Re: [RDA-L] Habilitation theses

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

Since "habilitation" is not an Anglo-American institution, I would be surprised 
indeed if RDA discusses it. (Just to confirm--searching the Toolkit for 
"habilitation" or any of its variants returns no hits.) So I think this is an 
area where the (Continental) European cataloging community will have to figure 
out what it wants to do and make a proposal to the JSC (if it is necessary).

It looks like typically it's just recorded in a 500 note that is formatted 
somewhat similar to your standard 502... zB: 

#778631115
Ethnizität, Islam, Reformasi : die Evolution der Konfliktlinien im 
Parteiensystem Malaysias / Andreas Ufen.
500 $a The author's Habilitationsschrift--Universität Hamburg, 2010.

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137


-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 03, 2013 12:15 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: [RDA-L] Habilitation theses

On a related note:

The other day, we were wondering how habilitation theses should be treated 
under RDA. These are quite common in Germany. In case you're not familiar with 
this European concept: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habilitation

Some universities grant the academic degree of "Dr. habil." to somebody who has 
successfully completed his or her habilitation. But in many cases, there is no 
special academic degree connected with the habilitation. From then on, the 
successful candidate can call him- or herself a "Privatdozent" (private 
lecturer, PD), while they are waiting for a professorship, but this is no 
academic degree.

According to the German cataloging rules, we only record "Habilitationsschrift" 
(habilitation thesis), but no specific degree - just as for doctoral theses, we 
only record "Dissertation" (without distinguishing between e.g. "Dr. phil." and 
"Dr. med."). Under RDA, do we now need to find out whether it's a case of "Dr. 
habil." or not? And what about the cases where no special academic degree is 
granted?

Heidrun


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

Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

Someone pointed out to me off-list that $y 20th century cannot be directly 
applied to headings for classes of persons. My apology for the error.

--Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement
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 Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 10:12 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity

I wonder if a best practice in this situation would be--like we often do with 
biographical material--to add a 372 $a referring to the class of person that 
the individual represents as well?

[Made up examples:]

111 $a International Einstein Symposium
372 $a Einstein, Albert, 1879-1955 $2 naf
372 $a Physicists $2 lcsh

111 $a Wallace Stevens Society. $b Annual Conference
372 $a Stevens, Wallace, 1879-1955 $2 naf
372 $a Poets, American--20th century $2 lcsh


Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement
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 Moore, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 6:57 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca<mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity

Robert

I once asked a colleague at LC, what they thought about a person’s name being 
recorded as the field of activity for a conference about the person; the reply 
was “Like you, I think it looks a little odd and probably is best handled by 
subject headings, but I don't see anything that would prevent its use”.

We try to use topical terms when we can, but I’ve had no problem advising my 
cataloguers that the name of a corporate body or person could be appropriate in 
the situations you describe. The name heading for William Shakespeare appears 
in 372 in several LC/NAF NARs.


Regards
Richard
_
Richard Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library

Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806
E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk<mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk>



De: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] En nombre de Robert Bratton
Enviado el: jueves, 14 de noviembre de 2013 22:41
Para: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Asunto: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity
Hi John,
I have run into situations where I thought a corporate body or personal should 
be a field of activity. If someone has written multiple books about the U.S. 
Supreme Court or biographies of George Washington or critical studies of 
William Shakespeare, why wouldn't we use the corresponding  name AAPs as one of 
the facets of their field of activity?  I believe current NACO policy is that 
we *not* do this, but we do it for geographic entities and political 
jurisdictions -- how are they any different?
So long as this data element is defined as "field or fields of endeavour, area 
or areas of expertise, etc." where else would we record it?
I think most people do need both a Field of activity and a Profession/Occupation

372  $a Copyright $a Intellectual property $2 lcsh
374  $a Lawyers $a Authors $2 lcsh


372  $a International law $a Terrorism--Prevention--Law and legislation $2 lcsh
374  $a Law teachers $a College teachers $a Authors $2 lcsh


372  $a Human rights $2 lcsh
374  $a Human rights workers $2 lcsh
I agree that ideally the Field of activity shouldn't be specific to the one 
resource you're basing the AAP on, but should broadly cover all of the 
person's/body's output.
I think the problem is that the data element is called "Field of activity."
Robert


On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:21 PM, John Hostage 
mailto:host...@law.harvard.edu>> wrote:
I think we’ve gone way overboard in the application of 372 and 374.  In most 
cases, a person doesn’t need both.  Some people seem to have gotten much too 
specific in these fields.  An authority record does not have to be the same as 
a Wikipedia article.  What purpose does that serve?  The examples in RDA 9.15 
are fairly general.

I wouldn’t say Stalin was a politician.  I would say he was a dictator and a 
head of state.  If you’re looking for another class-of-persons term, you could 
use Communists, but communism isn’t a field of activity, in my opinion.

Similarly, I have seen authority records for corporate bodies where people want 
to make very narrow attributes.  To use a made-up example, if there were a 
heading “National Association of Skydivers. Board of Directors”, some would add 
a 372 for “National Association of Skydivers—Administration.”  I would question 
whether such a subordinate body needs any such field, but if so, I think it 
should be “Skydiving”

Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

I should add--I had no idea that Stevens and Einstein were born and died the 
same year until after I wrote this email. And I picked those two names more or 
less randomly.

Weird.

b

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement
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 Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 10:12 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity

I wonder if a best practice in this situation would be--like we often do with 
biographical material--to add a 372 $a referring to the class of person that 
the individual represents as well?

[Made up examples:]

111 $a International Einstein Symposium
372 $a Einstein, Albert, 1879-1955 $2 naf
372 $a Physicists $2 lcsh

111 $a Wallace Stevens Society. $b Annual Conference
372 $a Stevens, Wallace, 1879-1955 $2 naf
372 $a Poets, American--20th century $2 lcsh


Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement
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 Moore, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 6:57 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca<mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity

Robert

I once asked a colleague at LC, what they thought about a person’s name being 
recorded as the field of activity for a conference about the person; the reply 
was “Like you, I think it looks a little odd and probably is best handled by 
subject headings, but I don't see anything that would prevent its use”.

We try to use topical terms when we can, but I’ve had no problem advising my 
cataloguers that the name of a corporate body or person could be appropriate in 
the situations you describe. The name heading for William Shakespeare appears 
in 372 in several LC/NAF NARs.


Regards
Richard
_
Richard Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library

Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806
E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk<mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk>



De: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] En nombre de Robert Bratton
Enviado el: jueves, 14 de noviembre de 2013 22:41
Para: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Asunto: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity
Hi John,
I have run into situations where I thought a corporate body or personal should 
be a field of activity. If someone has written multiple books about the U.S. 
Supreme Court or biographies of George Washington or critical studies of 
William Shakespeare, why wouldn't we use the corresponding  name AAPs as one of 
the facets of their field of activity?  I believe current NACO policy is that 
we *not* do this, but we do it for geographic entities and political 
jurisdictions -- how are they any different?
So long as this data element is defined as "field or fields of endeavour, area 
or areas of expertise, etc." where else would we record it?
I think most people do need both a Field of activity and a Profession/Occupation

372  $a Copyright $a Intellectual property $2 lcsh
374  $a Lawyers $a Authors $2 lcsh


372  $a International law $a Terrorism--Prevention--Law and legislation $2 lcsh
374  $a Law teachers $a College teachers $a Authors $2 lcsh


372  $a Human rights $2 lcsh
374  $a Human rights workers $2 lcsh
I agree that ideally the Field of activity shouldn't be specific to the one 
resource you're basing the AAP on, but should broadly cover all of the 
person's/body's output.
I think the problem is that the data element is called "Field of activity."
Robert


On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:21 PM, John Hostage 
mailto:host...@law.harvard.edu>> wrote:
I think we’ve gone way overboard in the application of 372 and 374.  In most 
cases, a person doesn’t need both.  Some people seem to have gotten much too 
specific in these fields.  An authority record does not have to be the same as 
a Wikipedia article.  What purpose does that serve?  The examples in RDA 9.15 
are fairly general.

I wouldn’t say Stalin was a politician.  I would say he was a dictator and a 
head of state.  If you’re looking for another class-of-persons term, you could 
use Communists, but communism isn’t a field of activity, in my opinion.

Similarly, I have seen authority records for corporate bodies where people want 
to make very narrow attributes.  To use a made-up example, if there were a 
heading “National Association of Skydivers. Board of Directors”, some would add 
a 372 for “National Association of Skydivers—Administration.”  I would question 
whether such a subordinate body needs any such field, but if so, I t

Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

I wonder if a best practice in this situation would be--like we often do with 
biographical material--to add a 372 $a referring to the class of person that 
the individual represents as well?

[Made up examples:]

111 $a International Einstein Symposium
372 $a Einstein, Albert, 1879-1955 $2 naf
372 $a Physicists $2 lcsh

111 $a Wallace Stevens Society. $b Annual Conference
372 $a Stevens, Wallace, 1879-1955 $2 naf
372 $a Poets, American--20th century $2 lcsh

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement
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 Moore, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 6:57 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity

Robert

I once asked a colleague at LC, what they thought about a person’s name being 
recorded as the field of activity for a conference about the person; the reply 
was “Like you, I think it looks a little odd and probably is best handled by 
subject headings, but I don't see anything that would prevent its use”.

We try to use topical terms when we can, but I’ve had no problem advising my 
cataloguers that the name of a corporate body or person could be appropriate in 
the situations you describe. The name heading for William Shakespeare appears 
in 372 in several LC/NAF NARs.


Regards
Richard
_
Richard Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library

Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806
E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk



De: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] En nombre de Robert Bratton
Enviado el: jueves, 14 de noviembre de 2013 22:41
Para: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Asunto: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity
Hi John,
I have run into situations where I thought a corporate body or personal should 
be a field of activity. If someone has written multiple books about the U.S. 
Supreme Court or biographies of George Washington or critical studies of 
William Shakespeare, why wouldn't we use the corresponding  name AAPs as one of 
the facets of their field of activity?  I believe current NACO policy is that 
we *not* do this, but we do it for geographic entities and political 
jurisdictions -- how are they any different?
So long as this data element is defined as "field or fields of endeavour, area 
or areas of expertise, etc." where else would we record it?
I think most people do need both a Field of activity and a Profession/Occupation

372  $a Copyright $a Intellectual property $2 lcsh
374  $a Lawyers $a Authors $2 lcsh


372  $a International law $a Terrorism--Prevention--Law and legislation $2 lcsh
374  $a Law teachers $a College teachers $a Authors $2 lcsh


372  $a Human rights $2 lcsh
374  $a Human rights workers $2 lcsh
I agree that ideally the Field of activity shouldn't be specific to the one 
resource you're basing the AAP on, but should broadly cover all of the 
person's/body's output.
I think the problem is that the data element is called "Field of activity."
Robert


On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:21 PM, John Hostage 
mailto:host...@law.harvard.edu>> wrote:
I think we’ve gone way overboard in the application of 372 and 374.  In most 
cases, a person doesn’t need both.  Some people seem to have gotten much too 
specific in these fields.  An authority record does not have to be the same as 
a Wikipedia article.  What purpose does that serve?  The examples in RDA 9.15 
are fairly general.

I wouldn’t say Stalin was a politician.  I would say he was a dictator and a 
head of state.  If you’re looking for another class-of-persons term, you could 
use Communists, but communism isn’t a field of activity, in my opinion.

Similarly, I have seen authority records for corporate bodies where people want 
to make very narrow attributes.  To use a made-up example, if there were a 
heading “National Association of Skydivers. Board of Directors”, some would add 
a 372 for “National Association of Skydivers—Administration.”  I would question 
whether such a subordinate body needs any such field, but if so, I think it 
should be “Skydiving”, which would have been on the parent record.  Does anyone 
think it makes sense to use a corporate body name as a field of activity?

--
John Hostage
Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger //
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services //
Langdell Hall 194 //
Cambridge, MA 02138
host...@law.harvard.edu
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On 
Behalf Of Santos Muñoz, Ricardo
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 05:07

Re: [RDA-L] Cost of Retrospective Conversion for Legacy Data (Was RDA Toolkit Price Change)

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

For the most part I don't think there is any pressing need to convert pre-RDA 
descriptive cataloging.  The changes to the descriptive portion of the record 
are more or less aesthetic ("p." vs "pages" for example).  We have lived with 
AACR2 and pre-AACR2 records living cheek-by-jowl in our catalogs for 
generations, and no catalog that I know has spontaneously combusted because of 
it.

But the real question is access points--and in particular, whether RDA relators 
can be retrospectively added to pre-AACR2 records. As someone has already 
pointed out, as it stands they are not going to be particularly useful in 
constructing indexes or underpinning faceted discovery unless they are 
uniformly present in every record in the catalog.  

If they are not consistently applied then users will either get "loosey" 
results (things showing up where they don't belong) or worse, "lossy" results 
(things NOT showing up where they do belong).  

I would be very curious to know if anyone with a systems background has thought 
about ways to batch-apply relators to existing records. Perhaps by making use 
of existing statements of responsibility?  It seems to me given the number of 
pre-RDA records out there that no one will ever have time and/or money to 
update them manually.

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Gary L Strawn
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 4:33 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Cost of Retrospective Conversion for Legacy Data (Was RDA 
Toolkit Price Change)

If anyone is interested, Appendixes E, F and G of the documentation for the 
cataloger's toolkit describe many of the RDA-related changes we are making in 
our database.  At present we are changing one record at a time (as we do other 
work on the record), but I expect to have a batch program early in the new 
year; certainly, we intend to use such a batch program to finish the conversion 
of our database before the migration to Alma.  This batch program will probably 
be similar to the earlier program that made RDA-related changes to access 
fields: for anyone, it will read and write files of MARC records; for Voyager 
users, it will also be able to update the database directly.

You can start here:

http://files.library.northwestern.edu/public/CatalogersToolkit/Documentation/Online/#Appendix_E

I will emphasize that the generation of 33X fields becomes a knotty problem if 
a record combines expressions in different forms (such as print and online).  
We plan to untangle as many of our lumped-together records as we can before we 
RDA-ize our database with a batch program.

Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc.   Twitter: GaryLStrawn
Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300
e-mail: mrsm...@northwestern.edu   voice: 847/491-2788   fax: 847/491-8306
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit.   BatchCat version: 2007.25.428


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Guy Vernon Frost
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 8:13 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Cost of Retrospective Conversion for Legacy Data (Was RDA 
Toolkit Price Change)

You can also customize is "a little" for no additional charge. For example, we 
chose not to have MARCIVE convert the 250 which is a descriptive field. For the 
record, I'm not too happy with some of their choices for the 336-338 fields, 
but we send so little that isn't RDA converted already that I just accept what 
they send.

Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

If you really need a salve for your conscience after consigning some poor law 
professor to the realm of genocidal maniacs you could use the 680 "Public 
general note":

680 ## $a So-and-so is a professor of law specializing in the adjudication of 
war crimes and genocide.
e.g.


Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement
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 Robert Bratton
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 8:35 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity

Field of activity is pretty broadly defined in RDA 9.15 as a: "field of 
endeavour, area of expertise, etc., in which a person is engaged or was 
engaged."  You could propose that Field of endeavour and Area of expertise be 
two separate data elements, but for now they are lumped together.

Being in a law library I have run into this issue because legal academics often 
write about unsavory topics.  When I put terms like "Rape" or "War crimes" or 
"Family violence" in the Field of activity data element I often pause and 
think, "Wait, am I making it sound like this person is a perpetrator of these 
things?"
Thus:
372 $a War crimes $a Genocide $2 lcsh
374 $a Law teachers $a College teachers $a Authors $2 lcsh
and
372 $a War crimes $a Genocide $2 lcsh
374 $a War criminals $a Generals $2 lcsh

For the punk rock example you could also have:

372 $a Punk rock music $2 lcsh
374 $a Punk rock musicians $2 lcsh
and

372 $a Punk rock music--History and criticism $2 lcsh
374 $a Music critics $2 lcsh
Robert
--
Robert Bratton
Cataloging Librarian
George Washington University Law Library
Washington, DC  20052

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Moore, Richard 
mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk>> wrote:
Ricardo

All you are doing with "372 Punk rock music", is expressing that the person has 
that field of activity. It's the 374 that tells you their occupation, in 
relation to that field:

372 $a Punk rock $2 lcsh
372 $a Punk rock musicians $2 lcsh

or

372 $a Punk rock $2 lcsh
372 $a Music critics $2 lcsh

and of course you can put more than one thing in 372:

372 $a Punk rock $a Musical criticism $2 lcsh
372 $a Music critics $2 lcsh

Regards
Richard

_
Richard Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library

Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806
E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk






From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On 
Behalf Of Santos Muñoz, Ricardo
Sent: 14 November 2013 10:07
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity

Hello again.

I'm wrangling with some of the 3xx fields for authority records, in order to 
produce some policy for using some of them in a coherent and fruitful way. I'm 
facing some problems, and neither the MARC field itself, nor RDA instructions, 
nor the use I've seen out there gives me a clear view.

The main bump in the road is field 372. Let's say I'm working on Joseph Stalin. 
I'd like record and retrieve him as a politician (374), as a member of 
Communist Party of the Soviet Union (373), but I'd like to relate him with 
communism. So, recording "Communism" in 372 seems perfect for that purpose. But 
I would also record Comunism in 372 for a scholar historian on communism.

Summing up, if I record 372 Punk-rock, Am I expressing that the guy is a 
musician (374), specialized in doing punk-rock music, or Am I indicating that 
he/she is a music critic (374), expert on punk-rock music?

Thanks in advance for opinions and experiencies.

Ricardo Santos Muñoz
Depto. de Proceso Técnico
Biblioteca Nacional de España
Tfno.: 915 807 735

**
Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk

The British Library's latest Annual Report and Accounts : 
www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html

Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. 
www.bl.uk/adoptabook

The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled

*

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally 
privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the 
postmas...@bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must 
not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent.

The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author 
and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British 
Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author.

[RDA-L] Sponsors and sponsoring bodies

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

Reading over the list of changes to RDA with the new update I noticed the 
following:

Appendix I (entities --> bibliographic)
sponsoring body: A person, family, or corporate body sponsoring some aspect of 
a work, e.g., funding research, sponsoring an event.
Appendix K (entities --> entities)
sponsor: A person sponsoring the corporate body.

So if an individual sponsored a conference, he would get "$d sponsoring body" 
(for a work related to said conference, say, a proceedings) in a bibliographic 
record, but "$d sponsor" (for the corporate body/conference) in an authority 
record? It seems a little weird to me to call an individual a "body".

--Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, but just to sound off my agreement with 
Mac's statement, "No finite list can reflect the infinite relationship 
possibilities" and wondering yet again why there aren't more generic RDA 
relators like "contributor".

For example, I'm cataloging a work with the following statement of 
responsibility:

produced and photographed by Joseph Daniel ; original preface, trial 
transcripts, and new afterword by Daniel Ellsberg ; original reporting by Keith 
Pope ; original poetry and "Plutonian ode" by Allen Ginsberg ; new and updated 
history and reflection by LeRoy Moore ; activists appendix by August Freirich.

With the exception of the first-named author, there are no established RDA 
terms for their specific roles. I suppose "author" is closest, but all of them 
could more accurately be described as contributors, in my opinion.



Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137


-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 2:26 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator

Kevin said:

>.. there don't seem to be any specific designators that fit the situation.

No finite list can reflect the infinite relationship possibilities.  
In some situations there is no useful term, or we shoehorn an entity into an 
ill fitting one, e.g., "host institution" for an art gallery mounting an 
exhibition.

I begin to understand why so many clients want them removed.  Let's continue 
justifying added entries in description.


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

Re: [RDA-L] Question about multiple authors on an OCLC record

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

The 1st ed. listed Bales as primary author so presumably whoever created the 
record for the 2nd ed. preserved the main entry.

If you look at RDA 6.27.1.3 (Authorized access points ... Collaborative works) 
you'll see that the person with "principal responsibility" is assigned to the 
access point. (To translate from RDA-ese: gets Main Entry/1xx), but if 
principal responsibility is uncertain then choose the first-named author.

So presumably the cataloger of #87852529 felt that even though the 2nd edition 
lists Hirsch as the first-named author, the fact that Bales is primarily 
responsible for the original edition is more indicative of "principal 
responsibility".

--Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement
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 Wesson, Jinny
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 2:59 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: [RDA-L] Question about multiple authors on an OCLC record

OCLC #87852529 Understanding Employment Law
There are 3 authors, all listed as shown on title page (including the Univ 
info)  in the 245 tag $c Jeffrey M. Hirsch, Paul M. Secunda and Richard A. 
Bales. This is the order shown on title page.
The record shows Bales, Richard A. as the author in the 100 tag. I know in 
AACR2, I always used the first author listed on title page. RDA toolkit is 
confusing to me and I could not find information on this.

Jinny Wesson
[Description: RTC new logo email signature]
Library Resource Center
Library Coordinator
Technical Services/Cataloging
3000 NE 4th St.
Renton, WA 98056
(425) 235-2331
jwes...@rtc.edu



<>

Re: [RDA-L] Titles of nobility

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

While I agree that the access point should not serve as a unique identifier for 
systems, there is still the need for users to distinguish easily between 
identically-named entities in an index. 

So the discussion of what information should be included in an access point 
still seems worthwhile to me.

--Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Mary Mastraccio
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 1:00 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Titles of nobility

Kevin wrote:
It's when we're able to rely on identifiers that we can let go of the need for 
unique access points.


Yes, and that needs to be the goal. Too often we limit designing for the future 
because of current practices. My comment was in reference to the German library 
needing to adopt Anglo-American practices.


Mary L. Mastraccio
Cataloging & Authorities Manager
MARCIVE, Inc.
San Antonio, TX 78265
1-800-531-7678
 

-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 17, 2013 11:50 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Titles of nobility

Mary Mastraccio wrote:

> I hope that rather than changing your practice, the Anglo-American 
> practice will change to your practice--as in having the dates in a 
> separate field (046) rather than using a subfield $d. It has been 
> suggested that the 100$a does not need to be unique because other 
> data/fields supply the disambiguation information.

Regarding access points in RDA, the intention is that they be able to 
distinguish between different entities.  For instance, consider the following 
passages from RDA 8.6:  "If two or more persons, families, or corporate bodies 
have the same or similar names, include one or more additional identifying 
elements in the access point representing the person, family, or corporate 
body. ... Indicate that the name of a person is an undifferentiated name (see 
8.11) if the additional identifying elements to differentiate the name cannot 
be readily ascertained."

The instructions for *access points* for both names and works explicitly say 
that elements should be added to make them unique.  It's when we're able to 
rely on identifiers that we can let go of the need for unique access points.

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] Punctuation question--quoted notes

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

I never realized that. I guess I'm a bit parochial when it comes to punctuation!

Thanks,
Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement
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 Young,Naomi Kietzke
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 11:09 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Punctuation question--quoted notes

The placement of punctuation inside vs. outside quotation marks is a US/UK 
English convention. US = inside (generally); UK = Outside (generally).

This probably affects the difference between ISBD, with its more international 
focus, and the LCRI, which would follow predominant US style.

Cheers,
Naomi Young
University of Florida

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of M. E.
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 11:01 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Punctuation question--quoted notes

Benjamin A Abrahamse mailto:babra...@mit.edu>> wrote:

When a note is quoting the source of information (see 1.10.3) and so ends with 
a quotation mark, does the full stop fall inside or outside of the quotation 
mark?  I am having trouble finding an instruction that addresses this.
Most folks have followed the old LCRI and the newer LC-PCC PS to give the final 
punctuation within the quotation.
<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?i?i 
d=lcpschp1&target=lcps1-502#lcps1-502<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=lcpschp1&target=lcps1-502#lcps1-502>>
Scroll down to the second example under #2.

That said, my former boss, Edward Swanson, always used the ISBD method you 
describe of adding the full stop after the quotation.  At least one client 
library asked what was going on with that, so we reverted to the more popular 
application.

--
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex
<http://www.minitex.umn.edu/>

Re: [RDA-L] Punctuation question--quoted notes

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

Thank you, that was exactly what I was looking for.

Best,
Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement
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 M. E.
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 11:01 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Punctuation question--quoted notes

Benjamin A Abrahamse mailto:babra...@mit.edu>> wrote:

When a note is quoting the source of information (see 1.10.3) and so ends with 
a quotation mark, does the full stop fall inside or outside of the quotation 
mark?  I am having trouble finding an instruction that addresses this.
Most folks have followed the old LCRI and the newer LC-PCC PS to give the final 
punctuation within the quotation.
<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=lcpschp1&target=lcps1-502#lcps1-502>
Scroll down to the second example under #2.

That said, my former boss, Edward Swanson, always used the ISBD method you 
describe of adding the full stop after the quotation.  At least one client 
library asked what was going on with that, so we reverted to the more popular 
application.

--
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex
<http://www.minitex.umn.edu/>

[RDA-L] Punctuation question--quoted notes

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

I know that this is not technically an RDA issue but it comes up with respect 
to RDA because the examples in 1.10 (Notes) do not include ISBD punctuation, 
and so catalogers are sometimes left with questions on how to punctuate notes 
correctly.

When a note is quoting the source of information (see 1.10.3) and so ends with 
a quotation mark, does the full stop fall inside or outside of the quotation 
mark?  I am having trouble finding an instruction that addresses this.

