Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????

[Bothmann, Robert L]

First, if an English speaker uses English as the language of cataloging rather 
than the American dialect as the language of cataloging, then Americans should 
leave that be and not change the spelling to the American dialect--that is not 
a correction and I don't agree with your choice to "correct" spelling that is 
not incorrect. 

I laughed out loud when I saw this--it's a great example of something, I'm just 
not sure what. I suppose that if you consider the principle of 
representation--that the description should represent the resource the way the 
resource represents itself--then this could be construed as an acceptable 
representation; particularly if the resource explicitly says "beautiful all 
colour illustrations".


***
Robert Bothmann
Electronic Access/Catalog Librarian
Associate Professor, Library Services


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Deborah Tomares
Sent: Tuesday, 01 March, 2011 3:05 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s

I just cataloged the book corresponding to OCLC #702491897. When I looked
at the record, the 300 read:

319 pages : |b illustrations (some coloured, all beautiful), maps ; |c 25
cm.

I've corrected the spelling of "coloured" to American usage--is there an
RDA provision I'm missing about this, or was it a typo?

But the part I can't understand is the inclusion of "all beautiful". Are we
allowed, under RDA provisions, to include value judgements about the
illustrations? Are value judgements allowed elsewhere in cataloging under
RDA? Under AACR2, we are supposed to be as objective as possible when
creating records, and not allow personal biases in subjects, etc. But this
is ridiculous. Aren't we supposed to just be transcribing in the 300 field?
Is this a rogue cataloger, or is there a provision I should be cringing
about now?

Thanks in advance for all information (and potential public drubbing of
CGU?).

Deborah Tomaras, NACO Coordinator
Librarian II
Western European Languages Team
New York Public Library
Library Services Center
31-11 Thomson Ave.
Long Island City, N.Y. 11101
(917) 229-9561
dtoma...@nypl.org

Disclaimer: Alas, my ideas are merely my own, and not indicative of New
York Public Library policy.

[RDA-L] RDA 3.2 Media [sic] Type

[Bothmann, Robert L]

I haven't seen a lot of discussion about RDA 3.2 Media [sic] Type as it 
pertains to electronic resources. I have a few thoughts and thought I would 
throw them out there.

First, we don't say RDA 3.3 Carriers Type (plural of carrier) nor do we say RDA 
6.9 Contents Type (plural of Content), so why do we say RDA 3.2 Media Type when 
media is the plural of medium? [OED medium 4e "Any physical material (as tape, 
disk, paper, etc.) used for recording or reproducing data, images, or sound." 
Merriam-Webster's New International Dictionary 2002 is not as helpful for 
defining this term in American. The closest definition it has is 2b(4) under 
plural usually media "something (as a magnetic disk) on which information may 
be stored." Since the majority of RDA appears to be written in English rather 
than any specific dialect, it would make more sense to me to call this "RDA 3.2 
Medium Type." I'll offer that up as a suggestion.

A closer reading of RDA 3.2 shows the terms listed in this vocabulary are 
adjectives rather than nouns and so are meant to modify some term, presumably 
"medium:" audio medium, stereoscopic medium, etc.

While creating my RDA test records I found that I personally could not use 
"computer" for any of the electronic resources I cataloged for a number of 
reasons. First, "computer" is a device like a player for DVDs or CDs, it is not 
a medium. The medium a computer uses is a digital data file or set of digital 
data files. Second, not all things electronic are designed for use on a 
computer.

The use of "computer" as a medium term seems a little out-dated to me. We 
already changed "computer" to "electronic" with the AACR2 2002 revision to 
better reflect the fact that the format goes beyond the computer device. 
Merriam-Webster defines computer as "one that computes; specifically : a 
programmable usually electronic device that can store, retrieve, and process 
data." Why are we moving backward? As an example, an e-book on an e-book reader 
is not a "computer medium" rather an "electronic medium". The reader may store 
the information, but it isn't necessarily programmable, which is a key aspect 
of the definition. A sound recording on a Playaway device is both sound and 
electronic. "audio medium" works but "computer medium" does not, because the 
Playaway is not a programmable device. So how does "other medium" benefit the 
user?

Use of "computer" as a term may also be a disservice to users. Who would see 
the word "computer" and know that it is meant to include all electronic 
resources that may or may not be used on an actual computer? By definition 
(M-W's, OEDs, and RDA's) "computer" is very limiting. The definition of 
"computer" in RDA is very limiting. "Media used to store electronic files, 
designed for use with a computer. Includes media that are accessed remotely 
through file serves as well as direct-access media such as computer tapes and 
discs." What about resources that are electronic but not necessarily designed 
for use with a computer?

The term "electronic" would be a better choice. It is commonly used in everyday 
parlance and generally understood to mean a medium that can be used by or 
stored on devices such as computers, readers (like e-books), players (like 
iPods or Playaways), smart phones, flash drives, discs, etc. In fact, 
Merriam-Webster provides the definitions no. 2a "of, relating to, or utilizing 
devices constructed or working by the methods or principles of electronics 
 and no. 4 "of, relating to, or being a medium (as 
television) by which information is transmitted electronically .  The OED definitions are very similar.

In conclusion, I would argue that a) RDA should use the proper grammatical 
number for the noun "medium" in the heading for 3.2 and b) RDA should eliminate 
"computer" in 3.2 , use "electronic" instead, and revise the definition to 
reflect 2010 rather than 1995 perceptions and usage of the terms "computer" and 
"electronic."

