Re: [RDA-L] Collective cities

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

 

> -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: December-17-13 4:46 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Collective cities
> 
> Heidrun quoted RDA:
> 
> >It seems RDA calls this a "conventional collective title". The glossary
> >gives as the definition: "A title used as the preferred title for a
> >compilation containing two or more works by one person, family, or
> >corporate body, or two or more parts of a work (e.g., Works, Poems,
> >Selections)".
> 
> Confusing.
> 
> IMNSO "preferred title" should always be the title on the item in hand or on
> screen, if there is one.  It should be in 245.  With the exception of a 
> collection
> lacking a collective title, something created by the cataloguer is not a good
> substitute.
> 
> For a work with varying manifestation titles, of course one would use the
> most used title of the work in 600$t and 700$t, e.g., "Hamlet" not "Tragedy of
> Hamlet".
> 
> If supplying a collective title for 245, it should be exact, e.g., "Two 
> Victorian
> novels" not "Works. Novels."; 'Love poems" not "Works.
> Poems.".
> 
> Using "preferred title" to mean either transcribed title or supplied uniform
> title is ambiguous.
> 


"Preferred title for the work" is the full name of the element, and it refers 
only to the work.

The preferred title often involves a choice among possible titles or a 
conventional collective title for the work. There is only one preferred title 
for the work, even though the manifestations embodying the work may be 
identified by different titles proper. The preferred title is what is found in 
authorized access points for the work.

The "title proper" is the title found in 245$a. A "devised title" may be 
recorded here as the title proper, if there is no title on the manifestation. 
Whatever the case, the "title proper" refers only to the manifestation in hand, 
and it may not be the same in the end as the preferred title for the work.

While there may be a challenge in choosing the appropriate titles for each 
category, the categories themselves aren't that complicated.


Title elements for the manifestation (considering only identifiers for the 
physical resource in hand):

Title proper (includes "devised title")
Variant title (as transcribed from the cover, spine, etc.)



Title elements for the work (considering the content and identifying it for all 
manifestations of the content):

Preferred title for the work (includes "conventional collective title")
Variant title for the work (as found in SEE references)


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the 
address you are subscribed under to:
lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
In the body of the message:
SIGNOFF RDA-L

Re: [RDA-L] Automatically adding relationship designators (was Cost of Retrospective Conversion for Legacy Data...)

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

>From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
>[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer
>Sent: December-11-13 6:22 AM
>To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
>Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Automatically adding relationship designators (was Cost 
>of Retrospective Conversion for Legacy Data...)

>On 12/10/2013 8:52 PM, Kyrios, Alex (akyr...@uidaho.edu) wrote:
>
>James, would it be too cynical of me to summarize your position as "Our data 
>isn't good enough, so why bother improving it?" Is it wrong to hope that a 
>catalog can do more than help someone locate >an item on a shelf?
>

...
>When you went to a library in the past where all the librarians had done their 
>jobs in a professional manner (and had high morale!), the public saw what I 
>described above, even though they were >probably not aware of it. The 
>information the public got wasn't necessarily always the "best" information or 
>the "newest" or today's strange idea of the "most relevant"--but the library 
>always >offered something different. What people found in a library was also 
>not the FRBR user tasks, which in the past was only one type of a 
>*method*--and LOTS of people complained loudly about that >method from the 
>beginning and were happy when it bothered them no more. With earlier 
>technology however, there was little room for flexibility and genuine 
>cooperation. Today, there are >*many* methods in addition to the FRBR user 
>tasks that lead to the same goals I laid out above.


Why are you repeating your egregious misinterpretation of FRBR? FRBR is not 
Find-Identify-Select-Obtain by author, title, subject headings.

If I "select" a book because it won the Booker Prize then I am engaging in one 
of the FRBR user tasks. The user tasks apply to the entire spectrum of 
attributes and relationships-- not just the ones found and implemented in 
traditional catalogs through the heading structure. In addition, the 
entity-relationship model can be applied to many other data systems used in 
libraries. For example, the circulation module in my system is a feature-rich 
implementation of entity-relationship principles that if anything showcases how 
much the potential of the data locked in AACR2-MARC records lies untapped.

In addition, the other user tasks in FRAD and FRSAD will likely be incorporated 
into a single Functional Requirements model, and these altogether will apply to 
bibliographic "data" of all kinds and not just "records." The last "R" of FRBR 
will be replaced by a "D" for data, as it already has in FRAD and FRSAD. The 
user tasks apply to every single entity, every single attribute or bit of data, 
and every single relationship (even those not implemented in traditional 
catalogs).