RDA provides the example (identical to AACR2):

"Published for the Royal Institute of Public Administration"

The 2010 edition of ISBD, section 7, also provides examples of quoted notes but 
without punctuation:

. -- "Map based on uncontrolled aerial photography flown 1972. Map field 
checked 1973"

Based on these examples, and ISBD instruction on prescribed punctuation 
(ISBD:2010, 7-1: "When each note is given in a
separate paragraph, these punctuation marks are omitted, or replaced by a point 
at the end of the note") it would seem we should punctuate the note:

"Map based on uncontrolled aerial photography flown 1972. Map field checked 
1973".

And yet I see amply (though not universally) attested in OCLC the inclusion of 
the period within the quotation, e.g.:

"Map based on uncontrolled aerial photography flown 1972. Map field checked 
1973."

This latter example conforms to what I've always done, without really thinking 
about it, and it conforms with standard written English. Does anyone know if 
there is an specific instruction somewhere on this, or does it just fall under 
1.7.1 Alternative ("agency creating the data may establish in-house 
guidelines... or choose a published style manual ... and use those guidelines 
or that style manual insteado the instructions at 1.7.2-1.7.9 and in the 
appendices.")

Thank you,
Ben


Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

Re: [RDA-L] WEMI and Bibframe

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

I think what he's saying is that a "bibFrame:Work" is just a container into 
which both "FRBR:Works" and "FRBR:Expressions" can be put.  

But, speaking for myself, I think the FRBR model would be a lot simpler to 
grasp, not to mention more applicable to non-monographic resources, if the 
"expression" level were jettisoned altogether. 

I don't see what the category of "Expressions" give us that couldn't be 
recorded and expressed through relationships among Works.

--Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137


-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: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 12:57 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] WEMI and Bibframe

I said:

> As I understand it, what are Expressions in RDA (e.g. translations) 
>are Works in Bibframe.

Thomas Meehan responded:

>Not so. As I understand it, both RDA Works and RDA Expressions are 
>represented as Bibframe Works.

Isn't that what I just said?


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

Re: [RDA-L] Uniform titles in RDA

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

Well, it's technically correct inasmuch as the MARC definition allows the 
second indicator to be used to account for nonfiling characters. But I have to 
say I've never seen it actually used.

--Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement
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 Stephen Early
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 3:31 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Uniform titles in RDA

I think not.

Stephen T. Early
Cataloger
Center for Research Libraries
6050 S. Kenwood
Chicago, IL  60637
773-955-4545 x326
sea...@crl.edu
CRL website: www.crl.edu

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Shorten, Jay
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 2:23 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Uniform titles in RDA

Is it now RDA practice to enter the uniform title with articles? Example:  LCCN 
2013002020 OCLC 828333810 has a 240 14 The new school counselor rather than 240 
10 New school counselor

Jay Shorten
Cataloger, Monographs and Electronic Resources
Associate Professor of Bibliography
Catalog Department
University Libraries
University of Oklahoma

jshor...@ou.edu

Re: [RDA-L] Content/Media/Carrier Types - Video Games

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

Respectfully, regarding

"The Content Types "computer program" and "computer dataset" are different in 
that the primary processing of the content is done by computers. These would 
not be used if the content was created primarily for direct human 
perception..." 

doesn't really make sense to me. A spreadsheet is as much designed for "direct 
human perception" as is a video game.  (Well, at least, a well-designed 
spreadsheet is.)  It's just not as much fun.  

Moreoever, not every computer game is in fact made up of "two-dimensional 
moving images". Text adventures aren't.  A point-and-click adventure may not 
have any visible animation but rather 
consist of a series of still images that the user navigates through.  Map-based 
strategy games might be closer to cartographic images.  

It seems to me if the purpose of these terms is to collocate content in useful 
ways then the only term that covers all video or computer games is "computer 
program".

But all of this just underscores my point that there should be RDA content 
terms for interactive content as well as games (be they tangible or digital).


--Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Brenndorfer, Thomas
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 10:25 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Content/Media/Carrier Types - Video Games

For Content Type, video games are listed under "two-dimensional moving image". 
Content Type refers to the primary human perception involved.

For the authorized access point of the work, video games are treated like 
motion pictures, and are grouped under collaborative "moving image works" (RDA 
6.27.1.3).

The Content Types "computer program" and "computer dataset" are different in 
that the primary processing of the content is done by computers. These would 
not be used if the content was created primarily for direct human perception, 
such as the moving images of a video game. With computer programs, I usually 
think of people issuing commands and pressing buttons to transform data, as 
opposed to absorbing creative content intended directly for human perception, 
such as the text of a book, or the images and sounds of a video game.

If the video game comes on a CD-ROM, then the Carrier Type is "computer disc".

The Media Type is part of the Carrier Type, and so there should be no Media 
Type term without a corresponding Carrier Type. As computer discs are computer 
media, then the Media Type is "computer."

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Katrina Gormley [kgorm...@crdl.org]
Sent: August-28-13 9:12 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Content/Media/Carrier Types - Video Games

I apologize if this has been covered.  I searched the archives and didn't find 
it anywhere ... What Content/Media/Carrier Types are people using for Video 
games (xBox, wii, Playstation, etc.)?
Content:  Computer Program?  Computer Program + two-dimensional moving image?  
I guess it surprises me they didn't include a category for video games.
Media:  Computer?  Or Projected?
Carrier:  computer disc?

Anything anyone can share will be greatly appreciated!
~Katrina Gormley


[cid:image001.jpg@01CEA3CE.3A964480]

Re: [RDA-L] Citing an unnumbered page

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

I think the solution depends on what those initial unnumbered pages actually 
contain.  If pages [2-4] are some sort of preface or foreword you could perhaps 
use that as the citation.

500 $a "Published to commemorate XYZ"--Preface.

Failing that, some other suggestions:

500 $a "Published to commemorate XYZ"--Page following title page.
500 $a "Published to commemorate XYZ"--Preliminary text.
500 $a Published to commemorate XYZ.

"Unnumbered page 2" looks weird to me, personally.

--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 Nickeson, Walter
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 12:54 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Citing an unnumbered page

Yes, but if the note says:

500  $a "Published to commemorate XYZ"-Page 2

you still don't know where it came from, as there are two "page 2"s in this 
volume, one with the number on it, the other without.

*
  Walter F. Nickeson, Catalog &
Metadata Management Librarian
  Rush Rhees Library
  University of Rochester
  Rochester, NY  14627-0055
  wnicke...@library.rochester.edu
  (585) 273-2326  fax: (585) 273-1032
*

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joan Wang
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 12:20 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Citing an unnumbered page

Library of Congress Policy: do not use square brackets in notes except when 
they are used in quoted data
Example: 500   "Types of prayer wheels found in south central Tibet, by Mei 
Lin": pages 310-375.
(Not pages [310]-[375])

On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Nickeson, Walter 
mailto:wnicke...@library.rochester.edu>> wrote:
In RDA, how would the cited page number be given in the note?

AACR2:
300  $a [4], 85 p.
500  $a "Published to commemorate XYZ"--P. [2].

*
  Walter F. Nickeson, Catalog &
Metadata Management Librarian
  Rush Rhees Library
  University of Rochester
  Rochester, NY  14627-0055
  wnicke...@library.rochester.edu
  (585) 273-2326  fax: (585) 
273-1032
*



--
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] Names of conferences as title proper, other title information or statement of responsiblity

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

I meant, of course, "Bibliotheken" not "Biblitheken".

--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 Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 2:05 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

Under AACR2 and perhaps even earlier practice, it was quite common to treat the 
conference name as other title information and so put it in $b:

$a Biblitheken für die Zukunft, Zukunft für die Bibliotheken : $b 100. 
deutscher Bibliothekartag in Berlin 2011 / $c herausgegeben von Ulrich hohff 
und Daniel Lülfing.

Since "Main Entry" was understood as a simply cataloging device for collocating 
resources in a useful fashion, the fact that what appeared in the 1xx (the 
conference) was not in the statement of responsibility did not seem to trouble 
anyone.

But with RDA having banished "Main Entry" in favor of relationships, and having 
declared (19.2.1.1.1.d) a conference proceedings the "creation" of a conference 
(note how, in the AACR2 equivalent, 21.1B2, the phrase is "a work emanating 
from one or more corporate bodies", whereas as RDA says, "Corporate bodies are 
considered to be creators") there seems to be an (unspoken?) re-evaluation of 
this practice in favor of putting the conference in the $c:

$a Biblitheken für die Zukunft, Zukunft für die Bibliotheken / $c 100. 
deutscher Bibliothekartag in Berlin 2011 ; herausgegeben von Ulrich hohff und 
Daniel Lülfing.

I don't think there is a specific chapter and verse where this is stated but 
it's what I've been seeing in OCLC lately.  Of course the real question is: is 
"100. deutscher Bibliothekartag in Berlin 2011" other title information, or a 
statement of responsibility? I think the answer is likely, "Both", so I'm 
afraid we probably shouldn't expect to see consistency in the way catalogers 
treat it.

My .02,

--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 Gene Fieg
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 1:46 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca<mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Names of conferences as title proper, other title 
information or statement of responsiblity

I meant area of responsibility.  The 245 line would read [title] / |c [name of 
conference]

On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller 
mailto:wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de>> wrote:
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<http://www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi>



--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu<mailto:gf...@cst.edu>

Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent 
or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content 
contained in this forwarded email.  The forwarded email is that of the original 
sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or 
Claremont Lincoln University.  It has been forwarded as a courtesy for 
information only.

Re: [RDA-L] Names of conferences as title proper, other title information or statement of responsiblity

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

Under AACR2 and perhaps even earlier practice, it was quite common to treat the 
conference name as other title information and so put it in $b:

$a Biblitheken für die Zukunft, Zukunft für die Bibliotheken : $b 100. 
deutscher Bibliothekartag in Berlin 2011 / $c herausgegeben von Ulrich hohff 
und Daniel Lülfing.

Since "Main Entry" was understood as a simply cataloging device for collocating 
resources in a useful fashion, the fact that what appeared in the 1xx (the 
conference) was not in the statement of responsibility did not seem to trouble 
anyone.

But with RDA having banished "Main Entry" in favor of relationships, and having 
declared (19.2.1.1.1.d) a conference proceedings the "creation" of a conference 
(note how, in the AACR2 equivalent, 21.1B2, the phrase is "a work emanating 
from one or more corporate bodies", whereas as RDA says, "Corporate bodies are 
considered to be creators") there seems to be an (unspoken?) re-evaluation of 
this practice in favor of putting the conference in the $c:

$a Biblitheken für die Zukunft, Zukunft für die Bibliotheken / $c 100. 
deutscher Bibliothekartag in Berlin 2011 ; herausgegeben von Ulrich hohff und 
Daniel Lülfing.

I don't think there is a specific chapter and verse where this is stated but 
it's what I've been seeing in OCLC lately.  Of course the real question is: is 
"100. deutscher Bibliothekartag in Berlin 2011" other title information, or a 
statement of responsibility? I think the answer is likely, "Both", so I'm 
afraid we probably shouldn't expect to see consistency in the way catalogers 
treat it.

My .02,

--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 Gene Fieg
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 1:46 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

I meant area of responsibility.  The 245 line would read [title] / |c [name of 
conference]

On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller 
mailto:wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de>> wrote:
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



--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu

Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent 
or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content 
contained in this forwarded email.  The forwarded email is that of the original 
sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or 
Claremont Lincoln University.  It has been forwarded as a courtesy for 
information only.

Re: [RDA-L] RDA 336-338 fields and books with accompanying media

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

It's not really clear to me what (if anything) the user will see of this 3xx 
data, and I don't know if there is (yet) a "best way" to encode it. But our 
practice so far has been only to mark accompanying material with $3:

1. Book with CD-ROM:

336  text ǂb txt ǂ2 rdacontent
337  unmediated ǂb n ǂ2 rdamedia
337  computer ǂb c ǂ2 rdamedia ǂ3 accompanying material
338  volume ǂb nc ǂ2 rdacarrier
338  computer disc ǂb cd ǂ2 rdacarrier ǂ3 accompanying material

2. Book with accompanying DVD:

336  ǂa text ǂb txt ǂ2 rdacontent
336  ǂa two-dimensional moving image ǂb tdm ǂ2 rdacontent ǂ3 accompanying 
material
337  ǂa unmediated ǂb n ǂ2 rdamedia
337  ǂa video ǂb v ǂ2 rdamedia ǂ3 accompanying material
338  ǂa volume ǂb nc ǂ2 rdacarrier
338  ǂa videodisc ǂb vd ǂ2 rdacarrier ǂ3 accompanying material


--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 MCCUTCHEON, SEVIM
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:00 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: [RDA-L] RDA 336-338 fields and books with accompanying media

We sometimes get books with accompanying media (like CD-ROMs, DVD-ROMs, CDs and 
DVDs). We could use some advice.

What’s the best way to input the 336-338 fields in these scenarios?


1.   Book with CD-ROM.  CD-ROM contains PDF files (textual material)

336  text ǂb txt ǂ2 rdacontent ǂ3 book

336  text ǂb txt ǂ2 rdacontent

337  unmediated ǂb n ǂ2 rdamedia ǂ3 book

337  computer ǂb c ǂ2 rdamedia ǂ3 CD-ROM

338  volume ǂb nc ǂ2 rdacarrier ǂ3 book

338  computer disc ǂb cd ǂ2 rdacarrier ǂ3 CD-ROM



… Or since both the book and contents of the CD-ROM consist of text, would you 
perhaps input only one 336 field?  Such as…

336  text ǂb txt ǂ2 rdacontent ǂ3 book & CD-ROM

Or

336  text ǂb txt ǂ2 rdacontent ǂ3 book and CD-ROM





2.   Book with DVD-ROM.  DVD-ROM consists primarily of video clips.  It 
also has a few forms.

Would this be correct? And would you add 336-338 fields to show that the 
DVD-ROM has some textual material as well, or would you focus on just the 
primary content, the video clips?



text ǂb txt ǂ2 rdacontent

336  two-dimensional moving image ǂb tdi ǂ2 rdacontent ǂ3 DVD-ROM

337  unmediated ǂb n ǂ2 rdamedia

337  computer ǂb c ǂ2 rdamedia ǂ3 DVD-ROM

337  video ǂb v ǂ2 rdamedia ǂ3 DVD-ROM

338  volume ǂb nc ǂ2 rdacarrier

338  computer disc ǂb cd ǂ2 rdacarrier ǂ3 DVD-ROM

Thank you in advance,

Sevim McCutcheon
Catalog Librarian, Assoc. Prof.
Kent State University Libraries
330-672-1703
lmccu...@kent.edu

Re: [RDA-L] Abbreviating place of publication (was 264 question)

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

The old-school way to sleuth this out is to move backwards from the last 040 
$d, find the OPAC for that library on the Web, and compare their record to the 
master record.  Not very easy, I know, but it usually works.

OCLC now lets us see the history of authority records, which can save a lot of 
time. It would be nice if bibs were treated the same way.

Eventually I hope we get a more wikipedia-like view of records, with a viewable 
(and revertible) record history.


Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Northrup, Kristen D.
Sent: Friday, July 05, 2013 1:08 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Abbreviating place of publication (was 264 question)

One thing we're regularly coming across in our copy cataloging is someone 
changing transcription to postal codes. For example, we get many records from 
Thorndike Press. It says Waterville, Maine on the item. DLC does a pre-pub with 
the transcription and that's how it stays in their catalog. But by the time it 
reaches us, and has alphabet soup in the 040, it's always Waterville, ME. Which 
isn't even the version in the RDA Appendix, of course. I change them back 
whenever allowed but is there a way to identify which library is doing that and 
clarifying things?



Kristen Northrup
Head, Technical Services & State Document Depository North Dakota State Library 
Bismarck, ND
701-328-4610



-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: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 4:35 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 264 question

Dana said:

>I feel that in this case it would be very helpful if there was another 
>example under Rule 2.8.2.6.2 with a state name spelled out

You transcribe in 264$a what is on the item, and more often than not, the 
jurisdiction is abbreviated.  If supplying in brackets, spell it out.  NEVER 
supply a postal code.  (Some would accept abbreviations as used in access 
points for cities.)


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

Re: [RDA-L] "approzimately" in access points

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

If "circa" is too Latinate--even though, to reiterate, it is a perfectly good 
English word--then why not just "around" (which is essentially what circa 
means)?

Agatha, Saint, died around 250.

Tilting at RDA windmills,
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 Kelleher, Martin
Sent: Friday, July 05, 2013 10:36 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] "approzimately" in access points

I think it's more to do with "political correctness" than universality. 
less surprising, then, that you end up with obscurity rather than clarity as a 
result!! ;-)

Martin Kelleher
Metadata Manager
University of Liverpool

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: 05 July 2013 14:32
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] "approzimately" in access points

I agree that the heading "-approximately 250" borders on incoherence.  "died 
circa 250" is much less ambiguous.  Do users really not know what "ca." or 
"circa" means?  It's in both Webster's and the OED.

--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 Gene Fieg
Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2013 2:43 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca<mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] "approzimately" in access points

And meanwhile the patron is wandering in the desert supplicating the deity for 
meaning.

On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 11:25 AM, James Weinheimer 
mailto:weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 04/07/2013 18:07, Elizabeth O'Keefe wrote:


On a somewhat related issue (it was raised in Mac's post), is anyone

else bothered by the display when only a death date is known?



Smith, John, -1932


I have experienced the same thing. I recently cataloged an item with the 
subject heading:
Agatha, Saint, -approximately 250.

I copied and pasted it unthinkingly but when I was editing my record, I 
couldn't understand what this meant, and it was only when I realized that the 
earlier heading was:
Agatha, Saint, d. ca. 250

and the "d." was changed to a hyphen, and the "ca." was changed to 
"approximately", did I understand what the heading was supposed to say. But 
that was only because I know the AACR2 heading.

The new heading is incoherent.
--
James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com<mailto:weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com>
First Thus http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
First Thus Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus
Cooperative Cataloging Rules http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Cataloging Matters Podcasts 
http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html



--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu<mailto:gf...@cst.edu>

Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent 
or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content 
contained in this forwarded email.  The forwarded email is that of the original 
sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or 
Claremont Lincoln University.  It has been forwarded as a courtesy for 
information only.

Re: [RDA-L] "approzimately" in access points

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

I agree that the heading "-approximately 250" borders on incoherence.  "died 
circa 250" is much less ambiguous.  Do users really not know what "ca." or 
"circa" means?  It's in both Webster's and the OED.

--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 Gene Fieg
Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2013 2:43 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] "approzimately" in access points

And meanwhile the patron is wandering in the desert supplicating the deity for 
meaning.

On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 11:25 AM, James Weinheimer 
mailto:weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 04/07/2013 18:07, Elizabeth O'Keefe wrote:


On a somewhat related issue (it was raised in Mac's post), is anyone

else bothered by the display when only a death date is known?



Smith, John, -1932


I have experienced the same thing. I recently cataloged an item with the 
subject heading:
Agatha, Saint, -approximately 250.

I copied and pasted it unthinkingly but when I was editing my record, I 
couldn't understand what this meant, and it was only when I realized that the 
earlier heading was:
Agatha, Saint, d. ca. 250

and the "d." was changed to a hyphen, and the "ca." was changed to 
"approximately", did I understand what the heading was supposed to say. But 
that was only because I know the AACR2 heading.

The new heading is incoherent.
--
James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com
First Thus http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
First Thus Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus
Cooperative Cataloging Rules http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Cataloging Matters Podcasts 
http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html



--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu

Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent 
or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content 
contained in this forwarded email.  The forwarded email is that of the original 
sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or 
Claremont Lincoln University.  It has been forwarded as a courtesy for 
information only.

Re: [RDA-L] 264 question

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

If you know it's been self-published by the author, wouldn't it be ok to put 
the author's name in the $b?  (In brackets, I suppose, as there's no 
publication statement on the sources of information.)

264 x1 $a [United States] : $b [John Q. Author], $c [2013]

--Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137


-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: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 12:08 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 264 question

That is certainly one correct possible way to do this.  Your other option would 
be to take a best guess at the place of publication and then you wouldn't need 
the second 264.  Two possibilities:

264 _1 [Charleston, South Carolina?] : $b [Publisher not identified], $c [2013]

or

264 _1 [United States] : $b [Publisher not identified], $c [2013]

or even

264 _1 [United States?] : $b [Publisher not identified], $c [2013]

^^
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 Tue, 2 Jul 2013, Saunders, Mary wrote:

>   I have a self-published monograph which contains only this publication 
> information:  Made in the USA, Charleston, SC, 07 June 2013.
>
>   Do I make a 264   1  [Place of publication not identified] : $b [Publisher 
> not identified], $c [2013]  and a 264  3  Charleston, SC : $b [Manufacturer 
> not identified], $c 2013
>
>   Or only the 264  3?
>
> Mary Saunders, Cataloger
>  Maine State Library
>  64 State House Station
>  Augusta, ME 04333-0064
>
>  mary.saund...@maine.gov
>
>  207-287-5620
>  207-287-5638 FAX
>

Re: [RDA-L] another (basic) 264 query

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

Karen,

You are correct. MARC field 264 is repeatable for successive publication 
statements (e.g., for a serial or integrating resource). For a book published 
simultaneously in two countries, or jointly by two publishers, it works just 
like the MARC 260.

See: http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd264.html

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 Karen Nelson
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 5:34 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] another (basic) 264 query

So, I get this bit now.

But here's another question, can't find any clues in the resources so far.

On t.p. verso of a title for which I have an RDA bib: the US and Canadian 
publication information.
I know I do not have to include the latter, but in a Canadian university 
library, I still want to.
Is the correct 264 as follows:

264_1$aNew York, NY :$bRandom House, Inc. ;$aToronto :$bRandom House of Canada 
Limited,|c[2012]

Or do I use two 264's?

I think the above is still correct, right? Two 264's (for publishers, that is, 
not for two entities performing different functions, such as pub and dist) are 
for multi-part & serials only?

This I hope will be my last question today. I will soon be giving Mac a run for 
his money as most frequent poster!
;)
KN

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of M. E.
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 12:07 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] another (basic) 264 query

Karen Nelson mailto:knel...@capilanou.ca>> wrote:
But I am still wondering about the issue of the author holding copyright ... 
does her name go in the second 264, if a second one is kept? Haven't seen it 
done so far.

The 264 field dedicated to copyright is for the date alone--that's it.  So all 
you'll get is:

- 264 -4 $c (c)2013

See RDA 2.11 for the instructions, if you have a copy.

If you want to get into the copyright weeds, there's the 542 field:
http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd542.html

--
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] another (basic) 264 query

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

Should have said: "hold down the ALT key and type 0169 on the number pad ".

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 Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 3:09 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] another (basic) 264 query

According to RDA 2.11 "Copyright date", record "date associated with a claim of 
protection under copyright or a similar regime".  RDA says nothing about 
recording who actually holds the copyright, so, no, you wouldn't do that.

Also you can use either "copyright" or "(c)".  On a Windows machine, a quick 
shortcut to produce the (c) symbol is to hold down the ALT key and type 0169 
(doesn't work with the numbers above the letters).

b

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 Karen Nelson
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 2:35 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca<mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] another (basic) 264 query

What Dana has just posted is very helpful (great timing!) and I have just 
noticed that Mac answered a very similar one from me last time I was fiddling 
with some RDA bibs. Should've checked my saved replies, note to self.

But I am still wondering about the issue of the author holding copyright ... 
does her name go in the second 264, if a second one is kept? Haven't seen it 
done so far.

Karen

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Nelson
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 10:33 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: [RDA-L] another (basic) 264 query

I am just getting my toes wet with some RDA copy cataloguing based on LC bibs.

Looking at the bib for Louise Erdrich's Round House, LCCN 2012005381.
There is a 260 in this one still. I want to edit it to 264(s). So far, I have 
included:

264_1|aNew York, NY :|bHarper,|c[2012]  or maybe [2012?]
264_4 |ccopyright 2012


My queries:
Since the author is identified on the tp verso as copyright holder, do I 
include her in the second (copyright) 264? I don't think I have seen that done, 
but does not to do so imply that Harper has the copyright?

Should the square-bracketed inferred date in the first 264 have a question 
mark, or not. LC had it in 260 without copyright symbol. Haven't checked the 
publisher's website yet.

This level of question will give someone a laugh, if nothing else.

Karen

Re: [RDA-L] another (basic) 264 query

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

According to RDA 2.11 "Copyright date", record "date associated with a claim of 
protection under copyright or a similar regime".  RDA says nothing about 
recording who actually holds the copyright, so, no, you wouldn't do that.

Also you can use either "copyright" or "(c)".  On a Windows machine, a quick 
shortcut to produce the (c) symbol is to hold down the ALT key and type 0169 
(doesn't work with the numbers above the letters).

b

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 Karen Nelson
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 2:35 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] another (basic) 264 query

What Dana has just posted is very helpful (great timing!) and I have just 
noticed that Mac answered a very similar one from me last time I was fiddling 
with some RDA bibs. Should've checked my saved replies, note to self.

But I am still wondering about the issue of the author holding copyright ... 
does her name go in the second 264, if a second one is kept? Haven't seen it 
done so far.

Karen

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Nelson
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 10:33 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] another (basic) 264 query

I am just getting my toes wet with some RDA copy cataloguing based on LC bibs.