Bobby Bothmann



***
Robert Bothmann
Electronic Access/Catalog Librarian
Associate Professor, Library Services
Minnesota State University, Mankato
P.O. Box 8419, ML3097
Mankato, MN 56001
Voice: 507-389-2010
Fax: 507-389-5155
robert.bothm...@mnsu.edu

Re: [RDA-L] Keep your access to RDA after August 31st

[Bothmann, Robert L]

My opinion/suggestion:

It would be ideal to allow open access to the RDA rules via rdatoolkit.org 
throughout the entirety of all three of the U.S. Libraries testing phases.

Testers will be creating records in the second phase of the test period, which 
is about to begin, and that is when I think most people would really benefit 
from RDA open access-they could look at RDA records side-by-side with the rules.

This would allow for more transparency and more input from libraries outside of 
the testing group.

Asking people to pay for access to a code of rules that has not been formally 
(nor even informally) adopted by the library community is, in my opinion, 
outrageous.

Keep RDA access open until we decide we will implement it.


***
Robert Bothmann
Electronic Access/Catalog Librarian
Associate Professor, Library Services

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Troy Linker
Sent: Thursday, 26 August, 2010 11:35 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: [RDA-L] Keep your access to RDA after August 31st

The complimentary open-access period to the RDA Toolkit ends August 31, 2010.

Thanks to the thousands of people who have tried out the RDA Toolkit during the 
10-week open-access period. We'll be sending a brief survey in the near future 
seeking your input, to help us improve the product and develop the most useful 
training.

Here's how you can retain or obtain access to the RDA Toolkit after August 31:

* Subscribe now visit http://www.rdatoolkit.org/subscribe for information. 
While your subscription is in process, we'll work with you on retaining 
seamless access.

Don't forget-Special Double-User Introductory Offer!
Subscribe at any site license level to the RDA Toolkit before August 31, 2011-a 
year from now-and get double the purchased number of concurrent users of the 
RDA Toolkit at no additional charge. (For example, buy a 2-user site license 
and get a 4-user license for the same price.)

* Check what kind of subscription or access your consortium plans to offer.

* Order through your subscription agency.

Resource Description and Access (RDA) and the RDA Toolkit are published by the 
Co-Publishers for RDA (the American Library Association, the Canadian Library 
Association, and Facet Publishing, the publishing arm of CILIP: the Chartered 
Institute of Library and Information

Re: [RDA-L] RDA websites

[Bothmann, Robert L]

Thank you! That wasn't there on Thursday when I last tried.

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] on behalf of Ed Jones [ejo...@nu.edu]
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 4:10 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA websites

The constituency review draft is still available at 
http://www.rdatoolkit.org/constituencyreview

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 1:51 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA websites

This is a concern of mine, also, and I too would like to understand the 
publishers' plans for archiving all iterations of RDA and making them 
accessible.

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


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Bothmann, Robert L
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 2:24 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA websites

I'm a little concerned that the constituency review has been removed from 
rdaonline.org and that there is no re-direct from the previous URL. Scholarly 
works and presentations have cited this as a source and it is an important part 
of the history of cataloging code to preserve access to this particular draft.

As someone who has referred to various iterations of AACR2 to review how rules 
have changed over time, the disappearance of the review copy is disturbing. In 
the same vein, I assume that RDA will be an integrating resource, so what 
efforts will there be to preserve iterations over time for research purposes?

thanks,
Bobby Bothmann


From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] on behalf of Troy Linker [tlin...@ala.org]
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 11:17 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA websites

Hi Mark,

Thank you for your question.  Yes the www.rdatoolkit.org is the new
primary website for RDA. The www.rdaonline.org URL is in the process of
being redirected to www.rdatoolkit.org.  It can take up to 48 hours for
this redirection to propagate through the internet.  After this time
links to www.rdaonline.org will redirect to the new www.rdatoolkit.org
and the current website at www.rdaonline.org will no longer be visible.

Kind regards,

Troy Linker
Publisher, ALA Digital Reference
American Library Association
www.ala.org
(312) 280-5101



Mark K. Ehlert wrote:
> The most recent message from Troy Linker refers to the website
> <http://www.rdatoolkit.org/>, which is new to me.  The site I've
> visited previously, <http://www.rdaonline.org/>, is still active, but
> hasn't been updated with the new pricing information (yet).  Is
> rdatoolkit.org the primary RDA cataloging rules/RDA Toolkit site now?
>

Re: [RDA-L] RDA websites

[Bothmann, Robert L]

I'm a little concerned that the constituency review has been removed from 
rdaonline.org and that there is no re-direct from the previous URL. Scholarly 
works and presentations have cited this as a source and it is an important part 
of the history of cataloging code to preserve access to this particular draft. 

As someone who has referred to various iterations of AACR2 to review how rules 
have changed over time, the disappearance of the review copy is disturbing. In 
the same vein, I assume that RDA will be an integrating resource, so what 
efforts will there be to preserve iterations over time for research purposes?

thanks,
Bobby Bothmann 


From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] on behalf of Troy Linker [tlin...@ala.org]
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 11:17 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA websites

Hi Mark,

Thank you for your question.  Yes the www.rdatoolkit.org is the new
primary website for RDA. The www.rdaonline.org URL is in the process of
being redirected to www.rdatoolkit.org.  It can take up to 48 hours for
this redirection to propagate through the internet.  After this time
links to www.rdaonline.org will redirect to the new www.rdatoolkit.org
and the current website at www.rdaonline.org will no longer be visible.

Kind regards,

Troy Linker
Publisher, ALA Digital Reference
American Library Association
www.ala.org
(312) 280-5101



Mark K. Ehlert wrote:
> The most recent message from Troy Linker refers to the website
> , which is new to me.  The site I've
> visited previously, , is still active, but
> hasn't been updated with the new pricing information (yet).  Is
> rdatoolkit.org the primary RDA cataloging rules/RDA Toolkit site now?
>