource's specific descriptive elements (good way to examine the rules by the way). I *thought* I saved it but lost a morning's worth of formatting. And the editing was slow jerky throughout. Frankly, I'd prefer a template for the various categories (text, video, map) into which I could insert local practice. Is something like that in the works? Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, 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:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Troy Linker Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 11:30 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] The RDA Toolkit launches Wednesday, June 23 It's here! The RDA Toolkit launches Wednesday, June 23. The Co-Publishers of the RDA Toolkit (American Library Association, Canadian Library Association, and CILIP--through its publishing imprint, Facet Publishing) are delighted to announce that the RDA Toolkit is going live Wednesday, June 23. If you have already signed up for free open access, you will receive an email with your login information. For institutional access, an email with login information will be sent to the email address provided during sign-up. As you use the RDA Toolkit, you'll notice ongoing improvements and additions. We look forward to your feedback. RDA Toolkit highlights to try: * RDA instructions that are searchable and browseable * AACR2 Rule Number Search of RDA instructions * Workflows, mappings: tools to customize the RDA instruction set to * support organizational training and processes. * Two views of RDA content-by table of contents and by element set * Full text of AACR2 If you or your institution haven't yet signed up for free open access through August 31, 2010, please visit www.rdatoolkit.org/openaccess. Sign up at www.rdatoolkit.org/rdalist to receive information about free trials, special introductory offers (double-user offer for site license subscriptions through August 31, 2011!), webinars, product updates, and more. Bookmark the informational website www.rdatoolkit.org where you can access webinar archives, an RDA training calendar, presenter/trainer materials, pricing in the major currencies, and more. If you need to process a subscription before the electronic order form and payment gateway go live in the next few weeks, please contact us via the RDA Toolkit Support Center at www.rdatoolkit.org/support so we can process your order. You will not pay for any part of your subscription that falls within the open-access period; we will extend all subscriptions through at least August 31, 2011. And if you're attending ALA Annual Conference in Washington, D.C., visit us in the exhibits at booth #2605 for a demo, to chat with ALA Digital Reference Publisher Troy Linker and other staff, and to review an early sample of the print RDA Instructions. Kind regards, Troy Linker Publisher, ALA Digital Reference American Library Association (312) 280-5101 www.rdatoolkit.org www.guidetoreference.org
Re: [RDA-L] RDA subscription costsFull draft of RDA delivered
This is somewhat implied by the snippet from Marjorie Bloss below, but I'd be interested in opinions as to whether this model would work: 1. What if OCLC makes RDA available to its subscribers online, as it does with Bibliographic Formats Standards? 2. OCLC adds an annual surcharge to its subscriber bill based on the number of anticipated users [number of catalogers employed by the library or cataloging agency], which goes to ALA publishing or the CoP--whoever is supposed to be reimbursed or profit from the development investment. Part of the surcharge could go to OCLC for maintaining the file some access features. (Maybe OCLC could also add a surcharge for WorldCat subscribers on the theory that users of bibliographic records also benefit indirectly from the cataloging rules.) Of course, I don't think everyone will consult the rules, but maybe the analogy is with cable companies that require the subscribers to buy a set package, thus allowing niche programming to flourish. 3. Because of the scale, the surcharge ought to be considerably lower than individual or institutional purchases [hopefully more of a saving for large libraries and affordable for small libraries on OCLC], so the cost recovery for the RDA developers should not be an issue. There might be other consortia not connected with OCLC that could apply the same model with the cooperation of the owners of RDA. 4. Assuming 3. is true, can the developers then afford to make RDA freely available as a PDF file for anyone interested in a print product or for libraries that can't afford to be members of OCLC? I suspect a published print product, due to price, would not be viable so this would probably not be much of an income loss for the developers. (I'm assuming most cataloging libraries would have access to the online version if it is made available via OCLC.) 5. RDA online could also be made available to library schools that subscribe to OCLC for training purposes hopefully at a lower discount than would be charged to libraries that contribute cataloging. 6. While we're at it, maybe the model could be extended to products like ClassWeb the LC Rule Interpretations? Of course, in one scenario ALA Publishing could collect the OCLC surcharge but also charge for access via Cataloger's Desktop, but, to use the Google terminology, that would be evil. 7. The benefits to OCLC of having all of its contributors consulting the same set of rules goes without saying. (Personal opinion/consideration, not representative of my institution) Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training Documentation Catalog Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robin Mize Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 8:54 PM To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA subscription costsFull draft of RDA delivered Well said! And how! Robin M. Mize Technical Services Librarian Brenau University Gainesville, GA 30501 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mike Tribby wrote: For a change I was actually saddened that my place of employment would not be open last Friday in observance of Independence Day. It's not from a lack of patriotism, but from having to wait until today to post in response to the grim if not entirely unexpected news regarding how and if RDA will be made available and at what cost. You see it has been my contention from the beginning that RDA is not conceived of as a tool for _all_ libraries, and perhaps not even _most_ libraries. A simple look at the cast of characters involved in all levels of this project reveals that there have been very few public library catalogers included in the discussions; few if any catalogers from smaller libraries, whether academic, special, school, or public; few if any catalogers from vendors of cataloging as opposed to vendors of ILS systems; and, while we're at it, no public recognition or admission of who's not included either in the conception, creation, or the scope of this project that n! ow! has many saying it must succeed simply because of the massive amounts of money and time already invested in the project. For my part I no more buy that as a reason that RDA must be adopted than I buy the same argument as a reason the Iraq war must continue indefinitely. On the other hand perhaps we should be thankful that the mask is now off. Karen Coyle has honestly admitted that, at least in her view, not all libraries need to have access to RDA: [From Karen Coyle in regard to pricing and availability of RDA]: I am also of the opinion that a new cataloging code would sell fewer copies than AACR and AACR2. This is just my gut feeling, but I think that the reliance on copy cataloging and the need to streamline is such that fewer librarians need to have a copy of