Looking at the bib for Louise Erdrich's Round House, LCCN 2012005381.
There is a 260 in this one still. I want to edit it to 264(s). So far, I have 
included:

264_1|aNew York, NY :|bHarper,|c[2012]  or maybe [2012?]
264_4 |ccopyright 2012


My queries:
Since the author is identified on the tp verso as copyright holder, do I 
include her in the second (copyright) 264? I don't think I have seen that done, 
but does not to do so imply that Harper has the copyright?

Should the square-bracketed inferred date in the first 264 have a question 
mark, or not. LC had it in 260 without copyright symbol. Haven't checked the 
publisher's website yet.

This level of question will give someone a laugh, if nothing else.

Karen

Re: [RDA-L] SOR from copyright statement

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

It strikes me as a reasonable assumption, that the copyright holder for the 
illustrations is also their creator.  RDA 2.4.2.2 (Statement of responsibility 
relating to title proper--Sources of information) would suggest that verso t.p. 
information can be used as a source of information (see (b)) so I think you can 
use it without brackets.

Another route might be to take the name from verso t.p. and use RDA 2.4.1.7 
"clarification of role":

[illustrated by] Sebastian Ciaffaglione

--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 rball...@frontier.com
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 10:09 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: [RDA-L] SOR from copyright statement

I have an illustrated book that has no specific statement of responsibility 
realting to the illustrator anywhere in the resource. There is however, a 
statement on the title page verso that reads "Interior illustrations copyright 
c2012 by Sebastian Ciaffaglione". I can't find any guidance on this anywhere in 
the toolkit or in the LCPS.

I would like to use "interior illustrations ... by Sebastian Ciaffaglione" in 
the 245 $c; is this permissible?

Thanks.

Kevin Roe
Supervisor Media Processing
Fort Wayne Community Schools
Fort Wayne IN

Re: [RDA-L] Query about recording Copyright holder information

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

Just the date.  The RDA element (see RDA 2.11) is "Copyright date", not 
"Copyright statement".

--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 Jennifer Lobb
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 4:42 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: [RDA-L] Query about recording Copyright holder information

Hi all,

I am cataloging a book where the copyright holder is different from the 
publisher. Are we supposed to put this in the 264 4 field or is the date the 
only information that goes there?

Thanks.

Jenny

Re: [RDA-L] Syntax for relationship designators

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

My reasoning is far from authoritative, but I believe it's not an RDA decision, 
really.  If you look at chapter 18, there's nothing about how you represent the 
relationship term in the record. The examples in 18.5.1.3. just have the terms.

I'm guessing it came down to whoever decided how to implement these in MARC 
thinking that there needed to be some kind of punctuation to prevent the field 
from looking weird.  

But I agree that it was an unfortunate decision. Not only is there the 
inconsistency that you mention, but it also makes it harder for libraries and 
others who don't want the terms to appear in their catalogs, because they can't 
just remove the $e without worrying about modifying the data in the preceding 
subfields ($a, $c, or $d).

The mixing of display constants (punctuation) and values in the MARC format is 
one of the biggest obstacles preventing MARC-encoded cataloging from being 
exported out of traditional MARC-based systems. We should be moving away from 
practices that do this, not doubling down on them.  

--Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137


-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, June 12, 2013 1:42 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: [RDA-L] Syntax for relationship designators

Could someone please explain the rational of either including or not including 
the comma before the relationship designator. We have found names with either 
no dates or with closed dates using the comma. While names with open dates are 
not using the comma. Our Web team dislikes the inconsistency. I would like to 
have some authoritative reasoning if such exists.  Thank you.

Re: [RDA-L] help with 264 for self-published work

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

I agree that "on demand publishing" outfits such as CreateSpace are not 
publishers so much as distributors.  That is, they contract for the production, 
and take care of distribution of the item, but not the selecting, editing, or 
proofing of the text.

It is essentially a self-published work, so I would record:

264 x1 $a [Place of publication not identified] : $b [William M. Kirtley], $c 
[2012]
264 x4 $c (c)2012

(If you can find out where Mr Kirtley lives, you could supply it; if you have a 
good guess you could supply it as probable; or if you know at least that he 
lives in America, then 264 $a [United States] -- see RDA 2.8.2.6.)

You could add:

264 x2 $a North Charleston, SC : $b CreateSpace, $c [2012]
264 x3 $a San Bernadino, CA : $b [manufacturer not identified], 2013

But it's not necessary (see RDA 2.9--"Place of distribution is a core element 
for a resource in a published form if the place of publication is not 
identified..." etc., and likewise RDA 2.10.)  And the date of manufacture will 
change as the years go by (remember, on-demand publications don't have print 
runs, they are one-off's) so I would probably leave it out.


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 Roberts, Lisa A
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 3:32 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: [RDA-L] FW: help with 264 for self-published work


I have a book:  Politics of death, on t.p. verso "(c)2012 William M. Kirtley" 
(Kirtley is the creator)
Also on T.P. verso:  "CreateSpace, North Charleston, SC."  (see below for 
description)
Last page: "Made in the USA, San Bernadino, CA 26 March 2013"

How should I construct the 264 applying RDA?

Assume author self published and CreateSpace acted only as distributor?

264 _1  San Bernadino, CA : [William M. Kirtley], 2013
264   4  $c  (c)2012  [optional]

OR

2641 San Bernadino, CA : [Publisher not identified], 2013
2642  North Charleston, South Carolina : CreateSpace

Or something else?

Thanks in advance,
Lisa Roberts
California State University Sacramento


CreateSpace is a About CreateSpace
[CreateSpace Logo]Through our services, you can sell books, CDs, and DVDs for a 
fraction of the cost of traditional manufacturing, while maintaining more 
control over your materials. We make it simple to distribute your books, music, 
and video through Internet retail outlets, your own website, and other 
bookstores, retailers, libraries, and academic institutions. Get 
started today!
CreateSpace is a DBA of On-Demand Publishing LLC, part of the Amazon group of 
companies.

<>

Re: [RDA-L] Size of PDF files

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

I agree with John.  Just to add: most file formats have already been defined 
and tagged outside of the cataloging community (see, for starters: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_media_type). We should make use of those 
definitions rather than making up our own, in my opinion.

--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 John Hostage
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 9:27 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Size of PDF files

I'm saying that the example in the MARC format is in error.  RDA seems to be 
using "text file" to mean any computer file that contains text, including 
binary files, but that conflicts with the normal meaning of text file.  A 
typical PDF file is comprehended by Content type: text and Media type: 
computer.  Of course, a PDF may have other kinds of content, such as still 
image, cartographic image, or notated music.
Here are some definitions of "text file":

Web definitions

(computer science) a computer file that contains text (and possibly 
formatting instructions) using seven-bit ASCII characters

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

A text file (sometimes spelled "textfile": an old alternate name is 
"flatfile") is a kind of computer file that is structured as a sequence of 
lines. A text file exists within a computer file system. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_file

A simple data file containing only plain, human-readable text, distinct 
from documents with embedded formatting; this sense?) (computing) A simple data 
file in a character encoding that allows it to be read in a simple editor: 
usually, seven-bit, as opposed to containing raw binary data

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/text_file

(Text files) Simple unformatted files that are widely recognized and 
created by many different programs.

wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/4848/4964879/go_office_i...

or Textfile: A data file consisting entirely of printable ASCII characters, 
i.e. plain unformatted text. Text files often have a .txt Extension after the 
filename (e.g. readme.txt) and their contents can be viewed using programs such 
as Windows Notepad. ...

www.ict4lt.org/en/en_glossary.htm

A file containing ASCII text created by any standard editor. Such text 
files can contain, for example, COBOL source code or Compiler directives. COBOL 
programs can read or write such files by specifying ORGANIZATION LINE 
SEQUENTIAL.

www.microfocus.co.jp/manuals/SE/books/mxglos.htm

A file with text that has no formatting. None of the text is bold, 
underlined, italicized, or tabbed.

www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-1589_1711_4579-1421...

A file in which the bytes represent printable characters organized into 
lines separated by newline characters.

www.difranco.net/progstuff/voc_list.htm

A file that contains text to be compiled during the build. Source: NTK

www.splorp.com/newton/glossary/

with tab delimited values (aka csv file): go to point 2.

wasaty.pl/blog/2010/05/30/importing-glossary-entries-to-multite...

This file contains all text strings used by the system to convert various 
codes into alpha descriptions for display and report purposes. The file also 
contains much of the parametric data (not stored in the Parameter File) that is 
necessary to control many optional functions. ...

www.leadtec.com/en/home/glossary.html

contains plain text and may be opened in a text editor

wps.aw.com/aw_gaddis_vb2008_4/82/21177/5421435.cw/conte...

A file containing ASCII characters.

www.sitemasterinternet.co.uk/i_pps/glossary.htm

the term "text file" is usually used to indicate a computer file that has 
no special formatting or additional structure that most word processor and 
spreadsheet programs use. Text files can be displayed on the screen with no 
"garbage" characters showing up. The AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG. ...

www.morgancc.edu/abm/curric/reference/terms/ObsoleteCompT...

--
John Hostage
Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian //
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services //
Langdell Hall 194 //
Cambridge, MA 02138
host...@law.harvard.edu
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mitchell, Michael
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 08:34
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Size of PDF files

I'm l

[RDA-L] Non-"arabic", non-roman numerals

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

I have a Greek book, with the preface numbered in Greek numerals (cf. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_numerals).

I assume that I would follow RDA 3.4.5.2, "Record pages, etc., that are 
numbered in words by giving the numeric equivalent" and record:

15, 418 pages

and add a note:

"Pages 1-15 (first sequence) numbered with Greek numerals."

Though it looks like the record will validate in OCLC if I record: ιεʹ, 418 
pages.

Is there a preference? I would note that there are other instances in which a 
books page numbers would be recorded in other numeral systems: Arabic (using 
real Arabic numerals, not our so-called "Arabic numerals"), Hebrew, Devanagari, 
etc.

Thanks,
Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

Re: [RDA-L] Relator term

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

The complexity and contiguity of the universe in general does not conform very 
well to static, controlled lists. This includes not only relationships but also 
names of things and people, abstractions and topics, and pretty much everything 
catalogers see fit to record and use as a 'controlled vocabulary'. Still, we do 
the best we can with what we have.

However I think the approach to RDA relationships could benefit from taking a 
cue from other attempts to nail down and control terminology, such as names 
(the NAF) and subjects (LCSH) by, instead of trying to contain the terms in a 
appendix to the rules (which are themselves hidden behind a subscription pay 
wall), opening them up to the world as an authority file.

RDA should contain guidelines for identifying and recording relationships and 
their relationships to other relationships (recursion alert!) but the terms 
themselves should be held and maintained by catalogers outside of the context 
of the JSC.

Instead of constantly arguing over strings we should be assigning static 
identifiers to relationship-concepts (this could start with an ARN, and 
eventually become something like an urn or uri.)  A "relationship" would simply 
become another way of collocating material according to user-needs, just like a 
name AP or a subject heading.  Individual institutions could make their own 
decisions about what string they wanted to be associated with a given 
relationship identifier.

This would solve some of the problems that keep coming up on this list, 
including: the problem of internationalization, the problem of RDA-esque 
relationship terms that are close to nonsensical to the unitiated ("Reprint of 
(manifestation)" etc.), and possibly also give different communities of 
interest and practice more control over the terminology that is most important 
to them.  

My .02,
Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

___

Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for a conference

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

AS Bob Maxwell just stated, per RDA (and AACR2, of course) if you are 
cataloging the proceedings of a named conference, the conference itself gets a 
"creator"-type access point (aka "Main Entry").  So the relationship "author" 
would technically work.

However I hope that some day they come up with a better relationship term than 
that, as it is not very intuitive and I doubt a user would ever think of a 
conference as the "author" of a work.

--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 Lee, Deborah
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 1:02 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for a conference

Hello,

I am struggling to think of the appropriate relationship designator to describe 
the relationship that the conference has to the book "based on" that 
conference.  I wondered if anyone had any ideas?

(I have considered "issuing body", as this is what we have used for works which 
have emanated from a (non-event-based) corporate body.  However, I cannot 
reconcile how an event can "issue" something!)

I am probably missing something extremely obvious, so if anyone had any 
suggestions or thoughts I would be extremely grateful.

Best wishes,

Debbie

Deborah Lee
Senior cataloguer
Book Library
Courtauld Institute of Art
Somerset House
Strand
London WC2R 0RN

Telephone: 020 7848 2905
Email: deborah@courtauld.ac.uk
Now on at The Courtauld Gallery:

Becoming Picasso: Paris 1901
14 February - 27 May 2013


The Courtauld Institute of Art is a company limited by guarantee (registered in 
England and Wales, number 04464432) and an exempt charity. SCT Enterprises 
Limited is a limited company (registered in England and Wales, number 3137515). 
Their registered offices are at Somerset House, Strand, London WC2R 0RN. The 
sale of items related to The Courtauld Gallery and its collections is managed 
by SCT Enterprises Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of The Courtauld 
Institute of Art.
This e-mail, including any attachments, is confidential and may be legally 
privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it 
is addressed. Any unauthorised dissemination or copying of this e-mail or its 
attachments and any reliance on or use or disclosure of any information 
contained in them is strictly prohibited and may be illegal. If you have 
received this e-mail in error please notify us by return of e-mail [or by 
telephone +44 (0) 20 7848 1273] and then delete it from your system.


This email message has been delivered safely and archived online by Mimecast.
For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com

Re: [RDA-L] Readability

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

"Something like the "principle of making things easy for the user" seems to be 
sadly missing from RDA. If we look through 0.4.2.1 "Responsiveness to user 
needs", we find a list of things that users should be able to do with our data, 
but nowhere does it say that they should find it easy to do this "

See: Ranganathan's 5 Laws of Library Science, #4: "Save the time of the user."
:)

--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 Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 3:07 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Readability

Joan,

I've just reread the principle of differentiation (0.4.3.1), asking myself 
whether this could somehow be stretched to include the matter of readabiliy and 
the problem of mixing up different kinds of punctuation, but I don't think it 
works. This principle seems to be all about distinguishing between different 
(but similar) resources or other entitities.

Something like the "principle of making things easy for the user" seems to be 
sadly missing from RDA. If we look through 0.4.2.1 "Responsiveness to user 
needs", we find a list of things that users should be able to do with our data, 
but nowhere does it say that they should find it easy to do this ;-)

Maybe this is supposed to be self-evident. Still, one wonders why the creators 
of RDA didn't simply borrow the first and highest principle from the "Statement 
of international cataloguing principles": "Convenience of the user. Decisions 
taken in the making of descriptions and controlled forms of names for access 
should be made with the user in mind."
http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/cataloguing/icp/icp_2009-en.pdf

I'd always assumed that RDA's "responsiveness to user needs" was the equivalent 
to this "convenience of the user". But now that I look more closely, I find 
that the Statement of international cataloguing principles expresses this idea 
in a much more general and universal way than RDA does.

Heidrun



Joan wrote:
I wander if the issue could be covered in the principle of differentiation. How 
do we relate the transcription of punctuations included in a title to users' 
tasks?
Thanks,
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller 
mailto:wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de>> wrote:
Ben,

I like your emphasis on readabiliy very much.

Personally, I'm not much worried that people might mix up punctuation in the 
source with punctuation prescribed by ISBD, but readability should indeed be an 
issue. And I absolutely agree that "Wollen, wissen, können" is much easier to 
read and understand e.g. on a computer screen than the version with full stops 
(although the latter is quite alright if you see it on a book cover or title 
page). So, perhaps we really should take some liberties here and invoke the 
alternative in 1.7.1, whenever we feel that transcribing the punctuation on the 
source in an exact way wouldn't much help our users. (By the way: Many 
discussion here on the list make me wonder whether I'm simply taking RDA 
instructions too seriously ...).

My impression with RDA, however, is that readability is not a high priority, 
although "Responsiveness to user needs" is given as the first objective 
(0.4.2.1). Note that there is no explicit mentioning here of readability. Maybe 
we could argue with the principle of "accuracy" (0.4.3.5), which asks us to 
"provide supplementary information to correct or clarify ambiguous, 
unintelligible, or misleading representations made on sources of information 
forming part of the resource itself" (I think that this principle is aimed at 
other cases, though). But on the whole, I feel that the principle of 
representation stated in 0.4.3.4. ("The data describing a resource should 
reflect the resource's representation of itself.") trumps matters of 
readability in RDA.

By the way, here is another real life example of interesting punctuation, in a 
statement of responsibility. The source of information reads:
Gerd Macke/Ulrike Hanke/Pauline Viehmann

I'd say that the standard rule in 1.7.3 requires us to transcribe the slashes 
as they are presented on the source. But again, we could probably argue with 
readability (and also perhaps the danger of mixing up transcribed and 
prescribed punctuation), apply the alternative in 1.7.1, and simply give this 
as:
Gerd Macke, Ulrike Hanke, Pauline Viehmann

Heidrun


Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:

My earlier justification for replacing periods with commas is perhaps a bit too 
clever.



Though in ISBD, I agree, it's pretty unambiguous tha

[RDA-L] FW: NACO question--qualifying conference names

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

I sent this email to the pcc list almost three hours ago and it hasn't 
distributed. Maybe it got "sequestered"??

Anyways, if anyone has a good answer to my question below I'd appreciate it.

--Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

From: Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 11:12 AM
To: 'Program for Cooperative Cataloging'
Subject: NACO question--qualifying conference names

RDA 11.13.1.2 states, "If the preferred name for the body does not convey the 
idea of a corporate body, add a suitable designation. Add the designation in a 
language preferred by the agency creating the data".  This presumably applies 
to conference headings as well.  I have a conference whose name, as formally 
presented, does not include the word "conference" or any similar designation; 
however it is referred to elsewhere in its proceedings as "the symposium" (not 
capitalized).

Would it be preferable to establish the name as:

Name (Conference)

or

Name (Symposium)



Thanks,
Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

Re: [RDA-L] Periods in titles

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

My earlier justification for replacing periods with commas is perhaps a bit too 
clever.

Though in ISBD, I agree, it's pretty unambiguous that both title and part-title 
(or, dependent title) are part of the same ISBD element "title proper" (they 
are "sub-elements" though ISBD doesn't use that term), it's less clear to me 
what RDA means by the instruction to "[omit] punctuation on the source that 
separates data to be recorded as one element from data to be recorded as a 
different element, or as a second or subsequent instance of an element."  If 
they meant specifically "ISBD elements" they should have said so.  

The instructions at 2.3.1.7 certainly seems to treat title and part title as 
independent elements ("if these two titles are grammatically independent of 
each other, record the common title, followed by the title of the part, 
section, or supplement. Disregard the order in which the parts of the title are 
presented on the source of information").

But, "Leave out punctuation which could be mixed up with prescribed ISBD 
punctuation, and then add some other punctuation for clarity" is really, 
exactly what I think catalogers should do.  I would go even further--assuming 
that RDA's scope expands beyond ISBD-formatted description--and say, "Omit or 
add punctuation as needed for clarity", and leave it up to the cataloger, or 
cataloging agency, to decide how best to do this.  (I.e., the alternative to 
1.7.1ff.)

This will certainly lead to some incosistency. Punctuation doesn't effect 
indexing, so it's a matter of readability. And different catalogers will have, 
I suspect, different (for lack of a better term) aesthetic sensibilities when 
it comes to making something readable. But I'm not sure there is a benefit to 
consistency if it hinders catalogers' abilities to record information in a way 
that they think is most useful to their community.
 
In my cataloger's judgment, "Wollen, wissen, können" does a better job than, 
"Wollen. Wissen. Können" of communicating what appears on the t.p.: a single 
three-word title.  I can justify that (as I did) by citing a conflict with ISBD 
punctuation, but that is largely after-the-fact.

--Ben
   

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137


-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 30, 2013 12:28 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Periods in titles

Ben,

> "in RDA there is only a possbility to add punctuation, but not to change it."
>
> It seems to me that since the full-stop is used in ISBD to separate Title 
> proper from Part/section title, it can be considered "punctuation on the 
> source that separates data to be recorded as one element from data to be 
> recorded as a different element" and omitted.  Then we can add the comma's, 
> under the rubric "Add punctuation, as necessary, for clarity."

Hm, that's something more to think about. It seems that you and I interpret 
"punctuation on the source that separates data to be recorded as one element 
from data to be recorded as a different element or as a second or subsequent 
instance of an element" quite differently.

I had puzzled it out like this: If there is punctuation (of any kind) on the 
source of information between things that we record as two elements, it is 
disregarded. An example for punctuation on the source between two different 
elements would be e.g. a dash between something that is recorded as title 
proper and something that is recorded as other title information. An example 
for punctuation between two instances of the same element would be e.g. a slash 
or a comma between two places of publication. My understanding is that in these 
cases we simply ignore the dash, slash, comma (or whatever it is) and record 
the elements without it. If we use ISBD punctuation, of course we then have to 
add the prescribed punctuation between these elements.

So, I wouldn't leave out the full stop just because it is used in ISBD in a 
special way. Your reading, on the other hand, is (if I understand it 
correctly): Leave out punctuation which could be mixed up with prescribed ISBD 
punctuation, and then add some other punctuation for clarity.

I've got to think on this some more ...

By the way, I don't like the instruction in 2.3.1.7 (and other similar
ones) one little bit, where it says: "Use a full stop to separate the common 
title from the title of the part, section, or supplement." 
Doesn't RDA claim that it is a content standard, and as such doesn't prescribe 
a certain way of display (see RDA 0.1: "a clear line of separation has been 
established between the guidelines and instructions on recording data and those 
on the presentation of data")? But what else is the full stop her

Re: [RDA-L] Periods in titles

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

"in RDA there is only a possbility to add punctuation, but not to change it."  

It seems to me that since the full-stop is used in ISBD to separate Title 
proper from Part/section title, it can be considered "punctuation on the source 
that separates data to be recorded as one element from data to be recorded as a 
different element" and omitted.  Then we can add the comma's, under the rubric 
"Add punctuation, as necessary, for clarity."


So I would imagine most catalogers would transcribe this as:

Wollen, wissen, können : Gestaltung attraktiver Arbeitsplätze ...


--Ben


Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137


-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 30, 2013 10:42 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: [RDA-L] Periods in titles

Talking about periods ...
A colleague just brought the following example to my attention. The title page 
shows the following:

WOLLEN. WISSEN. KÖNNEN.
Gestaltung attraktiver Arbeitsplätze
in der Langzeit-, Kurzzeit- und Übergangspflege und Betreuung

English translation:

TO WANT. TO KNOW. TO BE ABLE TO.
Designing attractive places of work
in long-term care, short-term care, transitional care and work as a legal 
guardian

If you want to see the t.p. for yourself, the document is online here:
http://www.alter.bfh.ch/fileadmin/wgs_upload/institut_alter/publikationen/Themenheft_A4_HR_dt_web.pdf

Now, what about the periods in the title proper? According to the German RAK 
rules, I would have exchanged the first and second one for a comma, and the 
last one for a colon to introduce the other title information. 
So, my solution would have been:

Wollen, wissen, können : Gestaltung attraktiver Arbeitsplätze in der Langzeit-, 
Kurzzeit- und Übergangspflege und Betreuung

But now, what's the result according to RDA? The last period obviously still 
has to go, as RDA says in 1.7.3: "Transcribe punctuation as it appears on the 
source, omitting punctuation on the source that separates data to be recorded 
as one element from data to be recorded as a different element, or as a second 
or subsequent instance of an element." 
But I assume that the first and second periods must be retained, as in RDA 
there is only a possbility to add punctuation, but not to change it. 
So, I conclude that the RDA solution is (if we use ISBD punctuation between 
title proper and other title information):

Wollen. Wissen. Können : Gestaltung attraktiver Arbeitsplätze in der Langzeit-, 
Kurzzeit- und Übergangspflege und Betreuung

Would you agree or am I on the wrong track here?

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] cm period/no period and sample records

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

I wholeheartedly agree with you Kevin. Ending the practice of including ISBD 
punctuation in recorded data will clear up a lot of this confusion in practice. 
 I know it's something that has been discussed in the pcc, as well I'm sure by 
the bib-frame people.

Still, in the end I question whether a cataloger uses "cm." or "cm" (or, 
perhaps if it is a symbol we should use the Unicode character, ㎝) matters, any 
more than it matters whether we say "illustrations (some color)" or 
"illustrations (some colour)".  We can certainly accomodate minor variations in 
the presentation of information, so long as the meaning is comprehensible to 
our users.  And face it, the state of our catalogs is such that it will never 
be wholly consistent anyhow.  What matters is that catalogers continue record 
dimemsions in centimeters (except when they don't), not in spans or smoots 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot).

--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 Kevin M Randall
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 2:32 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] cm period/no period and sample records

In the (hopefully soon, but for sure I'm not holding my breath!) future, we 
will likely—or at least should—be entering RDA elements into workforms with no 
punctuation at all, unless that punctuation is part of the element itself 
(e.g., the period in an abbreviation, the question mark in Who's afraid of 
Virginia Woolf?, etc.).  Nothing after a title, or after other title 
information, or after the statement of responsibility.  Even if there are 
multiple statements of responsibility, there will be no punctuation after any 
of them, because they will be entered as separate instances of the element 
"Statement of responsibility".  Punctuation will be supplied automatically 
depending on the data output.  This will make it SO much easier to follow the 
RDA guidelines (which don't have ISBD punctuation in the instructions or 
examples), and will make it much easier to allow for a limitless number of 
output choices (including ISBD).