It is so remarkable that these basic facts are glaringly absent in your posts, 
and yet not surprising since many of your cited sources are to your own blog 
posts and podcasts.

For example, in emphasizing the power of free text searching in your blog post, 
why would not that same power be brought to bear on the topic at hand-- 
retrospective conversion?

If the technology is so "incredible" then how is it that some problems are then 
so insurmountable that we should give up?


>From you blog post -- "it is the reliance on alphabetical order that has 
>become obsolete in our new environment" indicates that your interpretation of 
>FRBR is incorrect as FRBR and RDA are not just repeating the alphabetical 
>structure of traditional catalogs. Notably in RDA, the instructions for 
>authorized access points (the equivalent to headings) are relegated to 
>second-class citizen status by being put at the back of chapters, after 
>discrete data elements are covered (with the expectation that these discrete 
>data elements, along with new forms of controlled identifiers which are always 
>emphasized first in RDA, will become the primary operative pieces in catalogs 
>in the future).


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library 

To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the 
address you are subscribed under to:
lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
In the body of the message:
SIGNOFF RDA-L

Re: [RDA-L] Publication/distribution/manufacturer statement

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

If it’s published, and there is no information at all then this is all that can 
be recorded in RDA for the subelements of the Publisher statement:


Publication Statement:
[place of publication not identified] : [publisher not identified], [date of 
publication not identified]


The only case, I think, when no element need be recorded for either published 
or unpublished resources is for a naturally occurring object. AACR2 
specifically excludes any data in this case (AACR2 10.4F2), and RDA has this 
covered in the “not applicable” clause for core elements.



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 Jack Wu
Sent: December-06-13 11:07 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication/distribution/manufacturer statement

When all elements are lacking, and there's no RDA provision, I suppose you can 
for the time being at least, go back to AACR:
Just use: S.L. : s.n., n.d.
Until no mixed record or coding is allowed, or a 264 5 should come along.

Jack

Jack Wu
Franciscan University of Steubenville

>>> "Brenndorfer, Thomas" 
>>> mailto:tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca>>
>>>  12/6/2013 10:46 AM >>>
RDA 1.3 (for the core elements) – include the elements only if they “are 
applicable and readily ascertainable.”

For these publisher-related elements though RDA does indicate the use of the “… 
not identified” placeholders. These signal at a minimum that the resource can 
be determined as being published but the place and name of publisher cannot be 
determined. The distribution and manufacturing data is triggered as core in the 
absence of identified publisher information, so that at least some useful 
identifying information must be recorded if applicable and readily 
ascertainable for published resources.


New to RDA is the split of the AACR2’s date of manufacture into two elements. 
The date of manufacture of an unpublished (i.e. one-of-a-kind, not distributed, 
etc.) resource is now Date of Production. Two new elements responding to 
archives and museum needs have been added to the Production Statement and these 
are: Place of Production and Producer’s Name (these are not core elements). 
AACR2 1.4C8 and 1.4D8 prohibited recording the place and name of a producer for 
unpublished resources, and recycled the date of manufacture as the date for the 
production of an unpublished resource. RDA takes AACR2’s division of published 
vs unpublished resources and crafts a new element, Production Statement, out of 
that.


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 Seth Huber
Sent: December-06-13 9:49 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: [RDA-L] Publication/distribution/manufacturer statement

Hi all,
Given that RDA seems to have a hierarchy for publication, etc., 
information--take publication first, distribution if that is absent, and 
manufacture if distribution is also not present--what do we do if none of these 
are present and nothing can be supplied from outside the resource? It seems 
that the rules and the PCC policy statements are quiet on this possibility.
Seth Huber
University Library Specialist
Western Carolina University

Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance

Re: [RDA-L] Publication/distribution/manufacturer statement

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

RDA 1.3 (for the core elements) - include the elements only if they "are 
applicable and readily ascertainable."

For these publisher-related elements though RDA does indicate the use of the 
"... not identified" placeholders. These signal at a minimum that the resource 
can be determined as being published but the place and name of publisher cannot 
be determined. The distribution and manufacturing data is triggered as core in 
the absence of identified publisher information, so that at least some useful 
identifying information must be recorded if applicable and readily 
ascertainable for published resources.