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

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 1:01 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] cm period/no period and sample records

All of this may be true but due to reasons discussed rather exhaustively in 
this very thread a dotless "cm" will only show up under certain circumstances 
anyhow.  To adequately explain why it doesn't requires informing users (a) that 
it is a "symbol" or "ligature", not an abbreviation, even though it appears to 
be otherwise; and, (b) what ISBD is, why ISBD is, and why a standard that is 
sometimes used to display metadata affects the way we record data in a shared 
database.

And in the end, "cm" and "cm." are both instantly recognizable--even by 
benighted Yankees such as myself--as representing "centimeters."  The good news 
I suppose is that it would be the rare user indeed who looks this carefully at 
a 300 field.

--b

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

Re: [RDA-L] cm period/no period and sample records

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

All of this may be true but due to reasons discussed rather exhaustively in 
this very thread a dotless "cm" will only show up under certain circumstances 
anyhow.  To adequately explain why it doesn't requires informing users (a) that 
it is a "symbol" or "ligature", not an abbreviation, even though it appears to 
be otherwise; and, (b) what ISBD is, why ISBD is, and why a standard that is 
sometimes used to display metadata affects the way we record data in a shared 
database.

And in the end, "cm" and "cm." are both instantly recognizable--even by 
benighted Yankees such as myself--as representing "centimeters."  The good news 
I suppose is that it would be the rare user indeed who looks this carefully at 
a 300 field.

--b

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 Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 1:44 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] cm period/no period and sample records

Ben,
Any user who notices "cm" instead of "cm." will assume, with good reason, that 
it is a typo;

Well, certainly not everybody.
Just think of myself and my approx. 82 million (oups: should of course have 
been "approximately") German compatriots ;-)

If you've grown up with the metric system, like the vast majority of people 
have all over the world (Wikipedia tells me the US, Liberia and Myanmar are now 
the only countries which have not officially adopted the metric system), a 
period after a metric unit looks decidedly odd. There is high international 
standardization in this area (which is a good thing, I believe), so the metric 
unit symbols are used in an internationally consistent way all over the world. 
In whatever country you go, you'll always find them written without a period.

Before the "cm" discussions on Autocat, I had never spent a single thought 
about why they are spelled without a period. They just are. I learnt this at 
school and I've simply taken it for granted for all my live. There may be a 
learned explanation for it, but I don't think it's important. Writing them 
without a period simply is the internationally agreed usage. How could RDA not 
follow it?

Heidrun




--

-

Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.

Stuttgart Media University

Faculty of Information and Communication

Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany

www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

[RDA-L] Copyright and "similar regimes"

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

I have in front of me an interesting case: a book that is "anti-copyrighted."  
It has the statement:

Anti-copyright @ 1994 This book may be freely pirated and quoted.

Looking at RDA 2.11.1 "Basic instruction on recording copyright dates" I see 
the scope statement: "a date associated with a claim of protection under 
copyright or a similar regime".  (This language is repeated, more or less 
verbatim, on the MARC 21 definition of 264 second indicator 4.) My question is, 
what constitutes a "similar regime"? Did the JSC use this phrase just to 
include phonogram dates (℗), or do they mean to say that we can/should record 
all of the various assertions of intellectual rights, such as Creative Commons 
licenses, legal deposit, or even simply, "Author asserts his/her moral right to 
be identified as the author of this book"?

Under AACR2 "copyright" was only recorded to serve as a stand-in for 
publication date when such was not available. But RDA treats copyright as a 
separate data element, which suggests, to me at least, that we should be 
recording whatever rights statements we find, not just those couched as 
"copyright". Any thoughts?

--Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

Re: [RDA-L] Initials in names of persons

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

This practice almost certainly predates computer filing. In A.L.A. rules for 
filing cataloging cards (Chicago: ALA, 1942), p. 19, we see the example:

Brown, A. G.

--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 M. E.
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 3:11 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Initials in names of persons

Gene Fieg mailto:gf...@cst.edu>> wrote:
Heidrun, as to the "why", I have no idea.  Perhaps, it had to do with way 
computers read letters only, and by putting a space between them, it could read 
better.

It might even go further back than that, to card filing rules--at least for the 
spacing in headings.

--
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters no. 19: Library Catalogs and Information Architecture

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

"But one factor that brings the data together is the new library cataloging 
rule set, Resource Description Framework (RDF)"

This mistake was bound to happen eventually. I've always wondered if RDA was 
named RDA to catch some of the reflected glory of RDF.

--b


Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Bernhard Eversberg
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 1:20 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters no. 19: Library Catalogs and 
Information Architecture

Am 05.04.2013 11:21, schrieb James Weinheimer:
>
> Unfortunately, the cataloging community has its hands full trying to 
> deal with the changes of RDA.

And most of the time, it is about the D in RDA, whereas it is the A that 
matters by far the most. Only the A relates to, literally as well as 
metaphorically, the Architecture aspect of our metadata. Which should have been 
taken on and taken seriously ever since Dublin Core came along and never really 
got off the ground.
But wasn't Bibframe conceived to change it all? Up until now, I don't see how 
it is going to:

   http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition/news/faq.html

There's no talk about Information Architecture, though what is being said there 
under "Transition" is certainly relevant.
Then, however, you find a puzzling statement:
"But one factor that brings the data together is the new library cataloging 
rule set, Resource Description Framework (RDF)"
that makes you wonder how much they have understood.

B.Eversberg

Re: [RDA-L] RDA & CIP

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

I agree that CIP shouldn't be considered a source of information.

(Though I imagine all of us have, in a pinch, grabbed the ISBN from CIP at one 
time or another.)

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Karen Nelson
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 4:33 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA & CIP

Haha. 

My librarian nearly had a fit when she discovered that I, as a new cataloguing 
technician, was deriving edition statements from CIP info. 

>From this you can see that she agrees with your local practice, and we 
>continue to work on that basis.

-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: Thursday, April 11, 2013 12:41 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] RDA & CIP

Our previous local practice was to never consider CIP data printed in the book 
as part of the "other preliminaries" that were valid as a prescribed source of 
information under AACR2 2.0B2.

RDA 2.2.2.1 says "Use as the preferred source of information a source forming 
part of the resource itself..."

Is CIP data printed in the book "part of the resource"?

Specifically, if the CIP includes an edition statement that does not appear 
anywhere else in the volume, should it be included in the bibliographic record?

--

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] Place names in 370

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

Kevin,

I think you raise some good points, certainly. I would be the first to admit my 
analogy (really, more of mnemomic device) is weak.  

Now, I didn't come up with this rule in DCMZ, so I'm not going to fall on my 
sword for it.

But I do think it's worth considering that a heading (or "authorized access 
point" if you prefer) is intended for public consumption--it's there to help 
users make intelligent selection decisions from an index.  So there is some 
need to balance, I think, a desire for fullness of qualifier, with an awareness 
of concision and readability; without nesting parentheses I'm not sure how the 
form (Shandong Sheng, China : South) can be expressed in a heading and not 
confuse.

However, there is no such need in a 370 field, which presumably would only be 
seen and used by other catalogers or by scripts written by catalogers, etc.  
Which is why it's puzzling to me that we are required to make the 370 values 
identical to 1xx geographic qualifiers, instead of just selecting the 
unambiguous, fully-qualified form from a controlled vodcabulary.

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137


-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, April 09, 2013 2:30 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Place names in 370

Ben Abrahamse wrote:

> This strikes me as similar to the old NACO rule of thumb, "Don't add 
> cross- reference for a variant of a variant".
> 
> I.e.: "Don't add a qualifier to a qualifier."
> 
> It makes sense for a heading.

It does not make sense to me, when you end up with a qualifier that is 
ambiguous or wrong.  This is not analogous to cross-referencing a variant of a 
variant.  This is deliberately making something not only less specific than it 
could or should be, but sometimes actually wrong--and all for some unknown 
reason.  If you have two distinct places that have the same name, and the only 
difference in the AAP for the place name is the addition of a qualifier (such 
as ": North", ": South", ": Province", ": Township", etc.), that qualifier is a 
critical part of the name for the purpose of identifying the place (else why 
are we using it anyway?).  If you need to use the place name as a qualifier for 
another name, removing the place name's qualifier immediately obscures the 
identity of that place.  "Place A (Larger Place)" is NOT the same as "Place A 
(Larger Place : Township)".  If I'm formulating the AAP for the name of a place 
or body located in Place A Township, and need to use the name of the township 
as a qualifier, leaving out the word "Township" results in an AAP with the 
WRONG place name in the qualifier.

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] Place names in 370

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

This strikes me as similar to the old NACO rule of thumb, "Don't add 
cross-reference for a variant of a variant".

I.e.: "Don't add a qualifier to a qualifier."

It makes sense for a heading.  

Though I admit I'm still puzzled why we are doing this, and other changes, for 
the 370 (other than, because that's what RDA 16.2.2.4 says to do) instead of 
just copying the established NACO form as is.  Seems to go against the grain of 
preferring controlled vocabulary for 3xx fields in authorities.

--Ben


Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137


-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: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 1:21 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Place names in 370

The DCM Z1 says to remove terms for jurisdiction or other distinguishing terms. 
So:

Korea not Korea (South)
Russia not Russia (Federation)

and Linyi, Shandong Sheng, China without the qualifier South

^^
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 Tue, 9 Apr 2013, John Hostage wrote:

> We came across another issue with putting place names in the 370 in the form 
> used in a qualifier.  There is a place established as:
> Linyi (Shandong Sheng, China : South)
>
> How does that get entered in 370 $e?  Linyi, Shandong Sheng, China ?
> What happens with the "South" part? (There is another Linyi in the 
> northern part of the province.)
>
> Is the place established correctly according to RDA?  It's complicated by the 
> fact that the authority record seems to conflate the Shi (2nd order 
> administrative division) with the populated place.
>
> --
> John Hostage
> Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian // Harvard 
> Library--Information and Technical Services // Langdell Hall 194 // 
> Cambridge, MA 02138 
> host...@law.harvard.edu
> +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
> +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
>
>

Re: [RDA-L] Relationships and comic books/graphic novels

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

I can't speak to what is ideal in theory, but what I see in most records for 
graphic novels is that the writer is given Main Entry (so, under RDA, would get 
$e author) and the artists as Added Entries (so, $e illustrator; or, if/when 
more specific terms become available, $e inker, or what have you).

One could certainly argue that "author" is not the correct term (and in point 
of fact the term I see most often used on graphic novel statements of 
responsibility is "writer" not "author").  One could also object to the 
practice of giving the "writer" Main Entry, instead of treating graphic novels 
as "works of mixed responsibility". The writer is responsible for the story 
(usually) and script (and sometimes the storyboard as well -- in many ways 
graphic novels and comics are closer to films than textual books) but obviously 
without someone to do the art it wouldn't be a "graphic" novel.

There is I think at least a background awareness of the problem of assigning 
"authorship" in graphic novels in the cataloging community.  For example in the 
Library of Congress classification schedules:

PN6725-6728  Collections of general literature-Comic books, strips, etc.-By 
region or country-United States

PN6727.A-ZIndividual authors or works, A-Z
Subarrange individual authors by Table P-PZ40
Subarrange individual works by Table P-PZ43
Prefer classification of comic strips by title

PN6728.A-Z
Individual comic strips. By title, A-Z

So there is a stated preference for classification by title (which makes more 
sense to me because at least for comic books, writers often come and go as 
frequently as artists do; this seems to me less often the case with graphic 
novels), but the schedule is also hospitable to collocating by author. And 
there are some authors of graphic novels and comics (the inimitable Neil Gaiman 
springs to mind as an example) who stand out in such a way that collocating 
their works together on the shelf makes greater sense than dispersing them by 
title.

But regardless of classification practice, assigning "main entry" (or in an RDA 
milieu, assigning as the personal name part of the authorized access point) 
seems to be the primary way catalogers have treated graphic novels, in my 
experience (which is certainly not unlimited, and perhaps other catalogers who 
work with these materials can inform the discussion further.)

--Ben

p.s. As long as I'm talking about the classification schedules--the fact that 
Anglo-American and European countries get number ranges but the rest of the 
world fits under PN6790.A-Z (Other regions or countries, A-Z) has led to some 
small amount of havoc in our collection, where by far the number one producer 
of comics and graphic novels that our users are interested in is, of course, 
Japan.


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 Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 1:39 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationships and comic books/graphic novels

Ben,

You get me confused here.

I'm not an expert on this kind of material, but I would have thought that e.g. 
for the early Asterix books both Albert Uderzo and René Goscinny are to be seen 
as creators in the sense of RDA 19.2: "Persons, families, or corporate bodies 
jointly responsible for the creation of a work (...) may perform different 
roles (e.g., as in a collaboration between a composer and a lyricist)." In a 
joint effort, one of them provided the pictures, the other the text. I think 
this corresponds to 21.24 "Collaboration between artist and writer" in AACR2.

But then the relationship designator "illustrator" seems to be not applicable 
for somebody like Uderzo, because it is for a contributor, not for a creator. 
This also fits in with the definition of illustrator as somebody "supplementing 
the primary content with drawings, diagrams, photographs, etc." So, this seems 
to be about the cases which used to be covered in AACR2 21.11A1.

I conclude that the only possible relationship designator for Uderzo listed in 
the Appendix would be "artist".

This is really rather crude. I also wonder about the relationship designator 
for somebody like Goscinny. The only possible term from the Appendix seems to 
be "author", but the explanation doesn't really fit: A person etc. "responsible 
for creating a work that is primarily textual in content". Well, the Asterix 
books are certainly not "primarily textual in content".

Heidrun





Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:
Does anyone happen to know if there is work being done to expand the RDA 
relationship vocabulary to account f

Re: [RDA-L] Relationships and comic books/graphic novels

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

Would that mean we'd have to start calling the inker, "rubricator"?

--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 Patrick Crowley
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 10:33 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationships and comic books/graphic novels

Perhaps you could construe the colorist as an illuminator? ;)

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Kadri, Carolyn J 
mailto:ka...@uta.edu>> wrote:
I find that the MARC relator terms and codes lists much more robust and 
explanatory than those listed in the RDA appendices at this point in time. Even 
though I check the RDA appendices, I usually wind up using terms/codes form the 
 MARC relators lists. And of course, the RDA appendices don't have relator 
codes anyway. I suspect that over time, the RDA appendices for relator terms 
will become more robust and cover more options to choose from-but they are just 
not there yet. Is anyone else out there putting both terms and codes in your 
original records that you are contributing to WorldCat? I have been doing so, 
but only because the OCLC rda workform comes down with the subfields $e and $4 
in them. Also, I know that I have seen a discussion in the past about why the 
$e does not display when attached to 110's and 710's but I can't remember 
exactly why. I am wondering if it is just because my local Voyager system is 
not configured to display them  in the public mode because it is not "turned 
on" or what? I know I have seen OCLC original records with $e's in those 
fields, most notably those records coming from the GPO where their 110's have 
$e issuing body in most of what I have seen, and sometimes $e editor in a 710.

I would appreciate hearing from those of you that have opinions and suggestions 
about this issue.

Thanks.

Carolyn Kadri
Special Collections Cataloger
University of Texas at Arlington
Arlington, TX  76019
817-272-7153

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>] On 
Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 1:01 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relationships and comic books/graphic novels

In my RDA cataloging of graphic novels and comic books I've been using 
"illustrator" for some of these (penciller, inker, cover artist) but I use 
"calligrapher" for letterers and "colorist" for colorists.

Remember RDA 18.5.1.3 says "record one or more appropriate terms from the list 
in Appendix I" but "if none of the terms listed in appendix I is appropriate or 
sufficiently specific, use a term designating the nature of the relationship as 
concisely as possible." So RDA would be fine with you using "inker" or 
"penciller" (etc.) if in your opinion "illustrator" is not sufficiently 
specific. I prefer to use terms from controlled lists, so I start with RDA 
Appendix I but if the term I need is not there I go to the MARC relator list at 
http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html or the RBMS relationship 
designators list at 
http://www.rbms.info/committees/bibliographic_standards/controlled_vocabularies/relators/alphabetical_list.htm.
 "Calligrapher" and "colorist" come from the MARC relator list.

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept.
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to 
the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 10:11 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: [RDA-L] Relationships and comic books/graphic novels

Does anyone happen to know if there is work being done to expand the RDA 
relationship vocabulary to account for specific roles associated with the 
illustration of comic books and graphic novels?

Under the current RDA relators, it would seem the following roles (which are 
considered discrete enough to warrant separate mention on the statements of 
responsibility of comic books and graphic novels) all fit under the category of 
"illustrator":

artist
inker
colorist (or, color artist)
letterer

Also, I've noticed that often "cover artist" gets separate mention, though I 
think they would still be considered an illustrator.

--Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137




--
Patrick Crowley
Cataloging Assistant
Rare Books and Special Collections
Bryn Mawr College

[RDA-L] Relationships and comic books/graphic novels

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

Does anyone happen to know if there is work being done to expand the RDA 
relationship vocabulary to account for specific roles associated with the 
illustration of comic books and graphic novels?

Under the current RDA relators, it would seem the following roles (which are 
considered discrete enough to warrant separate mention on the statements of 
responsibility of comic books and graphic novels) all fit under the category of 
"illustrator":

artist
inker
colorist (or, color artist)
letterer

Also, I've noticed that often "cover artist" gets separate mention, though I 
think they would still be considered an illustrator.

--Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator and "in cooperation with"

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

I don't think "contributor" is defined in RDA appendix I.  There is I.3.1 the 
list titled, "relationship designators for contributors [associated with an 
expression]" but no actual term "contributor" in that list, or any of the 
others.

Is this something that perhaps is in the JSC relator term pipeline?

--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 Deborah Fritz
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 10:47 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator and "in cooperation with"

It was very useful to be able to see the example you are dealing with-thanks 
for that.

Based on the t.p. and verso (which Springer makes public), I would say that 
Giorgio is  a contributor (in the RDA sense) at the expression level.

When you cannot pick a specific relationship designator, you can invoke the 
general guidelines on using relationship designators given under I.1. The last 
paragraph there says: "If the element used to record the relationship (e.g., 
creator) is considered sufficient for the purposes of the agency creating the 
data, do not use a relationship designator to indicate the specific nature of 
the relationship." IOW, the element name is sufficient as the relationship 
designator. This is very clumsy to explain, so I don't really like this 
approach; but I suppose it does save us some typing, because when the element 
name is enough, we do not need to add another designator.

In this case, I would say that we have to consider the element term 
"contributor" sufficient, since it appears that Giorgio contributed to the 
expression by working on the overall compilation in some way, rather than being 
one of the creators of the works contained in the compilation.

However, while we are in MARC, we do have to add the element term, because our 
MARC label (700) is not specific enough to indicate the relationship.

So I would suggest:
=700  1\$aBarbarini, Giorgio,$econtributor.

My interpretation.

Deborah

-  -  -  -  -  -  -  -
Deborah Fritz
TMQ, Inc.
debo...@marcofquality.com
www.marcofquality.com

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Alison Hitchens
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 9:48 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] relationship designator and "in cooperation with"

Hi all

We are working on RDA training here and one of the books I chose as an example 
for creating an RDA record has the following information in the statement of 
responsibility:

/ Giuseppe Barbaro, Franck Boccara (Eds) ; in cooperation with Giorgio Barbarini

This has resulted in the following authorized access points (the resource is a 
compilation):

=700  1\$aBarbaro, Giuseppe,$eeditor of compilation.
=700  1\$aBoccara, Franck$eeditor of compilation.
=700  1\$aBarbarini, Giorgio. 

In this situation do we assume, lacking other information, that Giorgio is also 
an editor or do we just leave out the $e or is there something else 
appropriate? I have looked through the foreword and list of contributors but 
there is no other information about Giorgio's relationship with this resource.

(If you have access to Springer e-books and want to take a look at the 
resource: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-0761-1)

Thanks in advance for any advice!

Alison

Alison Hitchens
Cataloguing & Metadata Librarian
University of Waterloo Library
ahitc...@uwaterloo.ca
519-888-4567 x35980

Re: [RDA-L] 2.4.3.3 Parallel statements of responsibility

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

In this case, and despite the complexities it has raised, I do think statements 
in both languages should be recorded. Because, while the title is English, the 
book itself is bilingual (not German and English in parallel, but actually just 
some German and some English. It's mainly poetry and images. We can always rely 
on poets and artists to muck up our neat categorizations of the world, can't 
we.)

--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 Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 3:57 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 2.4.3.3 Parallel statements of responsibility

Quite, but that doesn't mean that you cannot record the other statements of 
responsibility as well - and Ben obviously wanted to.

2.4.2.4 only gives guidance as to which of the statements should be chosen as 
the primary one. Other statements of responsibility can then be recorded as 
parallel statements of responsibility according to 2.4.3.3.

I think the wording should be clearer in 2.4.2.4. When you read "_record_ the 
statement in the language or script of the title proper", you might indeed be 
lead to believe that you can _only_ record this statement and have to discard 
the other ones. It would be better to have a similar wording as in 2.3.2.4 
"Title in more than one language or script": "If the source of information for 
the title proper bears a title in more than one language or script, _choose_ as 
the title proper the one in the language or script of the main written, spoken, 
or sung content of the resource."

Heidrun



On 01.04.2013 21:36, Arakawa, Steven wrote:
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.edu<mailto: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.CA<mailto: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 omission. :)

Thanks,
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 Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 3:07 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca<mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 2.4.3.3 Parallel statements of responsibility

I'm afraid so, only I think it should start with "mit" instead of "Mit" ("mit" 
being a preposition which is not ordinarily capitalized).

What a lovely example - I'm thrilled ;-)

If you really were to transcribe all the 89 names (not once, but twice), I 
wonder whether there might be technical problems with the maximum field length 
for 245. Or is there no such limit in American library systems? I know that in 
Germany there are library systems which - at least at the moment - wouldn't be 
able to cope with statements this long.

Deborah is right about keeping together statements in the same language 
according to ISBD. Is there also a parallel title? Then it would look 
marginally nicer:

Title proper : other title information / mit Beiträgen von Fernando Aguiar [and 
88 others] ; hg. von X = Parallel title proper : parallel other title 
information / with contributions by Fernando Aguiar [and 88 others] ; ed. by X

Heidrun





On 01.04.2013 20:17, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:
It makes sense, but it's actually the outcome I was hoping to avoid as this 
also happens to be a t.p. with an extensive list of contributors (over 80 of 
them) on the t.p.  (And yes, the abbreviations are on the source.)

So it would end up looking like this:

Mit Beiträgen von Fernando Aguiar [and ei

Re: [RDA-L] 2.4.3.3 Parallel statements of responsibility

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

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.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.edu<mailto: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.CA<mailto: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 omission. :)

Thanks,
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 Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 3:07 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca<mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 2.4.3.3 Parallel statements of responsibility

I'm afraid so, only I think it should start with "mit" instead of "Mit" ("mit" 
being a preposition which is not ordinarily capitalized).

What a lovely example - I'm thrilled ;-)

If you really were to transcribe all the 89 names (not once, but twice), I 
wonder whether there might be technical problems with the maximum field length 
for 245. Or is there no such limit in American library systems? I know that in 
Germany there are library systems which - at least at the moment - wouldn't be 
able to cope with statements this long.

Deborah is right about keeping together statements in the same language 
according to ISBD. Is there also a parallel title? Then it would look 
marginally nicer:

Title proper : other title information / mit Beiträgen von Fernando Aguiar [and 
88 others] ; hg. von X = Parallel title proper : parallel other title 
information / with contributions by Fernando Aguiar [and 88 others] ; ed. by X

Heidrun





On 01.04.2013 20:17, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:
It makes sense, but it's actually the outcome I was hoping to avoid as this 
also happens to be a t.p. with an extensive list of contributors (over 80 of 
them) on the t.p.  (And yes, the abbreviations are on the source.)

So it would end up looking like this:

Mit Beiträgen von Fernando Aguiar [and eighty-eight others] = with 
contributions by Fernando Aguiar [and eighty-eight others]

??

--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 Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 2:1

Re: [RDA-L] 2.4.3.3 Parallel statements of responsibility

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

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 omission. :)

Thanks,
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 Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 3:07 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 2.4.3.3 Parallel statements of responsibility

I'm afraid so, only I think it should start with "mit" instead of "Mit" ("mit" 
being a preposition which is not ordinarily capitalized).

What a lovely example - I'm thrilled ;-)

If you really were to transcribe all the 89 names (not once, but twice), I 
wonder whether there might be technical problems with the maximum field length 
for 245. Or is there no such limit in American library systems? I know that in 
Germany there are library systems which - at least at the moment - wouldn't be 
able to cope with statements this long.

Deborah is right about keeping together statements in the same language 
according to ISBD. Is there also a parallel title? Then it would look 
marginally nicer:

Title proper : other title information / mit Beiträgen von Fernando Aguiar [and 
88 others] ; hg. von X = Parallel title proper : parallel other title 
information / with contributions by Fernando Aguiar [and 88 others] ; ed. by X

Heidrun





On 01.04.2013 20:17, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:
It makes sense, but it's actually the outcome I was hoping to avoid as this 
also happens to be a t.p. with an extensive list of contributors (over 80 of 
them) on the t.p.  (And yes, the abbreviations are on the source.)

So it would end up looking like this:

Mit Beiträgen von Fernando Aguiar [and eighty-eight others] = with 
contributions by Fernando Aguiar [and eighty-eight others]

??

--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 Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 2:12 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca<mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 2.4.3.3 Parallel statements of responsibility

Ben,

I think the "/" should indeed be replaced by a "=" according to 1.7.3, as it 
obviously is a case of parallel statements of responsibility (i.e. two 
different RDA elements). But I'd find it odd to have only "Mit Beiträgen von" 
as one of these statements of responsibility. As this is only an introductory 
phrase, it somehow seems to miss the point.

I wonder if we could solve this problem by making use of RDA 1.7.7 "Letters or 
Words Intended to Be Read More Than Once": "If a letter or word appears only 
once but the design of the source of information makes it clear that it is 
intended to be read more than once, repeat the letter or word."

Perhaps we could argue that on these title pages, the names are intended to be 
read twice, once with the German introductory phrase, and a second time with 
the English introductory phrase. Then you'd have:

mit Beiträgen von X, Y, Z = with contributions by X, Y, Z ; hg. von A = ed. by A

Does that make sense?

Heidrun




On 01.04.2013 19:36, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:
When a resource has parallel statements of responsibility on its chief source 
of information, but only the "connecting words" are parallel, not the names 
themselves, how does one treat this under RDA?

E.g., what I see on the t.p.:

Mit Beiträgen von/With contributions by ...
hg. von/ed. by ...

Is simply transcribing what I see enough, or should the "/" be replaced with " 
= "?

Mit Beiträgen von = With contributions by ... ; hg. von = ed. by 


Thanks,
Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137






--

-

Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.

Stuttgart Media University

Faculty of Information and Communication

Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany

www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi<http://www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi>




--

-

Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.

Stuttgart Media University

Faculty of Information and Communication

Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany

www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi<http://www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi>

Re: [RDA-L] 2.4.3.3 Parallel statements of responsibility

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

It makes sense, but it's actually the outcome I was hoping to avoid as this 
also happens to be a t.p. with an extensive list of contributors (over 80 of 
them) on the t.p.  (And yes, the abbreviations are on the source.)

So it would end up looking like this:

Mit Beiträgen von Fernando Aguiar [and eighty-eight others] = with 
contributions by Fernando Aguiar [and eighty-eight others]

??

--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 Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 2:12 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 2.4.3.3 Parallel statements of responsibility

Ben,

I think the "/" should indeed be replaced by a "=" according to 1.7.3, as it 
obviously is a case of parallel statements of responsibility (i.e. two 
different RDA elements). But I'd find it odd to have only "Mit Beiträgen von" 
as one of these statements of responsibility. As this is only an introductory 
phrase, it somehow seems to miss the point.

I wonder if we could solve this problem by making use of RDA 1.7.7 "Letters or 
Words Intended to Be Read More Than Once": "If a letter or word appears only 
once but the design of the source of information makes it clear that it is 
intended to be read more than once, repeat the letter or word."

Perhaps we could argue that on these title pages, the names are intended to be 
read twice, once with the German introductory phrase, and a second time with 
the English introductory phrase. Then you'd have:

mit Beiträgen von X, Y, Z = with contributions by X, Y, Z ; hg. von A = ed. by A

Does that make sense?

Heidrun




On 01.04.2013 19:36, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:
When a resource has parallel statements of responsibility on its chief source 
of information, but only the "connecting words" are parallel, not the names 
themselves, how does one treat this under RDA?

E.g., what I see on the t.p.:

Mit Beiträgen von/With contributions by ...
hg. von/ed. by ...

Is simply transcribing what I see enough, or should the "/" be replaced with " 
= "?

Mit Beiträgen von = With contributions by ... ; hg. von = ed. by 


Thanks,
Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137





--

-

Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.

Stuttgart Media University

Faculty of Information and Communication

Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany

www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi<http://www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi>

[RDA-L] 2.4.3.3 Parallel statements of responsibility

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

When a resource has parallel statements of responsibility on its chief source 
of information, but only the "connecting words" are parallel, not the names 
themselves, how does one treat this under RDA?

E.g., what I see on the t.p.:

Mit Beiträgen von/With contributions by ...
hg. von/ed. by ...

Is simply transcribing what I see enough, or should the "/" be replaced with " 
= "?

Mit Beiträgen von = With contributions by ... ; hg. von = ed. by 


Thanks,
Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

Re: [RDA-L] New format reproductions and RDA

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

534 or 7xx is better than nothing but I continue to think the old way (using 
533 for the reproduction information, 260--now 264, for the publication 
information of the original) puts the bibliographical information that users 
are interested in where they are most likely to look.

In my experience microform is a format of last resort for users; if anything, 
they want to know that something is in microform so they can filter it out of 
their search results.  The information users need to find and select the 
resource they want is the publication information of what was filmed, not who 
did the filming.

I know that some next-generation discovery system is supposed to take care of 
all of this, but we ain't there yet, and when we get there we'll still have to 
worry about converting all of the records done "incorrectly", likely through 
some conversion process. 

On the CONSERlist there has been discussion of this same issue and the point 
has been raised: if we can (perhaps for slightly different reasons) countenance 
a "provider neutral" practice with respect to electronic reproductions, could 
we think of microfilm reproductions along the same lines? 

--Ben

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: Thursday, March 28, 2013 3:29 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] New format reproductions and RDA

Field 046 could be used to record the creation date of the work, and could
certainly be indexed and displayed.  You could also still use field 534 in
RDA I think.

^^
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 Thu, 28 Mar 2013, Flynn, Emily wrote:

> With RDA, reproductions in a new format (such as microform) shift cataloging 
> focus to the manifestation in hand rather than the original content the new 
> format conveys. The same was true in the switch from AACR(1) to AACR2 but an 
> LCRI allowed for the use of a 533 reproduction note enabling the cataloger to 
> catalog the original material's information. However, there doesn't seem to 
> be a LCPS, at least not yet, to the same effect.
>
> Using RDA for cataloging microform reproductions, this means that the 
> original only gets noted in a 776 field, where it seems that the original 
> dates of the material won't be indexed for user searches in the catalog. The 
> 264, 300, and fixed fields, etc., will contain the publisher/producer of the 
> current microform manifestation in hand, losing the date and publisher of the 
> original content held in such fields previously (via the LCRI). Also along 
> these lines, could names and corporate bodies associated with the original 
> still be given access points in 7xx fields and if so what's the best $e/$4 
> for them...bibliographical antecedent? How do users find the 1500 rare book 
> that's now scanned to microform in 2012 or a government report released in 
> 2009 but filmed as a reproduction in 2013?
>
> Has anyone else dealt with this? Perhaps this will be resolved somewhat, for 
> rare books at least, when DCRM(B) new guidelines are released for RDA. Is 
> there other ways to include the original content in the bibliographical 
> record of the new format's manifestation better so as not to lose the essence 
> of the content when it's viewed?
>
> Thanks!
> Emily
>
> Emily Flynn, Catalog Librarian, Content Operations
> ProQuest | 789 E. Eisenhower Parkway, P.O. Box 1346 | Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 
> USA | +1 734 707 2422
> emily.fl...@proquest.com
> www.proquest.com
>
> ProQuest ... Start here. 2012 InformationWeek 500 Top Innovator | 2012 
> Detroit Free Press Michigan Top Workplace
>
>
>

[RDA-L] Im Zweifelsfall

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

Heidrum, I agree and disagree in equal parts.

There are a lot of means, besides the order of phrases on the t.p., by which 
publishers can indicate the "titleness" of one particular phrase on the t.p.  
Perhaps "Evaluation of pilot project" is in 9-point type but "emergency traffic 
control for responders" is in boldface 15-point type.

Without seeing the t.p. it's impossible to say whether the publisher intended 
"Evaluation of pilot project" to be avant titre and not "titre même", so to 
speak.  So while I agree that, in case of doubt, a cataloger should transcribe 
title information sequentially as it appears, if the publisher's intentions can 
be visually derived from typography and layout, the cataloger should follow 
that.  That is the essence of respecting catalogers' judgment--it's not just 
that catalogers are expected to have more experience looking at title pages, 
but they are also the ones with the actual source of information in front of 
them.

(If the cataloger does find themselves "im Zweifelsfall", of course, it would 
also be a good idea to provide added-title access to both parts of the title 
with a 246:30.)

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 Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 1:29 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA and the Title Proper

In the light of ongoing discussions in Germany, this is a very interesting 
question for me.

According to the German RAK rules, there is a clear solution for this case 
(which I believe I have mentioned before on this list, but my former example 
was perhaps a less obvious one):

First, here's the original text of the rules (from RAK § 128, 6), for those on 
the list who read German (quite a lot of people, as I've found to my amazement):
"Angaben, zwischen denen ein Doppelpunkt oder Gedankenstrich steht, gelten im 
allgemeinen als Sachtitel und Zusatz zum Sachtitel. Solche Angaben gelten 
jedoch als ein Sachtitel, wenn die erste Angabe allein keine ausreichende 
sachliche Benennung ergibt. Im Zweifelsfall gelten sie als ein Sachtitel."

And here's my translation:
"Statements which are separated by a colon or a dash are normally treated as 
title proper and other title information. But if the first statement on its own 
is insufficient for naming the resource, both statements together are treated 
as title proper. In case of doubt, treat the statements as one title proper."

I especially like the "in case of doubt" provision (there are a lot of those in 
RAK, by the way, and they will be sadly missed...).

So, in our example, the RAK solution would not be "title proper : other title 
information", but instead, the whole would be treated as title proper. The 
colon would consequently be kept as an ordinary punctuation mark, and not as 
punctuation prescribed by ISBD. In MARC it then looks like this:

245 _0 $a Evaluation of pilot project: emergency traffic control for responders

I can't help feeling that this would also be a good solution in RDA.

Personally, I wouldn't be happy with transposing the statements and using 
"emergency traffic control for responders" as title proper and "evaluation of 
pilot project" as other title information, as was suggested by Jenny and 
others. Although I see the point about the RDA definition for title proper, I 
still feel that this would mean taking too much liberties with what we find on 
the resource. The producers of the book could have presented the statements 
like this:

Emergency traffic control for responders
Evaluation of pilot project

But they didn't choose to do it. I think catalogers should respect this.

There is a strong convention that the title proper comes before other title 
information on a title page - so I don't think we can simply "pick" what we 
want to have as the title proper. Only in rare cases I think a transposition 
can be justified, when the placement of the statements on the t.p. is really 
rather a question of (perhaps unconventional) design. But in a case like the 
one we're talking about, I think the presentation of the statements is rather 
some sort of stylistic device, which should be faithfully transcribed.

But maybe I'm just being traditionalist here.

Heidrun



On 19.03.2013 13:59, Jenny Wright wrote:
Hi Cathy
I don't believe there's any conflict here, between what you want to do (use 
"Emergency traffic control for responders" as the title proper) and what RDA is 
telling you to do in 2.3.2 Title proper and 2.3.4 Other title information.
The title proper is defined as "the chief name of a resource, i.e. the title 
normally used when citing the resource"; and other title information is defined 
as "the information which appears in conjunction with, and is subordinate to, 
the title proper".
I do not believe that a phrase appeari

Re: [RDA-L] RDA and the Title Proper

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

This conversation is a useful counterexample to the perennial question: why 
don't catalogers just scan and OCR title pages instead of fussing with all of 
these silly rules about transcribing them?  Deciding, "this is avant titre, and 
this is title proper", or, "this colon here does not necessarily mean what 
follows is a subtitle" is the type of intellectual labor catalogers do that, 
(a) provides an added value to the user; and (b) is not easily accomplished 
through automation.

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 M. E.
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 12:04 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA and the Title Proper

Kevin M Randall mailto:k...@northwestern.edu>> wrote:
This touches on one of my "favorite" cataloging pet peeves, which is the 
tendency of many catalogers to treat as "other title information" things that 
really should be seen as essential parts of the title proper.

Another example came up on AUTOCAT a few years ago.  If memory serves, the 
title page of the book was laid out in this way:

 Historical Israel: Biblical Israel
 Studying Joshua to 2 Kings

And the 245 read:

 245 10 Historical Israel : $b biblical Israel : studying Joshua to 2 Kings / 
...

The cataloger read too much into that colon.

Then we have those situations where 245 $b other title information should 
instead be part/section/supplement titles (245 $n/$p).

--
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Corrected DVD sample

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

Pam--

I asked this question before, and received a helpful response from Dave Reser 
of LC, that using terms in common usage (see 3.4.1.5) in the 300 $a is 
allowable.

He forwarded me these examples:

2011311037  (CD-ROM as accompanying material in 300 $e)
2012408410 (DVD-ROM as accompanying material in separate 300$a)
2010615056 (compact discs in 300 $a)
2010450160 (CD as accompanying material-- spoken word in 300$e)

Certainly, I would argue that using "1 videodisc" instead of 1 DVD would be 
less helpful to patrons, as there is more than one type of videodisc out there.

(Note--the 338 carrier type would still be videodisc.)

b

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 Pam Withrow
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 12:53 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Corrected DVD sample

I have a question about the DVD examples, and would appreciate some 
clarification, please.

The Toolkit states "Record the extent of the resource by giving the number of 
units and an appropriate term for the type of carrier as listed under 3.3.1.3."

Therefore, wouldn't we use "1 videodisc" rather than "1 DVD"?

Thank you in advance,
Pam
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Kadri, Carolyn J 
mailto:ka...@uta.edu>> wrote:
The link you provided to sample RDA records isn't working for me. When I click 
it on I get the report "page not found". Any ideas?

Carolyn

-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: Sunday, March 17, 2013 5:08 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Corrected DVD sample

Thanks to the Autocat poster who pointed out the typo in the DLC sample 
imprint, and the New York branch location of Planet Group.

Sometimes it does take a village, and Autocat is one of the best villgages.


Sample RDA records may be seen here:

http://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/RDA%20training%20materials/SCT%20RDA%20Re...

This is a sample DVD record:

007 v $b d $d c $e v $f a $g i $h z $i u
040 ___ $e rda $b eng $c ___
042 pcc
046 $k 2000
130 0 Meurtre ... Hollywood, l'affaire Phil Spector. $l English.
245 1 0 Guilty of being me : $b the Phil Spector story / $c Planet Group 
Entertainment with Pierre Antoine Capton, 3E Oeil productions, Panda Films in 
association with Sarasota Fringe Films LLC ; a documentary by Alex Jordanov.
246 3 0 Phil Spector story
525 France $2 naf
264 1 [United States] : $b Plant Group Entertainment, $c[2011]
264 4 $c c2011
300 1 videodisc (NTSC, 70 min.) : $b DVD video, sound, color ; $c 4 3/4 in.
336 two-dimensional moving image $2 rdacontent
337 video $2 rdamedia
338 videodisc $2 rdacarrier
380 Television program..
538 All regions.
518 Originally produced in France as a television program in 2009, reedited and 
released in the United States.
508 Director, Alex Jordanov; reedited by Melissa Matisko; photography, 
Guillaume Tunzini, Claude Budin-Juteau.
500 Wide screen 1.78:1.
520 "'Guilty of Being Me'tells the story of Phil Spector, legendary creator of 
"The Wall of Sound", his rise to and prowess in the recording studio, and final 
demise as the convicted murderer of Lana Clarkson, a Hollywood actress down on 
her luck, working as a "waitress" at the House of Blues on Sunset Strip. Phil 
Spector, The District Attorney, The Lead Detective, and others relevant to the 
killing tell their story. Extensive courtroom coverage follows the first trial 
from beginning to end."--Planet Group Ent website.

The typo "Plant" for Planet is in the sample.

[SLC clients would not be very happy with this record. They would expect us to 
do a Web search rather than guess the place of production, in this case New 
York although Plante Group is registered in Ireland.]

[They would expect a leader, and an 008 with at least the year, language, and 
country. The would prefer 655 genre divided geographically, to 256 (DLC to the 
contrary notwithstanding). ]

[The would expect both subject and genre headings, and an added entry for the 
director at least.]
130 0 $aMeurtre ... Hollywood, l'affaire Phil Spector.$lEnglish.*
245 1 0 $aGuilty of being me :$bthe Phil Spector story /$ca documentary by Alex 
Jordanov.
246 3 0 $aPhil Spector story
264 1 $a[New York, N.Y.] :$bPlanet Group Entertainment,$c[2011]
264 4 $cc2011**
300 1 DVD (70 min.) :$bsound, colour ;$4 3/4 in.
336 $atwo-dimensional moving image$2rdacontent***
337 $avideo$2rdamedia
338 $avideodisc$2rdacarrier
508 $aPlanet Group Entertainment with Pierre Antoine Capton, 3E Oeil 
productions, Panda Films in association with Sarasota Fringe Films LLC ; 
director, Alex Jordanov; reedited by Melissa Matisko ; photography, Guillaume 
Tunzini, Claude Budin-Jutea

Re: [RDA-L] eBooks & Playaways

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

FWIW I've been arguing there needs to be a *content* type for "interactive" for 
a long time.  Interactive media is only going to become more prevalent in 
libraries, not less. 

However I'm not sure "interactive" would be an appropriate carrier type--"A 
categorization reflecting the format of the storage medium and housing of a 
carrier in combination with the type of intermediation device required to view, 
play, run, etc., the content of a resource."

It's a good question, though.  Mutatis mutandis--is a television (if one were 
for some reason want to catalog it) "unmediated"?  After all, all you do is 
flip a switch and watch it...

--Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Layne, Sara
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 2:58 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] eBooks & Playaways

Maybe we need a new media type (or would it be an unmediated carrier type??) 
that is something like "interactive"?? In all the examples so far (Playaway, 
music box, Kindle), the user needs to do something to make it work, even though 
the user does not need an *additional* device to gain access.

Just a thought.

Sara Shatford Layne
Principal Cataloger
UCLA Library Cataloging & Metadata Center

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelley McGrath
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 11:48 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] eBooks & Playaways

I guess I'm not sure that a Playaway is unmediated. It's just that the 
mediation is transparent to the end user. The user doesn't have to put a disc 
in; they just put in batteries and push play. Mediation for digital content is 
likely to become increasingly transparent. In a sense everything tangible that 
we catalog is an object, but a Playaway is presumably wanted not as something 
to be looked at or touched, but as an integrated audio carrier.

If you could move content on and off the Playaway, would that change your 
opinion? If a library circulates audiobooks on ipods or ebooks on a Kindle, 
should those records also be for objects? This actually seems to be an 
unsettled area.

Kelley

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Robert Maxwell  wrote:
> In my opinion a Playaway is unmediated. You don't need anything other 
> than the object itself (and a source of electricity) to get the 
> information, in contrast to, say, a CD, which you need to put in a machine in 
> order to use.
> Media type is "a categorization reflecting the general type of 
> intermediation device required to view, play, run, etc., the content 
> of a resource." No intermediation device is needed to hear/play the 
> content of a Playaway.
>
> I find it analogous to a music box, which would also be unmediated.
>
> There is not a good unmediated carrier type (yet) for a Playaway. But 
> as noted below, there isn't a good carrier type under the other 
> categories either.

Re: [RDA-L] Coding subsequent creators in MARC 21 Bibliographic

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

Application to current and future encoding aside, perhaps this is another 
opportunity for me to plug the spreadsheet of Appendix I terms that I put up on 
the Web:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ak9dJXdWVGHddGp6YjhqUFktZlZ3WDdkOEp3ZEZhWkE&usp=sharing

or:

bit.ly/Ymw4dt

It's an attempt to think about these relationships as more of a useful, 
controlled vocabulary a la LCSH, than as just a list in the back of the rule 
book.  Each relationship has several values:

TYPE=Whether it can be used in an access point (Type 1) or only as an added 
entry (Type 2)

RDA relationship=Term as it appears in RDA

Possible SoRs=How a cataloger (or for that matter a script) might  recognize a 
given relationship in a bibliographic record (primarily 245 $c).

X-Refs=Relationships to other terms in the vocabulary

P/F/C/W/E/M/I=Booelan values, whether a relationship term can be used to 
connect a person/family/CB to a Work/Expression/Manifestation/Item. The idea 
being, often we start from those points first and then figure out the 
relationship. (E.g. ok, I have a person and a work, what possible relationships 
are there?) Someone could filter this list by these values to see only the ones 
they can use.

Domain=What intellectual domain or community this relationships belongs to 
(e.g.: legal, performing arts, book collecting, etc. ... note I haven't added 
any actual values to this yet.) So that someone could, say, filter out "legal" 
terms (of which there are many, and they are quite specific).

I could probably add links to RDA toolkit but since that resource is not free 
to the Web there's no point, really.

This is just a work in progress, and I'm sure there are many improvements that 
could be made.  So far however I've found it easier to use than the appendix.

--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 Deborah Fritz
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 2:56 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Coding subsequent creators in MARC 21 Bibliographic

That, again, is why adding the relationship designators are so important; even 
if they have to be at the highest levels, e.g., Creator. But we definitely do 
need a better high level designator than "Other Persons, Families, or Corporate 
Bodies Associated with a Work"

-  -  -  -  -  -  -  -
Deborah Fritz
TMQ, Inc.
debo...@marcofquality.com
www.marcofquality.com

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Ed Jones
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 2:35 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Coding subsequent creators in MARC 21 Bibliographic

Thanks, Kevin. You're right. I had naively assumed an equivalence between 1XX 
and principal creator, but the 1XX--like the 7XX--contains a mix of creators 
and other persons, etc., associated with the work. Blah! :)

Ed

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, March 12, 2013 10:58 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Coding subsequent creators in MARC 21 Bibliographic

I don't like the idea of mapping RDA creator element to MARC 100/110/111, 
saying that "If it's 1XX, that means it's a creator."  That is not the meaning 
of the 1XX field, any more than the presence of a name at the beginning of an 
RDA authorized access point for a work/expression means that the entity so 
named is a creator.  It is true that in the vast majority of cases they are 
"creators", even if it's because RDA maintained the AACR "choice of main entry" 
practice by declaring many entities to be "considered to be creators" in 
19.2.1.1.  But it is in correct to say that defendants, complainants, or 
indictees (6.29.1.24-6.29.1.26) are creators even though they might end up 
being tagged as 1XX; they are "Other Persons, Families, or Corporate Bodies 
Associated with a Work" (19.3 and I.2.2).

In RDA terminology, the meaning of MARC 100/110/111 in a bibliographic record 
or name/title authority record is essentially "name portion of the authorized 
access point for a work or expression".

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

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Ed Jones
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:16 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Coding subsequent creators in MARC 21 Bib

Re: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

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 would prefer that the optional omission be applied in these cases. 
There is value to the "principle of representation" of course, but I believe 
that value needs to be balanced against the fact that title pages have many 
more visual devices available to them (use of white space, font and font size, 
italic vs. roman, etc.) to communicate to users what information is essential 
and what is not.  Since these cues are not available in a surrogate, the 
cataloger should be able (and encouraged) to use his or her editorial judgment.

--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 Gene Fieg
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:52 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4

Well, I thought I would go back to 2.4.1.4 and see what it says.

It appears to be very much in line with AACR2.  I did not see anything like the 
examples given in previous e-mails.  Titles are omitted.  They don't really add 
anything to the area of responsibility.  I did see "Professors" used once, and 
that may be due the use of the last name.

Anyway, I see no justification in RDA to include all of that other stuff 
mentioned in other e-mails.  I looked at the LC guidlines (LCPPCs?) and they 
don't seem to include all that stuff either.
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 6:30 PM, J. McRee Elrod 
mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca>> wrote:
Daniel posted:

>"edited by J. Garland, [of] Cambridge Carbonates UK; J.E. Neilson,
.[of] University of Aberdeen, UK; S.E. Laubach, [of]  University of
.Texas at Austin, USA and K.J. Whidden, [of] USGS, USA"

This has the same difficulty presented by "by", "par", etc. introduced
into statements of responsibility before ISBD's "/" replaced them, and
by RDA's "language of the catalogue" inclusions.  Such inclusions
create difficulties in multilingual situations.

With the exception of the loss of "[sic]", RDA's tendency to have data
transcribed as found (with the exceptions of punctuation and
capitalization) might be good.

The goal of IFLA's Universal Bibliographic Control (UBC) was that
descriptions created anywhere in the world (preferably in the country
of publication) could be used anywhere.  RDA's inclusions represent a
giant step backward from that ideal.


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



--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu

Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent 
or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content 
contained in this forwarded email.  The forwarded email is that of the original 
sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or 
Claremont Lincoln University.  It has been forwarded as a courtesy for 
information only.

Re: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

Joan--there's no requirement to record affiliations, but there is a 
"requirement" (unless you choose the "optional omission") to "Transcribe a 
statement of responsibility in the form in which it appears on the source of 
information" which, if there are affiliations on the t.p., would presumably 
include them.

Kevin and Bob--thanks for the suggestions.  It is always helpful to be reminded 
that "transcription" does not include slavishly copying punctuation (I really 
think that should warrant its own rule number, not just be an orphan last 
sentence to 1.7.3).

I hope that in the future, RDA best practices include some discussion and 
examples of how to treat this.

--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 Joan Wang
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 2:43 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4

Does RDA require to transcribe affiliations of authors? The rule only mentions 
"in the form".

2.4.1.4 Recording Statements of Responsibility
Transcribe a statement of responsibility in the form in which it appears on the 
source of information.

Here is the definition of statement of responsibility:
A statement relating to the identification and/or function of any persons, 
families, or corporate bodies responsible for the creation of, or contributing 
to the realization of, the intellectual or artistic content of a resource.