New to RDA is the split of the AACR2's date of manufacture into two elements. 
The date of manufacture of an unpublished (i.e. one-of-a-kind, not distributed, 
etc.) resource is now Date of Production. Two new elements responding to 
archives and museum needs have been added to the Production Statement and these 
are: Place of Production and Producer's Name (these are not core elements). 
AACR2 1.4C8 and 1.4D8 prohibited recording the place and name of a producer for 
unpublished resources, and recycled the date of manufacture as the date for the 
production of an unpublished resource. RDA takes AACR2's division of published 
vs unpublished resources and crafts a new element, Production Statement, out of 
that.


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 Seth Huber
Sent: December-06-13 9:49 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Publication/distribution/manufacturer statement

Hi all,
Given that RDA seems to have a hierarchy for publication, etc., 
information--take publication first, distribution if that is absent, and 
manufacture if distribution is also not present--what do we do if none of these 
are present and nothing can be supplied from outside the resource? It seems 
that the rules and the PCC policy statements are quiet on this possibility.
Seth Huber
University Library Specialist
Western Carolina University

Re: [RDA-L] reprint relationships

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

Just to add some other details on this topic and the relationship designator 
“reproduction of (manifestation)” under the broader designator of “equivalent 
manifestation” (a manifestation embodying the same expression of a work – which 
covers manifestations in different font sizes of the same expression)…


LC-PCC PS 27.1

“Related manifestation is a core element for LC and PCC for reproductions.

The word “reproduction” is being used in its broadest sense to include all 
resources formerly identified as reproductions, republications, reprints, 
reissues, facsimiles, etc., that still represent equivalent content between an 
original resource and a reproduction of that original. Revised editions 
represent different expressions and are not treated as reproductions.”


and

LC-PCC PS 27.1.1.3

“Note: The PCC is in the process of forming a task group to address issues 
related to reproductions.”



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 Adam Schiff
Sent: November-18-13 3:36 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] reprint relationships

Agreed, Trina.  As long as the text of the regular print and large print is 
identical, they are the same expression, but different manifestations.  In my 
particular case, the original regular print from 2003 had about 500 pages, 
while the large print had over 700.  Different places of publication, 
publishers, years.  But they are identical in content otherwise.  Hence, same 
expression, different manifestations.  If “reprint of (manifestation)” is not 
the appropriate relationship designator to use (anyone want to comment on 
this?), then we need something else, like perhaps “large print manifestation 
of” or something similar.

Adam

Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries
Seattle, WA

From: Trina Pundurs
Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2013 7:48 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] reprint relationships

Well, I stepped in it on this one.  Rereading the FRBR report 
(http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/cataloguing/frbr/frbr_2008.pdf) I see that 
regular-print and large print can most certainly be the same expression.  So 
that brings us back around to Adam's original question.  It would seem some 
tweaking of Appendix J is needed no matter what!
Trina

On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Trina Pundurs 
mailto:tpund...@library.berkeley.edu>> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Adam L. Schiff 
mailto:asch...@u.washington.edu>> wrote:
In RDA Appendix J "reprinted as" and "reprint of (manifestation)" are listed 
hierarchically under "reproduced as" and "reproduction of (manifestation)".  I 
have a 2010 large print edition of a book originally published in 2003.  The 
manifestation in hand says "This optimized ReadHowYouWant edition contains the 
complete, unabridged text of the original publisher's edition. Other aspects of 
the book may vary from the original edition."

I was considering including a 775 field in the RDA record for the large print 
with the relationship designator "reprint of (manifestation)" and a description 
of the 2003 edition.  However large print editions are not reproductions, so 
the placement of "reprinted as (manifestation)" hierarchically under 
"reproduction of (manifestation)" seems suspect to me.

Reprints are clearly equivalent manifestations, but not necessarily 
reproductions.  Shouldn't "reprinted as" and "reprint of (manifestation)" be 
taken out of the reproduction hierarchies in Appendix J?

Hi Adam,
I believe the problem here is the mighty misleading wording of the definition 
of "reprint of (manifestation)" in App. J--in particular, the choice of the 
phrase "same content".  If you look at the definition of the reciprocal term, 
"reprinted as", you will see that reprints must be the *same expression*.
And since editions are different expressions, then your large print edition is 
not a reprint, even if the content is the same.  It is a different expression, 
but the same work, as the original book; the relationship of the large print 
edition to the regular-print original would be captured by the AAP for the work 
(100+245, or however it pans out for this particular resource).

That's my take on it, anyway.
Trina

Trina Pundurs
Serials Cataloger
Library Collection Services
University of California, Berkeley
tpund...@library.berkeley.edu
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/
Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1990

Re: [RDA-L] Qualifying access points

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

> -Original Message-
> From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca]
> Sent: November-04-13 3:50 PM
> To: Brenndorfer, Thomas
> Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Qualifying access points
> 
> 
> Thomas said:
> 
> >I already make extensive use of that data in the new RDA-based MARC
> >authority fields when checking authority records. RDA authority records
> >are a delight to work with, even with the few odd updates to access
> >points such as spelled out terms.
> 
> 
> What good does recording this data in an authority record accomplish if
> patrons have no access to it?  Some libraries are adding "discovery layers"
> which make no use of authorities at all.



If catalogs can't take people to authority records (and some can), Wikipedia 
doesn't seem to mind. It's just a question of programmers matching the data to 
the users. Here are some examples of what's possible when one sees the forest 
of possibilities:

Authority data links from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_presley


German DNB authority record for Elvis Presley (with all the RDA equivalent 
elements wonderfully accessible for any catalog user):
http://d-nb.info/gnd/118596357/about/html

WorldCat Identities (lots of attribute and relationship elements here, nicely 
meshed together without much thought to restrictions based on what can fit into 
a catalog based on 5X3 cards):
http://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n78-79487


LC authority data in id.loc.gov:
http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n78079487.html
And more RDA goodness here and ready to be integrated when systems are ready: 
http://lccn.loc.gov/n78079487


Once the data is there then the sky's the limit. It's a web-based world now 
after all, and it's pure folly to not plan for it.


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Qualifying access points

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

> -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: November-04-13 12:45 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Qualifying access points
> 
> Richard Moore said:
> 
> >There are optional instructions in 11.13.1 subsections for making
> >additions in an authorized access point "if the addition assists in the
> >identification of the body" (e.g. 11.13.1.3), but these all apply to
> >unique names, and assume that a non-unique name will always be
> >qualified.
> 
> I think we make a mistake to base whether or not to qualify a heading on
> whether on not the qualifier is needed to make a heading unique.
> This practice ignores the possibility of future conflict, resulting in the 
> present
> confusing mix of one unqualified heading plus the same heading qualified.
> Both headings need qualification.  To avoid retrospective change, just qualify
> at the outset.
> 
> It would seem better to me to have the practice of always including dates for
> persons, and perhaps head office location for corporate bodies.  (In the type
> of material we catalogue we rarely have families, so I don't know what the
> best qualifier would be.)  Always qualifying would make for more consistent
> and less confusing forms of headings.
> 
> A heading which is unique in one file, may not be unique in another, and may
> not be unique in the future.
> 
> Consistency is needed for title entries as well.  I'm tired of trying to 
> explain
> why some video records have 130 "(Motion picture)"
> qualified entry, and some do not.  The qualified heading should be used
> always or never.  If never, other features of the record distinguish it, even
> with the loss of the GMD.
> 
> In relation of variant access points, the same qualifier should be applied as 
> in
> the established form.  Otherwise patrons might mistake the cross reference
> as pointing to the wrong heading.
> 
> Our practices should be based on what aids access, not 'how many angels can
> dance on the head of a pin' type analysis of the RDA text.
> 
> AACR2 in time caught up with many needs; I asume RDA will as well.  In the
> meantime, let's do what works best for our patrons.
> 


RDA already surpasses AACR2 in that differentiating data can be recorded in 
elements regardless of whether or not used in authorized access points.

I already make extensive use of that data in the new RDA-based MARC authority 
fields when checking authority records. RDA authority records are a delight to 
work with, even with the few odd updates to access points such as spelled out 
terms.

The ideal would be a Wikipedia-style disambiguation function, where alongside 
the preferred name would be data elements and select relationships to works 
pulled from the authority record as needed.

RDA supports that sensible and practical application of data, especially in a 
web interface. AACR2 does not, as AACR2 assumes a flat file catalog and 
relatively static record structure. To get AACR2 caught up in supporting more 
modern interfaces would mean circumventing its limitations. That would result 
in something like RDA no matter what.

Disagreeing with a few odd choices for controlled vocabulary terms in RDA is 
like missing the forest for the trees.