I am wondering why there is no such an example under 2.4.1.4. Authors' 
affiliations seem to be common.

Thanks,
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Kevin M Randall 
mailto:k...@northwestern.edu>> wrote:
I wonder if the statement would read better if we punctuated it differently, 
e.g.:

"edited by J. Garland (Cambridge Carbonates UK), J.E. Neilson (University of 
Aberdeen, UK), S.E. Laubach (University of Texas at Austin, USA) and K.J. 
Whidden (USGS, USA)"

This might actually do a much better job of conveying the essence of what's on 
the source of information, using punctuation marks to take over the function 
that typography and/or layout probably played.

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

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>] On 
Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 1:13 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4

Do people really think

"edited by J. Garland, Cambridge Carbonates UK, J.E. Neilson, University of 
Aberdeen, UK, S.E. Laubach, University of Texas at Austin, USA and K.J. 
Whidden, USGS, USA"

is more helpful and unambiguous to users than,

"edited by J. Garland, J.E. Neilson, S.E. Laubach, and K.J. Whidden"?

To me at least the former looks like a mix of individuals and corporate bodies. 
 And that is what 2.4.1.4 without the optional omission (which, unfortunately, 
LC and PCC don't seem to like) leads to.

--Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137




--
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] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

Do people really think

"edited by J. Garland, Cambridge Carbonates UK, J.E. Neilson, University of 
Aberdeen, UK, S.E. Laubach, University of Texas at Austin, USA and K.J. 
Whidden, USGS, USA"

is more helpful and unambiguous to users than,

"edited by J. Garland, J.E. Neilson, S.E. Laubach, and K.J. Whidden"?

To me at least the former looks like a mix of individuals and corporate bodies. 
 And that is what 2.4.1.4 without the optional omission (which, unfortunately, 
LC and PCC don't seem to like) leads to.

--Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

I have always been told that good data outlives poor systems.  Still, you seem 
to know what you're doing.  I'm curious how you're going to manage the 
de-siccing. You will have to, I presume, look at each instance and decide what 
to do about it, case-by-case, as (as previously mentioned) some "sic's" are not 
necessarily errors, just words or phrases likely to be interpreted as such.

Re: Thomas' comment, "and in fact most users are none the wiser and so assume 
[sic] is part of the title." I'm curious where you get this fact.  It may be a 
function of different user bases (something RDA is supposed to be more 
hospitable to than earlier codes) but I doubt our patrons have trouble 
understanding what "sic" means, particularly when it appears right next to a 
word that looks off.  It is after all a rather ubiquitous feature in academic 
prose.  (And if a user, say an undergraduate, doesn't understand it... why, 
there's an opportunity to learn something useful from the catalog. Imagine 
that.)

Anyways that's enough for now from me on this topic of vital concern to 
probably nobody.  I appreciate people taking the time to read it and respond.

Like most RDA issues, this cake was baked years ago.  The mandate is, "Take 
what you see" and any situation in which the cataloger might be expected or 
allowed to use their own knowledge and interpretive skills to provide a more 
useful transcription of a title page is deprecated.

b

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 Gary L Strawn
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 3:50 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles

The real-world problem that we have to deal with is that our underdeveloped 
systems often do not understand that "[sic]", phrases beginning "[i.e.", and 
similar intrusions, are things that should be skipped for indexing purposes.  
(The NOTIS system did actually know enough to skip these, but that's only one 
of the many things we've lost in moving forward ...)

If we give 245s in this fashion:

Litte [i.e., little] whale and the ice
Chistopher [sic] Plantin's books of hours

Then the left-anchored title index (or keyword phrase) may well contain "LITTE 
I E LITTLE WHALE AND THE ICE" and "CHISTOPHER SIC PLANTINS BOOKS OF HOURS", 
which represent neither the title on the item nor the "corrected" title.

We just completed a project here to remove all of the "[i.e." constructions 
from 245 $a and 740 $a.  ("[sic]" is coming soon, once the RDA conversion is 
complete.)  This required a judicious addition of title access points, 240s, 
and notes.

Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc.
Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300
e-mail: mrsm...@northwestern.edu<mailto:mrsm...@northwestern.edu>   voice: 
847/491-2788   fax: 847/491-8306
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. BatchCat version: 2007.22.416

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 2:31 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles

I'm glad this is still being discussed, so I don't feel like a total fussbudget 
for pining over a three-letter word.

The issue, in my opinion, is not really whether we use "sic" or some other 
phrase (though I confess I find "sic" a wonderfully parsimonious way of 
indicating an error.)

It is, as Michael Borris and others have previously stated, that the presence 
of some kind of signal that the cataloger found what appears to be an error is 
most useful when it's right next to the error.  I believe this usefulness 
extends to users and catalogers alike.  The current, "sic-free" approach 
enshrined by RDA forces people to compare two strings of text and play the "One 
of these things is not like the other game." Which may not be a problem for 
most titles, but could be a bigger hassle for longer titles or titles in 
languages other than English (for English-speaking catalogers, that is.)

There is also a subtler point, perhaps, to be made. Yesterday Ian Fairclough 
stated, "Personally, I dislike the phrase "Title should read".   Who are we 
catalogers to tell people how their creations "should" read?".  I think there 
is something to this.  "Sic"-ing something just says, "This is what it really 
said, believe it or not." It does not necessarily mean, "I know what this 
should say better than the

Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

lto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>] On 
Behalf Of Joan Wang
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 11:55 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles

RDA follows the representation principle. The data describing a resource should 
reflect the resource's representation of itself. The current way seems to be 
more
explicit.

Thanks,
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Benjamin A Abrahamse 
mailto:babra...@mit.edu>> wrote:
I still don't understand why the JSC saw fit to get rid of the device, "[sic]" 
,for bringing gattention to known typos or other minor mistakes in the title.  
I think most users understand what it means, even the ones who don't know Latin.

--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<mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca>] On 
Behalf Of Gene Fieg
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 11:44 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca<mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles

As far as I understand it, you transcribe what you see.
Just had one of those.  Title was Upnashads.  The record also had a 246.  The 
whole point of a catalog is get the patron to the work he/she wants or is 
seeking, or may find while doing a browse by title on the computer.
Do we want to help the patron or not?
RDA cannot be a cataloging code for catalogers.  It has to be a means to an 
end: "Gee, I am glad I found this.  Thanks."
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 3:49 AM, Michael Cohen 
mailto:mco...@library.wisc.edu>> wrote:
RDA Exercise




A patron asked us to correct a typo in the title page of his
dissertation. The rules are quite clear
on how to handle this situation: transcribe the title page title in 245 and
record the corrected title in 246. But
246 is defined as Varying Form of Title, and a corrected typo is not a
variation of the real title in the same way that spelling out 'and' for &
is. Rather, isn't the corrected (or
intended) title actually the title of the Work (instead of the Manifestation)
and therefore shouldn't it be recorded in 240 instead of 246?



 Please explain the flaws in this logic.

--

Michael L. Cohen
Interim Head of Cataloging
General Library System, University of Wisconsin-Madison
324C Memorial Library
728 State Street
Madison, WI 53706-1494
Phone: (608) 262-3246 Fax: (608) 
262-4861
Email: mco...@library.wisc.edu<mailto:mco...@library.wisc.edu>



--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu<mailto:gf...@cst.edu>

Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent 
or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content 
contained in this forwarded email.  The forwarded email is that of the original 
sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or 
Claremont Lincoln University.  It has been forwarded as a courtesy for 
information only.



--
Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D.
Cataloger -- CMC
Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office)
6725 Goshen Road
Edwardsville, IL 62025
618.656.3216x409
618.656.9401Fax



--
Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D.
Cataloger -- CMC
Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office)
6725 Goshen Road
Edwardsville, IL 62025
618.656.3216x409
618.656.9401Fax

[RDA-L] Sic 'em! (was RE: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles)

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

Not to continue to beat a horse I suspect is already dead, but "sic" is not the 
same type of Latin abbreviation as the "s.l." or "et al." of blessed recent 
memory.

In point of fact, it appears in most English dictionaries including Webster's 
and the OED, the latter of which defines it as, " A parenthetical insertion 
used in printing quotations or reported utterances to call attention to 
something anomalous or erroneous in the original, or to guard against the 
supposition of misquotation. "  Exactly the way it is used (was used) by 
catalogers.

Only once in my cataloging career have I been asked by a user about the 
presence of a "[sic]" in a record. And as it happened it wasn't that he didn't 
understand what it meant, it was that he disagreed that it was an error (one of 
those borderline cases of using a possessive apostrophe after a word that ends 
in a voiced sibilant.) All of which is to say while [sic] can be misused by 
overfussy catalogers, that in itself does not warrant getting rid of the 
practice altogether.

b


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 Ian Fairclough
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 2:42 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles

RDA-L readers,

Jenifer Marquardt asked "Why is the corrected version of any 245 with an error 
put in the MARC field 246 rather than in the 240?"

Field 240, Uniform Title, is always associated with a 1XX field.  If no 1XX 
field is present, the data is tagged 130.  Thus, field 240 is always an 
appendage to an *author* field, a name heading plus uniform title (in 
AACR2-speak), that is, a name-title entry (in more common parlance among 
catalogers). See http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd240.html  "Uniform 
title for an item when the bibliographic description is entered under a main 
entry field that contains a personal (field 100), corporate (110), or meeting 
(111) name."

Field 246, on the other hand, is a Varying Form of Title field: "Varying forms 
of the title appearing on different parts of an item or a portion of the title 
proper, or an alternative form of the title when the form differs substantially 
from the title statement in field 245 and if they contribute to the further 
identification of the item." http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd246.html

In terms of literary warrant: The corrected form of title often lacks it, in 
the sense that the title as transcribed, error and all, is the only existing 
warrant.  The cataloger is exercising judgment in providing a correction.  That 
is different from "establishing" the corrected title as a uniform title.  You 
really should have justification in a documentable source in order to do that.

RDA does not give instruction on using [sic] (in contrast to AACR2 1.0F1) and 
there are various reasons why doing so is a good/bad idea.  So no wonder we 
argue the case back and forth!  My favorite example is a compact disc sound 
recording with title "The Dutchess" (actually, the name of the artist).  That 
is not a typo, so it would not be appropriate to correct it.  You can however 
add [sic] to indicate that you haven't introduced a typo in your transcription, 
in case anyone should wonder.  But that has gone out of fashion, so to speak, 
along with use of other Latin abbreviations.  Personally, I dislike the phrase 
"Title should read".   Who are we catalogers to tell people how their creations 
"should" read?

I hope this helps.  Does it answer the question?  - Ian

Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - 
ifairclough43...@yahoo.com

Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

Just looking at the question practically: wouldn't using a 240 instead of a 
246--though perhaps "correct" from the standpoint of RDA--require more 
authority work? And, since most libraries index 130, 24x, and most of the 7xx 
fields together in their title index, would that work be worth the effort in 
terms of better user outcomes?


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 Gene Fieg
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 1:07 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles

And this example is a reflection of orthographic reform.  Does it fit the 
question asked?
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 10:03 AM, McRae, Rick 
mailto:rmc...@esm.rochester.edu>> wrote:

I agree with Jenifer's favoring 240 over 246 for the proper form of title.
In support, check out n  84105541 in OCLC NAF:

1001 Morley, Thomas, ǂd 1557-1603? ǂt Plaine and easie introduction to 
practicall musicke
4001 Morley, Thomas, ǂd 1557-1603? ǂt Plain and easy introduction to practical 
music

Of course in Morley's time, the former title was considered proper spelling, 
and the title in the above 400 would have been considered riddled with typos. 
Any later edition reading "Plain and easy..." would be cataloged with the 
uniform, er, preferred title "Plaine and easie.." as a 240, not as a variant 
title.
I see a similar analogy to the erroneous dissertation title we're discussing. 
The work originally intended by the creator would have had the properly spelled 
title.
Practically, I side with Angelina (and reinforced by others) that if a 
corrected title can be replaced by Student or Grad Office prior to cataloging, 
that would be best. But if not, then I'd opt for the 240 solution-- but not 
246, for the reasons that others have argued.


Rick McRae
Catalog / Reference Librarian
Sibley Music Library
Eastman School of Music
(585) 274-1370




-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On 
Behalf Of Jenifer K Marquardt
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 12:50 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles

Hello, everyone.

What about the basic question that was asked?  Why is the corrected version of 
any 245 with an error put in the MARC field 246 rather than in the 240?  The 
246 represents varying forms of the title, yes, but the title of the work is 
really the corrected version, isn't it?  And so then it would seem that the 240 
would be the place to record the corrected version.  This is a question that 
would apply to any title with an error, not just this thesis example.  Does 
anybody know why the 246 is used instead of the 240?

Thanks,

Jenifer

Jenifer K. Marquardt
Asst. Head of Cataloging & Authorities Librarian University of Georgia Athens, 
GA 30602-1641


From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf 
of Jerri Swinehart [swine...@oakland.edu]
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 12:40 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles

I think though that what needs to guide catalogers in this case is that the 
student who wrote the dissertation is asking for a typo correction. The rest of 
the equation such as a (sic) or a 246 is only valid as long as the student 
doesn't find the typo important. In this case the student does so I would let 
the student have the dissertation, recommend that he/she go to the "Grad 
office" for help. When the dissertation made its way back to me then I would 
catalog it.

Remember, cataloging also involves public service, which by quoting cataloging 
rules to a student who does not know them, is  not being served here.

Sorry ... I will always disagree with the oh well crowd.

Thank you.

Jerri Swinehart
MLIS
Library Technician III
Metadata Technician
Oakland University
Kresge Library
Technical Services
Rochester, MI 48309-4484
swine...@oakland.edu>



--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu

Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent 
or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content 
contained in this forwarded email.  The forwarded email is that of the original 
sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or 
Claremont Lincoln University.  It has been forwarded as a courtesy for 
information only.

Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

I understand why RDA thinks it needs to go.

But a "principle" is not a law of nature. And for that matter, RDA states 
representation means, "data describing a resource should reflect".  I think 
there are cases, well understood by catalogers, where we can say, "Well it 
should, but in this case I can better fulfill users' needs by overriding this 
principle."  Even RDA admits, in 0.4.1: "trade-offs sometimes have to be made 
between one principle and another."

We can always use an added title to provide access to the correct version of 
the title, so it's not a matter of losing or gaining access via title indexes.  
The use of [sic] is a well-know practice, used beyond the domain of cataloging, 
for precisely indicating there is an error in the original, and it's right here 
to the left of the [sic].

In my opinion this is an example of RDA-inspired theory overriding the long 
tradition of practical, common sense in cataloging.

--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 Joan Wang
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 11:55 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles

RDA follows the representation principle. The data describing a resource should 
reflect the resource's representation of itself. The current way seems to be 
more
explicit.

Thanks,
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Benjamin A Abrahamse 
mailto:babra...@mit.edu>> wrote:
I still don't understand why the JSC saw fit to get rid of the device, "[sic]" 
,for bringing gattention to known typos or other minor mistakes in the title.  
I think most users understand what it means, even the ones who don't know Latin.

--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<mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca>] On 
Behalf Of Gene Fieg
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 11:44 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca<mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles

As far as I understand it, you transcribe what you see.
Just had one of those.  Title was Upnashads.  The record also had a 246.  The 
whole point of a catalog is get the patron to the work he/she wants or is 
seeking, or may find while doing a browse by title on the computer.
Do we want to help the patron or not?
RDA cannot be a cataloging code for catalogers.  It has to be a means to an 
end: "Gee, I am glad I found this.  Thanks."
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 3:49 AM, Michael Cohen 
mailto:mco...@library.wisc.edu>> wrote:
RDA Exercise




A patron asked us to correct a typo in the title page of his
dissertation. The rules are quite clear
on how to handle this situation: transcribe the title page title in 245 and
record the corrected title in 246. But
246 is defined as Varying Form of Title, and a corrected typo is not a
variation of the real title in the same way that spelling out 'and' for &
is. Rather, isn't the corrected (or
intended) title actually the title of the Work (instead of the Manifestation)
and therefore shouldn't it be recorded in 240 instead of 246?



 Please explain the flaws in this logic.

--

Michael L. Cohen
Interim Head of Cataloging
General Library System, University of Wisconsin-Madison
324C Memorial Library
728 State Street
Madison, WI 53706-1494
Phone: (608) 262-3246 Fax: (608) 
262-4861
Email: mco...@library.wisc.edu<mailto:mco...@library.wisc.edu>



--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu<mailto:gf...@cst.edu>

Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent 
or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content 
contained in this forwarded email.  The forwarded email is that of the original 
sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or 
Claremont Lincoln University.  It has been forwarded as a courtesy for 
information only.



--
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] Typos in Titles

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

I still don't understand why the JSC saw fit to get rid of the device, "[sic]" 
,for bringing gattention to known typos or other minor mistakes in the title.  
I think most users understand what it means, even the ones who don't know Latin.

--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 Gene Fieg
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 11:44 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles

As far as I understand it, you transcribe what you see.
Just had one of those.  Title was Upnashads.  The record also had a 246.  The 
whole point of a catalog is get the patron to the work he/she wants or is 
seeking, or may find while doing a browse by title on the computer.
Do we want to help the patron or not?
RDA cannot be a cataloging code for catalogers.  It has to be a means to an 
end: "Gee, I am glad I found this.  Thanks."
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 3:49 AM, Michael Cohen 
mailto:mco...@library.wisc.edu>> wrote:
RDA Exercise




A patron asked us to correct a typo in the title page of his
dissertation. The rules are quite clear
on how to handle this situation: transcribe the title page title in 245 and
record the corrected title in 246. But
246 is defined as Varying Form of Title, and a corrected typo is not a
variation of the real title in the same way that spelling out 'and' for &
is. Rather, isn't the corrected (or
intended) title actually the title of the Work (instead of the Manifestation)
and therefore shouldn't it be recorded in 240 instead of 246?



 Please explain the flaws in this logic.

--

Michael L. Cohen
Interim Head of Cataloging
General Library System, University of Wisconsin-Madison
324C Memorial Library
728 State Street
Madison, WI 53706-1494
Phone: (608) 262-3246 Fax: (608) 
262-4861
Email: mco...@library.wisc.edu



--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu

Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent 
or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content 
contained in this forwarded email.  The forwarded email is that of the original 
sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or 
Claremont Lincoln University.  It has been forwarded as a courtesy for 
information only.

[RDA-L] Question re: Reporting errors in the toolkit

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

I just want to double check that this is the appopriate place to report any 
errors we find in the RDA toolkit:

http://www.rdatoolkit.org/support/open.php?

The dropdown box "Help topic" does not seem to have an option for "Report 
error" or something similar.

--Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

Re: [RDA-L] Relators for contributors and consultants

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

I think RDA relationships should be structured like a controlled vocabulary, 
with links to and from broader and narrower terms.  "Contributor" and "creator" 
would be the top-level terms.  If a narrower term has not been established 
(author of preface, for example) the cataloger would use the higher level term.

For a lark I took all of the Appendix I relationship terms, mapped out their 
relationships to each other, and put them into a spreadsheet:  bit.ly/Ymw4dt

--Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137


-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: Monday, February 25, 2013 3:00 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relators for contributors and consultants

'contributor' would make sense.  We definitely need a way to distinguish 
authors of introductions and prefaces from authors of the main text.

On 2/25/2013 3:20 AM, Bernadette Mary O'Reilly wrote:
> Thanks, Mac.  The problem with 'writer of added text' is that it is 
> defined as 'contributing to an expression of a primarily non-textual 
> work by providing text for the non-textual work' - but this 
> compilation is all textual and all the input is of equal standing.  
> (We aren't considering using the $4 codes at the moment, for training 
> reasons - too many new things.)
>
> The I.3 list seems to be almost exclusively for contributions which 
> postdate the primary intellectual/artistic content and are different 
> in kind from it, so it lacks provision for compilations and for cases 
> where the primary content makes use of pre-existing content, e.g. a 
> musical setting of a poem.  In many cases this could be covered by 
> name-title entries for the pre-existing components, but if there is a 
> large number of components and/or the components are not clearly 
> attributed, this is impossible.  The assumption may be that if a 
> component does not rate  a name-title entry the creator of that 
> component will never rate an AAP; but it is fairly common for 
> compilations to have statements of responsibility for contributors 
> which are worth recording, although the resource does not give details 
> of who contributed which bit; and it is generally a Good Thing for 
> statements of responsibility to be harmonised with AAPs.
>
> I agree that 'contributor' would solve a lot of problems.  A catchall, 
> but we don't want cataloguers to spend too long agonising over which 
> inappropriate specific relator is least inappropriate. I rather think 
> that 'contributor' is already being used semi-officially, but I'm not 
> sure if anything is being done about making it officially official.
>
> 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 J. McRee 
> Elrod
> Sent: 25 February 2013 06:08
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relators for contributors and consultants
>
> Bernadette asked:
>
>> ,,, And what about the contributors?
>
> There is:
>
> $e writer of added text [MRI: consider writer]
>
> or the code:
>
> $4 wam   Writer of accompanying material
>
> Neither of which is spot on.  Perhaps we should request "contributor"?
>
>
> __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
>{__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
>___} |__ 
> \__

--

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] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

RDA treats each "function" as a separate statement (see 2.4.1.6).  

My reading of the "core note" to 2.4.2 (Statement of responsibility relating to 
title proper) is that for "core", only the first statement of responsibility is 
required: " If more than one statement of responsibility relating to title 
proper appears on the source of information, only the first recorded is 
required."

So if you had a book with five authors, two illustrators, and two editors (e.g. 
three statement of responsibility) you would only be required by "core" to 
record the first (the authors).  You would further be allowed, according to the 
Optional Omission to 2.4.1.5 to record only the first author and summarize the 
remaining, e.g.: by John Smith [and four others].

--Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

-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, February 13, 2013 11:02 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons 
etc.

We have been just debating this point recently and have reached in impasse on 
interpreting the omission options. For example if I possess a resource with 
five authors, two illustrators, and two editors RDA instructs me to transcribe 
all information according to rules 2.4.1.4-2.4.1.6. Therefore, I would include 
all the above mentioned persons in my statement of responsibility related to my 
title proper. However, we view this as increasing the workload for our 
cataloguers and situation that we wish to avoid. Hence we are looking at the 
what RDA core requires. My follow cataloguers and I disagree on what is 
considered core and the application of the omission options. Without going into 
a long list of scenarios could the list members provide a definitive 
interpretation on what RDA core requires in the above example.

Don Charuk
Cataloguer
Toronto Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

It occurs to me that one of the advantages of the suggested [and n authors, 
including Joe and Bob] route, is that it would be fairly painless for 
institutions who don't care about Joe and Bob to rephrase the 245 $c in their 
local copy.  Certainly easier than removing multiple [and] statements and their 
marks of omission (if that were also required).

It also perhaps wouldn't require a change to RDA at all, just be understood as 
a best practice to "summarize what has been omitted" under certain 
circumstances.

The two places where I have run across large s-o-r's are: some textbooks (where 
authorship probably resides at the chapter level but is not indicated that way 
in the table of contents) and articles, particularly in the sciences. I've run 
across at least one article that had over 400 named authors (the s-o-r was 
quite literally longer than the article text), which is one situation in which 
we would want to be able to record authors associated with our institution 
instead of being forced to choose between recording everything, and recording 
only the first element.

Obviously most libraries don't include analytics in their catalogs but there's 
no reason (rules-wise) why they couldn't.

Ben


From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] on behalf of Heidrun Wiesenmüller 
[wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 12:18 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons 
etc.

Thomas,

I think we're all agreed that transcribing all names in a statement of 
responsibility is preferable to any kinds of shortening the statement.

I'm not so sure about your argument that the first name in such a list is of 
special importance as a potential part of the access point of the work. 
Although in RDA there can be more than three creators, my gut feeling is that 
we won't see too many cases with more than, say, five creators. Such lists can 
and should be completely transcribed. If you come upon a very long list of 
names, I believe it will (at least in the area of textual works) typically be 
for people who have written an essay or a chapter in a collection. The example 
I cited, for example, was a festschrift. So the persons in these lists are not 
creators of the work as a whole, but only creators of their own essay. 
Consequently, the first one mentioned would not be part of the access point for 
the work as a whole. This kind of list also tends to be arranged 
alphabetically, so there is really no indication that the first-mentioned 
person has contributed in a more important way than the others. It's just the 
person whose name happens to come first in an alphabetical order.

Heidrun


On 07.02.2013 21:35, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
Including the sequence of the first few named and then truncating the statement 
with [and x others] seems like a reasonable and flexible option.

But I do view the use of [and x others] as itself violating the principle of 
representation, and perhaps that is why the LC-PCC PS has indicated that they 
will not generally use the optional omission.

The first named does have a connection with the name potentially used in the 
authorized access point for the work, so there is a stronger reason for the 
first named versus the second named. The access point for that first named is 
also a core element (essentially, this is how RDA restates the main entry 
rule—as in AACR2, one name is more important than others, and receives a spot 
in the 100 field).

As for the others that are named, I would be more comfortable transcribing the 
entire statement. In those exceptional cases with a huge number of names, it 
seems to me that potentially none of the names are that important (except the 
first named which might be used in the authorized access point), or that only 
select names would be useful for the users of the library, and so I would more 
comfortable putting those in a note, likely with some explanation as to why I 
pulled those specific names out of the statement of responsibility.

I don’t see much discernible value in setting an arbitrary cut-off—if given a 
choice between transcribing a full statement of responsibility and making 
authority records for the first four or five names I would likely choose 
transcribing the whole statement of responsibility as more useful, if only for 
keyword searching. There might even be some workflow logic to that in that 
authorized access points can be added later if needed and the statement of 
responsibility wouldn’t have to be adjusted with some other arbitrary cut-off.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: February-07-13 3:11 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

"In what sense does RDA suggest that SoRs are "recorded" and not "transcribed"? 
RDA 2.4.1.4 (Recording Statements of Responsibility) says, "Transcribe a 
statement of responsibility in the form in which it appears on the source of 
information. Apply the general guidelines on transcription given under 1.7. 
--Kathy Glennan"

Fair enough, they are transcribed.  I'm still just wrapping my head around the 
fact that, after being told numerous times that there is a difference between 
"recording" and "transcribing" under RDA, the latter is actually a subspecies 
of the former.  (The same way, in serials cataloging, we sometimes talk about 
"serials" and "journals" as two different things when "journal" is just a 
specific type of serial.)

Still, the transcription guidelines under 1.7 do not discuss how to omit 
information. That appears, as Heidrun points out, only to apply to particular 
elements (mainly in the title).  The assumption seems to have been that 
catalogers will never want or need to omit information anywhere other than in 
those specific instances.

"So I'd vote for a solution like this:
- transcribe the first name
- transcribe other names, which you want to give, in the order in which they 
appear in the statement of responsibility
- do not indicate if you've left out other names between the ones transcribed
- instead summarize what was left out at the end 

-- Heidrun Wiesenmüller"

I think I agree with this.  It's practical.  People with more descriptive needs 
(rare book, for example) may not.  

This strikes me as a practice of last resort, when you are faced with an 
extensive S-o-R and additional local requirements  (for example: your library 
wants to record/trace people associated with your institution no matter where 
they appear in the s-o-r).

--Ben


Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:33 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons 
etc.

Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:

> If we were expected to transcribe the statement of responsibility, not just 
> record it, the use of the mark of omission would make perfect sense.  Yet, 
> the two Optional Omission instructions under 2.4.1.4 seem to suggest that 
> mark of omission in S-o-Rs has been denigrated under RDA.

Marks of omission don't seem to be totally outlawed in RDA, but they are 
certainly much reduced. We are still allowed to use them when abridging titles 
(2.3.1.4, optional omission), in title of series (2.12.2.3, exception), and for 
celestial cartographic content (7.4.4.3).


> But taking a step back, and trying to think about it from the user's 
> perspective: does it matter to your typical user that they know where 
> the omission occurs, or just that there has been an omission (in which 
> case, if they need to see the whole s-o-r for some reason they will 
> need to obtain the piece)? Honestly I don't know. :)

Personally, I think it would be o.k. not to indicate exactly where the omission 
(or the omissions) occurs. This might be more confusing than helpful.

So I'd vote for a solution like this:
- transcribe the first name
- transcribe other names, which you want to give, in the order in which they 
appear in the statement of responsibility
- do not indicate if you've left out other names between the ones transcribed
- instead summarize what was left out at the end

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] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

If we were expected to transcribe the statement of responsibility, not just 
record it, the use of the mark of omission would make perfect sense.  Yet, the 
two Optional Omission instructions under 2.4.1.4 seem to suggest that mark of 
omission in S-o-Rs has been denigrated under RDA.

Specifically:

"Abridge a statement of responsibility only if it can be abridged without loss 
of essential information. Do not use a mark of omission (…) to indicate such an 
omission."

and the example:

Roger Colbourne [and six others]

not:

Roger Colbourne ... [and six others]

The first, seems to me, is just codifying (as an option) the AACR2 practice of 
not transcribing or marking the omission of words associated with names, so 
perhaps it's not relevant. But the second does represent a departure from AACR2 
practice (under AACR2 this would be Roger Colbourne ... [et al].)

But taking a step back, and trying to think about it from the user's 
perspective: does it matter to your typical user that they know where the 
omission occurs, or just that there has been an omission (in which case, if 
they need to see the whole s-o-r for some reason they will need to obtain the 
piece)? Honestly I don't know. :)

b

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

-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, February 07, 2013 11:19 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons 
etc.

Ben Abrahamse wrote:

> * Though now, looking at RDA 2.4. again, I'm not 100% sure it's saying 
> to record.  The heading for instruction 2.4.1.4 is "Recording 
> statements of responsibility" but the first sentence in the 
> instruction is, "Transcribe a statement of responsibility".

In RDA, all of the data is "recorded".  It's just that for some of the 
elements, the method of recording is specifically transcription.

I wonder if it would be too weird to use the mark of omission, and have 
something like:

Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, ... Carl Bildt [and 52 others]

or:

Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, ... Carl Bildt [and 55 others]

I'm not really sure about this!  The first one totally ignores the number of 
names represented by the mark of omission.  The second one adds up all the 
names omitted before and after Carl Bildt.  Either way, I'm not sure I like the 
look of it.

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] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

" do we feel it would be necessary to indicate that there are seven other names 
between Albright and Del Ponte, and another six between Del Ponte and Fischer?"

Since the RDA instruction is to "record" not "transcribe"* the s-o-r, I see no 
reason why we would need to add multiple "summariz[ations of] what has been 
omitted".  So I would think,

Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, Carl Bildt [and 55 others]

not,

Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, [3 others], Carl Bildt [and 52 others]

--Ben


* Though now, looking at RDA 2.4. again, I'm not 100% sure it's saying to 
record.  The heading for instruction 2.4.1.4 is "Recording statements of 
responsibility" but the first sentence in the instruction is, "Transcribe a 
statement of responsibility".

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 Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 9:59 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons 
etc.


An example according to the lines I suggested yesterday could be added, e.g.:

[contributions by] Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann, Carl Bildt [and 55 
others]
Source of information lists 58 names in alphabetical order, starting with 
Madeleine Albright, Franz-Lothar Altmann and Carl Bildt

The tricky thing is what to do if for some reason someone wanted to transcribe 
not simply the first three, five or ten names, but perhaps especially the ninth 
and the 16th name in the list (in my example, Carla Del Ponte and Joschka 
Fischer). Should it then be possible to transcribe the statement in question 
like this (although the three names are not next to each other in the source of 
information):

[contributions by] Madeleine Albright, Carla Del Ponte, Joschka Fischer [and 55 
others]

Or do we feel it would be necessary to indicate that there are seven other 
names between Albright and Del Ponte, and another six between Del Ponte and 
Fischer? This might get awkward...

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] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

I'm relieved to hear Dr Tillett say that this is allowed under RDA.  Sometime 
you run across some truly gargantuan s-o-r's and sadly need to pick and choose 
whom to record.

That said, I agree with Heidrun that neither the rules, as they currently exist 
in the Toolkit, nor the LC/PCC CPS, appear to allow the option to do that.  At 
least not clearly and explicitly.

Perhaps the Optional Omission to 2.4.1.5 text should be changed to:

"If a single statement of responsibility names more than three persons, 
families, or corporate bodies performing the same function, or with the same 
degree of responsibility, omit any but the first of each group of such persons, 
families, or bodies."

Maybe that's something in the works at the JSC?

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] on behalf of Heidrun Wiesenmüller 
[wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 4:36 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons 
etc.

Barbara,

I can??? Now this is a pleasant surprise.

Only I'm not sure where it says so in the rules. The optional omission in 
2.4.1.5 explicitly states "omit all but the first of each group."

I've noted that the optional omission in 2.4.1.4 says "Always record the first 
name appearing in a statement". This sounds as if it were possible to leave out 
e.g. all names after the fifth. But on the other hand there is an explicit 
reference to 2.4.1.5: "When omitting names from a statement of responsibility 
naming more than three persons, etc., apply the instructions given under 
2.4.1.5".

Heidrun


Am 06.02.2013 22:06, schrieb JSC Chair:
You can do exactly what you suggested with RDA. - Barbara Tillett

On Wednesday, February 6, 2013, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:
After all this talk about German cataloging, I suppose it's time to get back to 
RDA ;-)

The other day we discussed the optional omission for statements of 
responsibility naming more than three persons, etc. (RDA 2.4.1.5). The general 
feeling was that although everybody ought to try and follow the standard rule 
(i.e. transcribe all names), it should be possible to use the optional omission 
for very long lists, if transcribung all names simply cannot be accomplished. I 
assume that a very similar idea is expressed in the LC-PCC-PS for 2.4.1.5 in 
the word "generally" ("Generally do not omit names in a statement of 
responsibility").

But I'm not happy that the only alternatives are either "all names" (standard 
rule) or "only the first name" (option). Why shouldn't it be equally possible 
to transcribe, say, the first three, five or ten names and then put "[and x 
others]"? This might be a more satisfactory way of dealing with longish lists 
than reducing them to only one name.

Of course I'm aware of the fact that the "only first name" rule corresponds to 
AACR2. But still, I can see no reason why there shouldn't be more flexibility 
here.

Am I the only one who feels like this?

Heidrun


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


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




--
-
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] Carrier type "Flipchart"

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

pecial German term for it (as the word 
> "Flipchart"
> in German is really only used for the easel and whiteboard).
>
> It still bothers me a bit to have an unmediated carrier type for 
> something as specialized as this (especially if you compare it with 
> the huge range of "object").
>
> By the way, this got me wondering about wall calendars (the typical 
> ones with one image per month). They often have a spiral binding, 
> which makes them very similar in form to those classroom flipcharts. 
> Only they are not "designed for use on an easel", as the RDA glossary 
> says, but for hanging on a wall. So I assume "flipchart" wouldn't be 
> suitable, and you'd have to use "volume" instead (RDA glossary: "One 
> or more sheets bound or fastened together to form a single unit").
>
> It's really amazing how complicated assigning carrier types can get...
> One should think that at least the unmediated carrier types would be 
> straightforward.
>
> Heidrun
>
>
>
> On 30.01.2013 22:06, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote
>> I think it refers to a type of childrens' (or educational) resource 
>> that
> is published and intended to be used in the classroom.
>> E.g.:
>> http://www.staples.com/Calendar-Time-Sing-Along-Flip-Chart-and-CD/pro
>> d
>> uct_753900?cid=PS:GooglePLAs:753900&KPID=753900
>>
>>
>>
>> Benjamin Abrahamse
>> Cataloging Coordinator
>> Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries
>> 617-253-7137
>>
>>
>> -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, January 30, 2013 3:45 PM
>> To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
>> Subject: [RDA-L] Carrier type "Flipchart"
>>
>> In our regional cataloging experts group, we were dicussing RDA 
>> carrier
> types yesterday.
>> We were completely mystified why flip charts warrant a carrier type 
>> of
> their own ("flipchart"). We found it very hard to imagine any library 
> or other institution collecting flip charts, in the first place. 
> Stretching our imagination, we could picture a collection of paper 
> sheets which had before been used on a flip chart - but these should 
> then simply get the data carrier "sheet", shouldn't they? And if a 
> library really wanted to collect the flip charts themselves (for us, 
> that would mean whiteboards on an easel)
> - wouldn't that fall under "object"?
>> I assume that there is a simple solution to this puzzle. Probably 
>> it's
> just some sort of misunderstanding, either due to language or cultural 
> differences. So I wonder: What exactly is meant by "flipchart" in this 
> respect, and how are flip charts used in Angloamerican countries?
>> The flip charts we were thinking of look like this:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flip_chart
>> We use the term for the whole device, i.e. the easel and the 
>> whiteboard
> with its mechanism for holding paper sheets. The RDA glossary defines 
> flipchart as "hinging device holding two or more sheets designed for 
> use on an easel", which is perhaps not exactly the same.
>> Thanks for your help.
>>
>> Heidrun
>>
>> --
>> -
>> Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
>> Stuttgart Media University
>> Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 
>> Stuttgart,
> Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
>
>


--
-
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] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

I'm curious if people who oppose the use of "t" (pub date/copyright date) 
instead of "s" (pub date only) in the fixed fields are having problems getting 
their systems to parse the data correctly or if it just looks funny (redundant) 
to them because, like all of us, their frame of reference is AACR2, which 
treats (or ignores) copyright statements based on their relationship to 
publication date.  The MARC definition is pretty unambiguous that when 008/byte 
06 is set to "t", 008/bytes 07-10 represent publication date and 008/bytes 
11-14 represent copyright date, and I should think any MARC-compliant ILS would 
be aware of that and index it appropriately.

Certainly it is a good question whether the date fixed field is the best place 
to recording copyright dates in a "machine actionable" way; but that is really 
an issue of how the MARC format is designed and implemented.  

Under AACR2 copyright date was only recorded when it differed from publication 
date, or when publication date was unavailable.  That is, its function under 
AACR2 was to assist in the identification of the piece. Under RDA, copyright is 
treated as a separate data element ("date associated with a claim of protection 
under copyright or a similar regime", RDA 2.11), one that is not necessarily 
related to date of publication/distribution/manufacture. That is, it is 
metadata that informs users about what rights have been asserted over a 
document, and not just metadata that assists in identifying it.

To be sure, when date of publication/manufacture/distribution cannot be found, 
it continues to function as a "reasonable facsimile" for publication date.  
Hence the lengthy commentary in the LC/PCC PS to 2.8.6.6.  So when we have only 
a copyright date we can copy that date and put it in brackets (as supplied 
data) in the 264:x1:$c. 

But the statement of rights, if I understand RDA correctly, should always be 
recorded (it is designated a "core element") if it is available on the 
source(s) of information.

I think the way RDA presents this is unfortunate and bound to lead to or 
perpetuate the confusion that surrounds copyright vs publication date.  Its 
placement in the instructions directly adjacent to instructions for recording 
publication information, suggests that copyright is more or less the same as 
publication date, as it was under AACR2.  Moreover I think they should have 
called this element "copyright statement" not "copyright date", as the latter 
leads to confusion (if the element is copyright date why include the © 
character? what about other "similar regimes" such as legal deposit, etc.?)

Nevertheless the practice of recording copyright data separately--even when it 
is the same as publication date--makes logical sense even though it looks funny 
and perhaps excessive to catalogers (and probably some members of the public as 
well).  It is really, I might suggest, an element that supports the "obtain" 
function, broadly speaking (as copyright, or other assertions of rights by 
creators, etc., may determine what someone can do with the material, and the 
conditions under which agencies may make material available to the public) more 
than the "find" and "identify" functions.

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Greta de Groat
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:41 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question

Good point, Nancy, i didn't remember that the phonogram date was also in that 
field, which you wouldn't be able to distinguish from a copyright date without 
the symbol or words to that effect.

greta

- Original Message -
From: "Nancy Lorimer" 
To: "Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access" 

Cc: "Greta de Groat" 
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:50:06 AM
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t  + a 260/264 muse on training question

I will add one thing to Greta's very clear explanation.

While the field explicitly states that this is a copyright date, it does not 
state what type of copyright date is being recorded. There are two types of 
copyright date--copyright for text (the (c) date) and the phonogram copyright 
date (the (p) date), which is the copyright for recorded sound. Again, these 
are two different things, and both may appear on the same item (and be 
different). I remember vaguely that when the field was first being created, 
there was some talk of separating the symbol and the date, but in the end they 
were left together in one field.

Nancy

On 1/30/2013 9:40 AM, Greta de Groat wrote:
> Since i see that a Stanford record is being cited in this discussion, 
> i would like to offer a little in the way of explanation.  Steven is 
> right, the initial RDA test instructions for

Re: [RDA-L] Carrier type "Flipchart"

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

I think it refers to a type of childrens' (or educational) resource that is 
published and intended to be used in the classroom.

E.g.: 
http://www.staples.com/Calendar-Time-Sing-Along-Flip-Chart-and-CD/product_753900?cid=PS:GooglePLAs:753900&KPID=753900



Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137


-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, January 30, 2013 3:45 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: [RDA-L] Carrier type "Flipchart"

In our regional cataloging experts group, we were dicussing RDA carrier types 
yesterday.

We were completely mystified why flip charts warrant a carrier type of their 
own ("flipchart"). We found it very hard to imagine any library or other 
institution collecting flip charts, in the first place. Stretching our 
imagination, we could picture a collection of paper sheets which had before 
been used on a flip chart - but these should then simply get the data carrier 
"sheet", shouldn't they? And if a library really wanted to collect the flip 
charts themselves (for us, that would mean whiteboards on an easel) - wouldn't 
that fall under "object"?

I assume that there is a simple solution to this puzzle. Probably it's just 
some sort of misunderstanding, either due to language or cultural differences. 
So I wonder: What exactly is meant by "flipchart" in this respect, and how are 
flip charts used in Angloamerican countries?

The flip charts we were thinking of look like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flip_chart
We use the term for the whole device, i.e. the easel and the whiteboard with 
its mechanism for holding paper sheets. The RDA glossary defines flipchart as 
"hinging device holding two or more sheets designed for use on an easel", which 
is perhaps not exactly the same.

Thanks for your help.

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] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

I think you have a good point. If the instruction were worded, "2.11.1 Basic 
instructions on recording copyright *statements*" it would make perfect sense 
to include the © just like we include "by" in a statement of responsibility.  
But it's worded "... copyright dates" which implies that that data element 
should exclusively be a date.

As to whether this makes it less "machine actionable" I cannot say, though I 
would point out for whatever it's worth that the "Dublin Core library metadata 
action profile" lists copyright as a refinement of the element, "date", which 
would suggest for DC at least (which, whatever else it is, is closer to 
"machine actionable data" than our MARC records) the © symbol is not considered 
part of the data.  (See: 
http://dublincore.org/documents/library-application-profile/index.shtml#DateCopyrighted)


Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Beth Guay
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 2:23 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question


I'm hung up on the RDA instruction for  recording a copyright date as a symbol 
or  spelled out element conjoined to a text string otherwise known as a date. 
It seems to me, that here we have an excellent effort to carry our data from 
MARC to linked data format through use of a newly defined 264 field, and rather 
than entering data (the date) into the area (264 second indicator 4 $c) that 
contains data  defined as copyright date, we enter a symbol plus a date, or a 
spelled out word plus a date. What we are transcribing is not a date but a 
symbol plus a date. Is it a string or a thing?
http://metadataregistry.org/schemaprop/show/id/5.html 

Is  ©2002 machine actionable? 

Shouldn't it be up to the content display system to supply the symbol or 
spelled out element -- © or copyright or ℗ or phonogram? Have there been any 
successful efforts that anyone is aware of which is a system that serves up 
labeled data elements from a complex combination of elements in the leader 008 
field byte 06 DtSt,  byte 07-10 Date 1 and byte 11-14 Date 2?   

Beth

-


Beth Guay
Continuing and Electronic Resources Cataloger Metadata Services Department
2200 McKeldin Library, University of Maryland College Park, Maryland 20742

(301) 405-9339
fax (301) 314-9971
bag...@umd.edu 


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Snow, Karen
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 2:58 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question

Patricia Folger wrote:
"The former coding in OCLC looks like "overkill" --  How 
useful/necessary/correct is it to code this dtst to other than s & have 
duplicate dates in the 008 date area?"

I'm not sure I understand the problem here. Publication dates and copyright 
dates are not the same, even if they share the same year.  They are discreet 
data elements. That is why 264_1 $c and 264_4 $c were created in the first 
place, to better distinguish the dates and make them more machine-actionable.

Warm regards,

Karen Snow, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Graduate School of Library & Information Science Dominican University
7900 West Division Street
River Forest, IL  60305
ks...@dom.edu
708-524-6077 (office)
708-524-6657 (fax)

Re: [RDA-L] When will RDA truly arrive? Will it truly arrive?

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

While I find the anthropological question of whether catalogers are inclined to 
do the minimum or maximum amount of work required fascinating, it seems to me a 
little beside the point. There are situations in which catalogers want (or 
need) to record and trace every person or corporate body they see on the t.p., 
and situations in which recording and tracing only "the essential elements" 
will suffice.  Or another way of putting it: situations in which records need 
to be as full as possible, and situations in which, due to constraints of time, 
money, or staff, a cataloger or cataloging agency needs to make sacrifices in 
the name of productivity.

Since these situations cannot be predicted by rules-makers, it makes sense to 
leave the decision in the hands of cataloging agencies and individual 
catalogers.  I think RDA threads this needle in an appropriate manner by 
setting out the rule, "Record a statement of responsibility naming more than 
one person, etc., as a single statement", and then making the option to omit 
("If a single statement of responsibility names more than three persons ... 
[etc.] ... performing the same function, or with the same degree of 
responsibility, omit all but the first of each group"). The "rule of three" is 
now the "option of three".

The responsibility for determining when a cataloging agency should be producing 
records as "full as possible", or as "fast as possible", or somewhere on a 
spectrum between these two poles, rests in the agency itself.  They are the 
ones who should be talking to their users about what works best for them.

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 James Weinheimer
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 4:10 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] When will RDA truly arrive? Will it truly arrive?

On 23/01/2013 08:41, Moore, Richard wrote:

I recognise your characterisation of cataloguers. For years our struggle, if 
you can call it that, has been to persuade cataloguers to do only what is 
required, in order to get the throughput, while they have persistently done 
more - whether providing extra access points, or re-measuring books for which 
we already have derived records, or aligning name headings on our catalogue 
when not required to (in the last case we poached the person for the authority 
control team). Does anyone here have cataloguers who are different?

Characterising the absence of "rules of three" in RDA as "rules of one" is 
simply wrong. It also discounts the fact that institutions generally have 
policies on this kind of thing. There is no "rule of one" in RDA. RDA allows 
cataloguers to do more, and when given the chance cataloguers generally do. As 
an example where authority records are concerned, we've had to write guidance 
to advise our staff that they don't have to copy the entire contents of a 
LinkedIn page to the 37X fields, which some were doing with glee.

Now I've said that, I'll take the opportunity again for an off-topic plug of 
the BL Guide to RDA Name Authority Records, in Global Workflows in the RDA 
Toolkit, which contains this and other sage advice.


Yes, for decades, if not longer, when catalogers have seen a book with eight 
authors and 10 corporate bodies, they shook their heads sadly and thought: "How 
I wish I were free to add all of these! But tragically, the rules allow me to 
do only one of each." They didn't really think: "I am totally snowed under by 
all of these materials waiting on these shelves and there's more in the hold. 
And there are fewer catalogers than ever expected to do more and more. Thank 
God this book has eight authors and ten corporate bodies, I only have to do one 
of each. That will help me move the books through and make my supervisors 
happy."

Also, from this discussion there seems to be genuine agreement that when there 
is more than a single entity responsible for a resource, it is incorrect to add 
only a single tracing. (I only care about Laurel. Forget about Hardy. Masters 
is the only important one. Nobody is interested in Johnson)

The attitude that one is not enough is a positive development, but if that is 
true, why allow it in the first place? The logic escapes me and I am *sure* 
that such a decision was never run by the public, and probably not even the 
reference librarians. I can't imagine that they would like it. Reference 
librarians certainly do not share any idealistic visions of catalogers, their 
inner motivations, and their records.

The discussion about transcribing the statement of responsibility is irrelevant 
in my opinion--statements of responsibility are about identification of a 
resource, not access. The real work is creating and adding the headings. Also, 
with the ability to copy and paste, it may actually be less work to 
"tra

Re: [RDA-L] When part of 245 comes from outside resource

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

If you feel that the note would be helpful to catalogers, but is not necessary 
for the public then there is always the option of including it as a 
"cataloger's note" (see RDA 5.9), which can be encoded in MARC as a 588 "Source 
of description" field (http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd588.html).  

--Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of C.J. Carty
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 10:38 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: [RDA-L] When part of 245 comes from outside resource

My colleagues and I have been debating something and would like to benefit from 
the collective wisdom of the list.

We have a resource where the title page contains the title but not the 
statement of responsibility. The SoR only appears on the cover.

>From our understanding of RDA and reading of similar situations on this list, 
>we are fairly clear that we transcribe as follows:

245 10 $a The compound model of nuclear structure / $c Nigel Anton Cunningham.

No square brackets as the SoR does not come from outside the resource and it is 
okay to have the information for SoR (the element in $c) come from a different 
source within the resources as the title proper (the element in $a).

Some of us then feel we'd like to give a note, for clarity, as this 245 
transcription may give the erroneous impression that the statement of 
responsibility appears on the t.p. after the title.

500 $a Statement of responsibility taken from cover.

However, we're not happy with the use of the phrase "statement of 
responsibility" - does that really mean anything to users of the catalogue or 
is it just cataloguer's jargon and therefore not in the spirit of RDA.

We realise the note is not *required* but would other people choose to the give 
such a note and, if so, how would you choose to word it?

Thanks in advance,

Celine 

--
Céline Carty
English Cataloguing
Cambridge University Library
Cambridge CB3 9DR

Re: [RDA-L] Multiple electronic manifestations (was RE: [RDA-L] The purpose of standards)

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

I agree that those differences matter; it's one of the reasons those 
much-maligned intermediary menus stay up.

But in the current, record-based environment, I'm not sure if it's such a great 
idea to have each separate manifestation on its own record.  A lot of the data 
will be redundant; and in any case most of the data we store to manage these 
resources live outside of the catalog, in an ERM and/or link-resolver.

In some future system--either an E/R system like the ones the original drafters 
of the FRBR report envisioned, or more likely something based on linked data--I 
can see how each manifestation having its own record (or identifier) will be 
useful both to staff and users.  But we're not there yet.

--Ben

p.s. Let me hasten to add: I doubt Kevin was suggesting that each electronic 
manifestation requires a separate bib; I think he was just talking about the 
utility of the concept of related manifestations with respect to e-resources.  

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 3:44 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Multiple electronic manifestations (was RE: [RDA-L] The 
purpose of standards)

Yes, that doesn't surprise me. But they're going to care if one manifestation 
is PDF, and another is Kindle, and another is mobi, and another is ePub. (They 
might even know what those words mean, but they're going to care that if they 
have an e-reader, some of those formats will work on their particular e-reader 
and some won't).

If different electronic manifestations end up with slightly differnet textual 
content (different pagination if they have pagination at all, or slightly 
different actual text) -- then it's also going to matter for scholarly 
citations to know which text was cited (or which version's page 12), and be 
able to retrieve the appropriate cited version.

And it of course matters for own internal control,  which vendor platform hosts 
a given copy, so we can remove the advertisement of access temporarily (if 
vendor platform is down) or permanently (if vendor goes away or we stop 
licensing from them).

On 12/27/2012 3:39 PM, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:
> It is definitely true that, from the point of view of resource management, 
> each manifestation has its own particular information that needs to be looked 
> at separately.
>
> But its also true--or at least so it seems to me from the feedback our users 
> give us--that very few users care what provider they get their e-book or 
> articles from.  For example, we often get complaints from users about the 
> intermediary menu our link-resolver shows when we have the same content from 
> multiple providers, as it creates an extra step and occassionally some 
> confusion about exactly what is going on.
>
> The users that have preferred provider, I would guess, get to their 
> resources via the provider (or by other means, Google Scholar, etc.) 
> and not through our catalog.  (Then again, here at MIT we follow, 
> whenever possible, a "single record approach" which might be 
> understood in FRBR-terms as "expression-level cataloging". So maybe 
> our users are already particularly finnicky about what they see in the 
> catalog?)
>
> So while I think the concept of different electronic manifestations is 
> important for catalogers, but I'm not sure the practice of generating records 
> for each specific electronic manifestation is going to make our catalogs more 
> appealing to end-users.
>
> My .02,
> b
>
>
> Benjamin Abrahamse
> Cataloging Coordinator
> Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries
> 617-253-7137
>
>
> -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, December 27, 2012 12:52 PM
> To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] The purpose of standards
>
> James Weinheimer wrote:
>
>> With online resources, everyone is looking at *exactly the same files*
>> so the utility of even considering an online resource in terms of a
>> manifestation may be far less useful.
>
> It seems to me that the concept of manifestation is no less important when 
> considering online resources.  And they are certainly not always "exactly the 
> same files".  For things such as electronic journals, there can be very 
> significant differences between manifestations (the one found on the 
> publisher's web site vs. Ebsco vs.

[RDA-L] Multiple electronic manifestations (was RE: [RDA-L] The purpose of standards)

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

It is definitely true that, from the point of view of resource management, each 
manifestation has its own particular information that needs to be looked at 
separately.

But its also true--or at least so it seems to me from the feedback our users 
give us--that very few users care what provider they get their e-book or 
articles from.  For example, we often get complaints from users about the 
intermediary menu our link-resolver shows when we have the same content from 
multiple providers, as it creates an extra step and occassionally some 
confusion about exactly what is going on.

The users that have preferred provider, I would guess, get to their resources 
via the provider (or by other means, Google Scholar, etc.) and not through our 
catalog.  (Then again, here at MIT we follow, whenever possible, a "single 
record approach" which might be understood in FRBR-terms as "expression-level 
cataloging". So maybe our users are already particularly finnicky about what 
they see in the catalog?)

So while I think the concept of different electronic manifestations is 
important for catalogers, but I'm not sure the practice of generating records 
for each specific electronic manifestation is going to make our catalogs more 
appealing to end-users.

My .02,
b


Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137


-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, December 27, 2012 12:52 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] The purpose of standards

James Weinheimer wrote:

> With online resources, everyone is looking at *exactly the same files* 
> so the utility of even considering an online resource in terms of a 
> manifestation may be far less useful.

It seems to me that the concept of manifestation is no less important when 
considering online resources.  And they are certainly not always "exactly the 
same files".  For things such as electronic journals, there can be very 
significant differences between manifestations (the one found on the 
publisher's web site vs. Ebsco vs. Gale, etc.).

And then there are also ebooks, where you have versions for Kindle, for Nook, 
etc.  Sound files can be in various formats and at different bit rates.  
Graphic files can be in different formats and resolutions.

Many books, films, sound recordings, etc. have been digitally converted and 
remastered multiple times, and there are very real differences between the 
versions--differences which can be significant, perhaps even critical, to the 
user.

Compared to the print world, one could argue that we are dealing with a greater 
number of manifestations, and there will always be a need to distinguish 
between them, on both the managerial side (e.g. selection and acquisition) and 
the user side (obtaining files whose formats and features meet the user's 
needs).

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] Brackets for unnumbered pages in notes?

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

hrase used 
in most U.S. cataloging is

Includes bibliographical references (pages 67-69).
not
Includes bibliographic references (pages 67-69).
as I wrote.

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to 
the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 1:05 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Brackets for unnumbered pages in notes?

RDA does not address this, but there is an LC-PCC Policy statement that 
catalogers may follow if they like and should if they're creating PCC records:

LC-PCC PS for 
1.7.1[http://access.rdatoolkit.org/images/rdalink.png]<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp1&target=rda1-787#rda1-787>
GENERAL GUIDELINES ON TRANSCRIPTION
...
Punctuation in Notes
LC practice/PCC practice:
...
3.
Square brackets. Do not use square brackets in notes except when they are used 
in quoted data.

EXAMPLE
500<http://desktop.loc.gov/saved/Mabibl_500> ##

$a"Types of prayer wheels found in south central Tibet, by Mei Lin": pages 
310-375.

Not "... pages [310]-[375]."
500<http://desktop.loc.gov/saved/Mabibl_500> ##

$a"2090245PMA"--Page 4 of cover.

Not "... -Page [4] of cover."

This seems fine to me and I've been following it in my RDA cataloging:

Includes bibliographic references (pages 67-69).
not
Includes bibliographic references (pages [67]-69).

In my opinion it isn't crucial in this context that the reader of the record 
know that the number "67" doesn't appear on page 67. What is crucial is that 
the reader know that there's a bibliography and that it's three pages long.

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to 
the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 12:21 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: [RDA-L] Brackets for unnumbered pages in notes?

RDA geniuses:

I know that under RDA we no longer use brackets to indicate a range of 
unnumbered pages or leaves in the physical description.  What about in notes? 
RDA 1.10.4 says, "Refer to passages in the resource, or in other sources, if 
these either support assertions made in the description" but nothing about what 
to do if you're referring to an unnumbered page.  Doing an "RDA quick search" 
for unnumbered pages brings up plenty of instructions but none (that I saw) 
regarding notes.

E.g.:

Includes bibliographic resources (pages [67]-69).

or

Includes bibliographic resources (unnumbered page 67-page 69).

???

Thanks,
--Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137




--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu<mailto:gf...@cst.edu>

Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent 
or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content 
contained in this forwarded email.  The forwarded email is that of the original 
sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or 
Claremont Lincoln University.  It has been forwarded as a courtesy for 
information only.
<>

Re: [RDA-L] Brackets for unnumbered pages in notes?

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

You were following my mistake, which I don't (or at least I hope I don't) 
normally make in catalog records.

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 Robert Maxwell
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 3:25 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Brackets for unnumbered pages in notes?

Sorry, at the risk of sounding obsessive-compulsive, the customary phrase used 
in most U.S. cataloging is

Includes bibliographical references (pages 67-69).
not
Includes bibliographic references (pages 67-69).
as I wrote.

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to 
the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 1:05 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Brackets for unnumbered pages in notes?

RDA does not address this, but there is an LC-PCC Policy statement that 
catalogers may follow if they like and should if they're creating PCC records:

LC-PCC PS for 
1.7.1[http://access.rdatoolkit.org/images/rdalink.png]<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp1&target=rda1-787#rda1-787>
GENERAL GUIDELINES ON TRANSCRIPTION
...
Punctuation in Notes
LC practice/PCC practice:
...
3.
Square brackets. Do not use square brackets in notes except when they are used 
in quoted data.

EXAMPLE
500<http://desktop.loc.gov/saved/Mabibl_500> ##

$a"Types of prayer wheels found in south central Tibet, by Mei Lin": pages 
310-375.

Not "... pages [310]-[375]."
500<http://desktop.loc.gov/saved/Mabibl_500> ##

$a"2090245PMA"--Page 4 of cover.

Not "... -Page [4] of cover."

This seems fine to me and I've been following it in my RDA cataloging:

Includes bibliographic references (pages 67-69).
not
Includes bibliographic references (pages [67]-69).

In my opinion it isn't crucial in this context that the reader of the record 
know that the number "67" doesn't appear on page 67. What is crucial is that 
the reader know that there's a bibliography and that it's three pages long.

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to 
the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 12:21 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: [RDA-L] Brackets for unnumbered pages in notes?

RDA geniuses:

I know that under RDA we no longer use brackets to indicate a range of 
unnumbered pages or leaves in the physical description.  What about in notes? 
RDA 1.10.4 says, "Refer to passages in the resource, or in other sources, if 
these either support assertions made in the description" but nothing about what 
to do if you're referring to an unnumbered page.  Doing an "RDA quick search" 
for unnumbered pages brings up plenty of instructions but none (that I saw) 
regarding notes.

E.g.:

Includes bibliographic resources (pages [67]-69).

or

Includes bibliographic resources (unnumbered page 67-page 69).

???

Thanks,
--Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

<>

Re: [RDA-L] Brackets for unnumbered pages in notes?

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

Thank you for the answer, Bob.

--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 Robert Maxwell
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 3:05 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Brackets for unnumbered pages in notes?

RDA does not address this, but there is an LC-PCC Policy statement that 
catalogers may follow if they like and should if they're creating PCC records:

LC-PCC PS for 
1.7.1[http://access.rdatoolkit.org/images/rdalink.png]<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp1&target=rda1-787#rda1-787>
GENERAL GUIDELINES ON TRANSCRIPTION
...
Punctuation in Notes
LC practice/PCC practice:
...
3.
Square brackets. Do not use square brackets in notes except when they are used 
in quoted data.

EXAMPLE
500<http://desktop.loc.gov/saved/Mabibl_500> ##

$a"Types of prayer wheels found in south central Tibet, by Mei Lin": pages 
310-375.

Not "... pages [310]-[375]."
500<http://desktop.loc.gov/saved/Mabibl_500> ##

$a"2090245PMA"--Page 4 of cover.

Not "... -Page [4] of cover."

This seems fine to me and I've been following it in my RDA cataloging:

Includes bibliographic references (pages 67-69).
not
Includes bibliographic references (pages [67]-69).

In my opinion it isn't crucial in this context that the reader of the record 
know that the number "67" doesn't appear on page 67. What is crucial is that 
the reader know that there's a bibliography and that it's three pages long.

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to 
the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 12:21 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: [RDA-L] Brackets for unnumbered pages in notes?

RDA geniuses:

I know that under RDA we no longer use brackets to indicate a range of 
unnumbered pages or leaves in the physical description.  What about in notes? 
RDA 1.10.4 says, "Refer to passages in the resource, or in other sources, if 
these either support assertions made in the description" but nothing about what 
to do if you're referring to an unnumbered page.  Doing an "RDA quick search" 
for unnumbered pages brings up plenty of instructions but none (that I saw) 
regarding notes.

E.g.:

Includes bibliographic resources (pages [67]-69).

or

Includes bibliographic resources (unnumbered page 67-page 69).

???

Thanks,
--Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

<>

[RDA-L] Brackets for unnumbered pages in notes?

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

RDA geniuses:

I know that under RDA we no longer use brackets to indicate a range of 
unnumbered pages or leaves in the physical description.  What about in notes? 
RDA 1.10.4 says, "Refer to passages in the resource, or in other sources, if 
these either support assertions made in the description" but nothing about what 
to do if you're referring to an unnumbered page.  Doing an "RDA quick search" 
for unnumbered pages brings up plenty of instructions but none (that I saw) 
regarding notes.

E.g.:

Includes bibliographic resources (pages [67]-69).

or

Includes bibliographic resources (unnumbered page 67-page 69).

???

Thanks,
--Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

[RDA-L] Typo in the Toolkit

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

Does anyone know who to contact about a typo in the RDA Toolkit?

The following example under 6.2.3.5:

ةليلو ةليل فل أ
ةليلو ةليل فلأ بات
English language form recorded as preferred title: Arabian nights

The Arabic is backwards; it should be: اللف ليلة ولىلة etc.


Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

[RDA-L] Quick question re: abridgements in RDA

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

If we have a book that abridges another book, do we use MARC field 777 (other 
relationship) to code the relationship? And is the $i text "abridgement of 
(work)" -- not capitalized as in RDA appendix J -- or can we capitalize it to 
match other 7xx $i (e.g.: 776 $i Online version:, etc.)?

--Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

[RDA-L] Folded unnumbered leaves, or Unnumbered folded leaves?

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

Extremely finnicky question but it comes up surprisingly often:

According to RDA 3.4.5. (Describing carriers--Extent--Extent of text) we are 
instructed not to use brackets anymore to identify unnumbered pages.  Instead 
we are to use the term "unnumbered".  (see RDA 3.4.5.3.1 "Numbered and 
Unnumbered Sequences")

We are also instructed to record folded pages or leaves (3.4.5.10.) .  So 
something that has two folded maps, under AACR2 would have been:

$a viii, 136 p., [2] folded leaves : $b ill., maps ; $c 23 cm.

Under RDA would it be:

$a viii, 136 pages, 2 unnumbered folded leaves : $b illustrations, maps ; $c 23 
cm.

or

$a viii, 136 pages, 2 folded unnumbered leaves : $b illustrations, maps ; $c  
23 cm.


Moreoever, seems to me there should be a comma separating the two adjectives 
but I don't know if that should be included here?

I know it's probably not a big deal but I'd like to be consistent.

--Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137`

Re: [RDA-L] Hardback & paperback, and their ISBN

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

RDA 2.15.1.7 (Identifier for the manifestation--Basic 
instructions--Qualification) says, "If the resource bears more than one 
identifier of the same type, record a brief qualification after the 
identifier." And provides the following examples:

ISBN 0-435-91660-2 (cased)
ISBN 0-435-91661-0 (pbk.)
ISBN 0-387-08266-2 (U.S.)
ISBN 3-540-08266-2 (Germany)
ISBN 0-684-14258-9 (bound)
ISBN 0-684-14257-0 (pbk.)

So I think you are ok to continue to record "(pbk.)" etc.

--Ben


Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Henry Lam
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 1:45 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: [RDA-L] Hardback & paperback, and their ISBN

Hi all

I hope someone can share your insight on this.

Are hardback and paperback of the same imprint treated as same manifestation in 
RDA?

When we record the ISBNs in MARC in RDA, should we include the qualifier in 
bracket (ie hb/pbk, or hardback/paperback)?

Regards
Henry

Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

Certainly, more form/genre term would be helpful; but if "interactive material" 
(or whatever it was called) was a content type, we could use form/genre 
headings to record and provide access to specific genres of games and 
interactive documents (of which there are many).

I appreciate what you are saying about the difficulty of creating a generalized 
vocabulary.  It has always been my understanding (or my hope) that these lists 
were not meant to be canonical for all time--that we should expect new terms to 
come into the vocabulary as people find new uses for it.

I think that if content type is meant to categorize "the fundamental form of 
communication in which the content is expressed and the human sense through 
which it is intended to be perceived" then none of the existing content type 
express the fact that ludic material is meant to be "perceived" through 
interaction.  "Text" implies static content (and anyways not all game are 
textual in nature--have you ever played Set?  If not, I recommend it for any 
cataloger--in fact, I use it my cataloging class to demonstrate what "facets" 
are.)

It also occurs to me that RDA 6.9.1.3 states, " Record as many [content type] 
terms as are applicable to the resource being described " so a computer game, 
for example, could be described:

336 $a computer $b c $2 rdacontent
336 $a interactive $b i $2 rdacontent


Finally--I certainly agree with you about DVD's, and I don't really think RDA 
content/media/carrier vocabularies improve upon that situation.  If anything 
they go backwards--under AACR2 it was common to code the 300 $a as "1 CD-ROM" 
or "1 DVD-ROM", but under RDA we're supposed to "record the extent of the 
resource by giving the number of units and an appropriate term for the type of 
carrier" which leads us to record "1 computer disc".  The only way I've figured 
out to indicate "DVD" vs "Blu-Ray" or "CD-ROM" vs "DVD-ROM" is with a note.

In any case this is an interesting discussion, so thank you.

==Ben


Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137


-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Rochkind [mailto:rochk...@jhu.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 1:31 PM
To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
Cc: Benjamin A Abrahamse
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

On 10/25/2012 1:20 PM, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:
> " If a library holds software, mightn't a user want to see a list of 
> all the software the library holds, whether games or word processors 
> or what have you"
>
> I suppose.  But that seems to me like a less direct, or usual user 
> task than, "Show me what games your library has."  (Which currently 
> cannot be answered, for computer games or otherwise, by the RDA 
> content/media/carrier vocabulary.)

I'm not sure it seems to me like less direct or less usual, probably depends on 
the environment (maybe in a public library it's a usual question?). But at any 
rate.

You can't do that with AACR2/MARC GMDs/SMDs either, can you?

Perhaps the right place to record something to answer this question is actually 
in a 6xx/LCSH $v form/genre heading?

I know LC is doing work on revising the LCSH form/genre heading thesaurus too 
-- like I said, this is a difficult thing to make a generalizable taxonomy for. 
Perhaps that's the right place for there to be a 'games' heading (entered in a 
655), as 'game' is really more of a 'genre' having to do with the content and 
the author's intentions for it's use, than it is a form/format/carrier having 
to do with the physical properties of the item, that the RDA vocabularies we're 
talking about focus on.

This stuff is really tricky to encompass with standardized shareable general 
and universal vocabularies, it's probably not possible to do so completely (and 
nothing libraries have tried yet comes close either. For instance, trying to 
display or limit by whether an item is a "DVD" (let alone blue-ray vs standard 
dvd!), which seems to me to be a VERY common user need in contemporary 
libraries accross communities and types (public as well as academic) --  is a 
somewhat herculean task with our legacy metadata).

Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

" If a library holds software, mightn't a user want to see a list of all the 
software the library holds, whether games or word processors or what have you "

I suppose.  But that seems to me like a less direct, or usual user task than, 
"Show me what games your library has."  (Which currently cannot be answered, 
for computer games or otherwise, by the RDA content/media/carrier vocabulary.)

--Ben


Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 1:17 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

On 10/25/2012 12:57 PM, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:
> Yes, a computer game is a "computer program" but I don't think most 
> users think of it that way.

I am not sure if that's true or not.  If a library holds software, mightn't a 
user want to see a list of all the software the library holds, whether games or 
word processors or what have you?

(Whether the phrase 'computer program' or 'software' is used is an 
implementation issue, not a key feature of the taxonomy).

Certainly within that, you might also want to see the software by category.  
But nobody's shocked to find games in the 'app store' for instance, alongside 
all sorts of other software.  ("What, that's not an app! It's a game!")

In general, dealing with form/format/genre is one of the most difficult 
taxonomic tasks in bibliographic metadata management. Because it ends up being 
so context-dependent: What the 'right' taxonomy for users is depends on the 
nature, size and diversity of the collection, the nature of the user community 
using it, and even on the individual user and her use case.  There isn't some 
'obvious' one true taxonomy of form/format/genre , that if only the standard 
would use it all would be well!

For those who find it economic to custom label all their records with GMD's 
customized for their environment, that's just great, and I don't see any reason 
they should stop just because RDA doesn't say "you are allowed to create your 
own local vocabulary and use it in your local records, it's just not RDA's 
vocabulary when you do that." RDA doesn't have to say that, it's just a fact.

But this is not economically feasible for many of us, there is a need for 
metadata describing form/format/carrier/genre that can be shared, and can be 
used in systems that span individual contexts.

So RDA attempts to at least describe the materials with rational and consistent 
form/format/carrier/genre vocabularies that attempt to be generalizable. This 
results in a system that you probably _wouldn't_ want to show to users directly 
-- user's own mental models of this stuff are _not_ rational and consistent, 
and vary incredibly from community to community to context and context.  The 
idea is that hopefully there is enough rational and consistent information in 
the RDA encodings that local system-specific rules can be created to transform 
them into what is useful for the user community -- without un-economic 
individual record-by-record attention, and with the ability to change these 
transformation rules at a later date when needs change without having to 
individually re-describe record-by-record.

No doubt RDA's vocabularies are not perfect for this (indeed the nature of the 
endeavor is such that "perfection" is impossible, but no doubt they can be 
improved), but this _approach_ is the only one that seems plausible to result 
in useful generalized shareable metadata on form/format/carrier/genre.

>
> =
>
> 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 *Greta de 
> Groat
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 25, 2012 12:39 PM
> *To:* RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
>
> I've been creating constant data forms for my most commonly used 
> formats, with the 33x fields already filled in--that's even faster.
>
> I really like the 33x fields for many of the materials that i catalog, 
> but there are some gaping holes.
>
> There isn't a content type that's appropriate for video/computer games 
> or other interactive materials--we've been using Computer program 
> combined with Two-dimensional moving image, which might be technically 
> appropriate bu

Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

There should be a "content type" for interactive or ludic material like games 
and such.  Since this material can be expressed through various media (e.g.: 
computer games as "computer", board or card games as "unmediated") it really 
belongs at the level of content.

Yes, a computer game is a "computer program" but I don't think most users think 
of it that way.

=

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 Greta de Groat
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 12:39 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

I've been creating constant data forms for my most commonly used formats, with 
the 33x fields already filled in--that's even faster.

I really like the 33x fields for many of the materials that i catalog, but 
there are some gaping holes.

There isn't a content type that's appropriate for video/computer games or other 
interactive materials--we've been using Computer program combined with 
Two-dimensional moving image, which might be technically appropriate but is 
also misleading and doesn't really get at the nature of the material.

Three-dimensional moving image is somewhat misleading in that it appears to be 
intended for films, but is apparently not appropriate for 3-dimensional games, 
which uses the term in a somewhat different fashion (the ability to move in 3 
dimensions in the game space).

In the media types, Computer appears to be only for the data and programs 
(..."designed for use with a computer..."), but not for the computer itself 
(i.e. if you are cataloging an iPad).  We've concluded that it's Other, but 
that's not very useful.  Similarly, the computer carriers in the carrier type 
appear to be the storage media but not the computer itself.   It's not even 
clear to me from RDA whether hard drives or flash drives can be considered 
carrier types since they aren't on the list and it doesn't say that you are 
permitted to consider anything but the listed carriers under the listed 
type--it does say in 3.1.4.5 that you can use another term in the Extent 
element but it's not clear how that relates to 3.3.

We also ran into problems with a book that consisted almost entirely of 
stereographic images, but volume isn't listed under stereographic carriers so 
we weren't sure we could use 337 stereographic with 338 volume.

Greta de Groat
Stanford University Libraries
On 10/24/2012 12:54 PM, Joan Wang wrote:
Very cool! Thanks for letting us know.

Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Adam L. Schiff 
mailto:asch...@u.washington.edu>> wrote:
Another aspect I have not seen mentioned, is that AACR2 style GMDs
only had to be assigned to nonbook materials.  RDA 33X must be
assigned to all library resources, a major increase in effort.  Not
only it is three terms for one, but they must be assigned to many more
records.

For users of OCLC Connexion, there is a macro that makes adding these terms, 
along with their coded values, take about 3 seconds.  This is not huge increase 
of effort.  The macro pulls up a pulldown menu and you just select the terms 
you need and click add.

**
* 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   * 
**



--
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] 264 and local distributors

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

If we wanted to record a distributor (cf. RDA 21.4), and that distributor was 
only responsible for distribution in a particular geographic area, would we use 
264 $3 ("materials specified")?

E.g.: Piscataway, NJ : $b Transactions Publishers, Rutgers University, $c 
[2012] $3 Copies distributed in North America

This is not usually how "materials specified" is used but the current field 
definition seems to accommodate multiple, successive distributors with the 
first indicator, but not multiple synchronous distributors.

--Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

Re: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

When they differ, and the difference matters for retrieval, we do.  Uniform 
titles (or, controlled access points for works and expressions).

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 Gene Fieg
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 12:03 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates

Where this reasoning goes is this: Since the 245 has a dual role, why not split 
it?
Currently, the 245 is description and access point.  Should we split them?
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Kevin M Randall 
mailto:k...@northwestern.edu>> wrote:
Steven Arakawa wrote:

> 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.
Description vs. controlled access was not the point of the analogy.  The point 
was that there was a single MARC element containing two entirely different 
things.  In the case of 440, yes, the two entirely different things happened to 
involve a transcription vs. controlled access situation.  In the case of 260 
$c, while it's not transcription vs. controlled access, it's still a situation 
of having two entirely different things coded with the same MARC tag.  
Publication date and copyright date are not the same thing, yet both are 260 
$c.  I think the analogy is quite appropriate.

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

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!



--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu

Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent 
or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content 
contained in this forwarded email.  The forwarded email is that of the original 
sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or 
Claremont Lincoln University.  It has been forwarded as a courtesy for 
information only.