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Access points vs. cross references - Jessica Fletcher and Donald Bain

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

Excellent! This is the right direction to go. It's still a challenge to get 
systems to support these though. In my case, authority references are found in 
separate Author, Series, and Subject browse indexes, with Title Browse being 
only for bibliographic record title fields. In the short term, I've put in a 
request to have the new RDA designators in $i display in SEE ALSO references in 
the browse indexes, as they are currently not mapped in my system.

In the long term, this is the kind of packaged data that could make catalog 
maintenance more efficient.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library



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: October-18-13 8:10 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Access points vs. cross references - Jessica Fletcher and 
Donald Bain

> Carrying that forward with RDA in MARC is a problem because one can't
> make Person-to-Work relationships outside of a bibliographic record.
> Authority records make Person-to-Person relationships and Work-to-Work
> relationships (with some flexibility, such as person-to-corporate body,
> for example musical group members, etc.).
>
> Thomas Brenndorfer
> Guelph Public Library

Thomas,

Person to work and person to expression relationships are now regularly
being made in authority records.  Robert Maxwell has been a big proponent
of them, but many NACO libraries are doing this now.  See for example
these authorities:

no2012088804

100 1_ Card, Orson Scott. $t Ender's game. $l Portuguese $s (Angelo)
500 1_ $i Translator: $a Angelo, Carlos $w r

no2012084450

100 1_ Tolstoy, Leo, $c graf, $d 1828-1910. $t Anna Karenina. $l English
$s (Wiener)
500 1_ $i Translator: $a Wiener, Leo, $d 1862-1939 $w r

no2013104854

130 _0 Bananas (Motion picture : 1971)
500 1_ $i Film director: $a Allen, Woody, $d 1935- $w r
500 1_ $i Screenwriter: $a Allen, Woody, $d 1935- $w r
500 1_ $i Screenwriter: $a Rose, Mickey $w r

no2013058353

130 _0 Moon pilot (Motion picture)
500 1_ $i Film director: $a Neilson, James, $d 1918-1979 $w r
500 1_ $i Film producer: $a Disney, Walt, $d 1901-1966 $w r
510 2_ $i Production company: $a Walt Disney Productions $w r

no2013000111

100 1_ Boismortier, Joseph Bodin de, $d 1689-1755. $t Sonatas, $m flutes
(3), continuo, $n op. 34. $n No. 1; $o arranged $s (Dassonville)
500 1_ $i Arranger of music: $a Dassonville, Jean-Christophe $w r

no2013063173

100 1_ Lauper, Cyndi, $d 1953- $t Kinky boots
500 1_ $i Composer: $a Lauper, Cyndi, $d 1953- $w r
500 1_ $i Lyricist: $a Lauper, Cyndi, $d 1953- $w r
500 1_ $i Librettist: $a Fierstein, Harvey, $d 1954- $w r


In OCLC Connexion, you can do a keyword search of the authority file using
the "Relationship (rx:)" index.  If you search on the designator
"translator" you get 1,262 records.   This is the most common designator
being used in the 5XX fields as best as I can tell.  But as can be seen
above, others are also being used.

Adam Schiff

**
* Adam L. Schiff *
* Principal Cataloger*
* University of Washington Libraries *
* Box 352900 *
* Seattle, WA 98195-2900 *
* (206) 543-8409 *
* (206) 685-8782 fax *
* asch...@u.washington.edu   *
**

Re: [RDA-L] Access points vs. cross references - Jessica Fletcher and Donald Bain

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

RDA does provide for that in 18.6 when a relationship to a resource requires 
explanation (this is the closest in RDA to the "justify the added entry" 
concept).

Of note is that most elements in 18.6 are manifestation elements. In this case 
that example would likely be mapped to 2.20.3 - Note on statement of 
responsibility, which covers attributions not named in the statement of 
responsibility.


There is also an option in 18.6 to use 5.9 - Cataloguer's note, which is mapped 
to authority records for works. The main problem with using manifestation 
elements is that the same information may need to be repeated over and over 
again if there are many similar kinds of manifestations embodying that work and 
requiring that explanation.


To avoid repetition the ideal is to record the data once-- as an attribute 
element for the work. The central problem continues in that bibliographic 
records may have to repeat information that in a relational database would only 
need to be recorded once as information or relationships pertaining to the 
common work entity.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library




From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Daniel CannCasciato 
[daniel.canncasci...@cwu.edu]
Sent: October-18-13 2:45 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Access points vs. cross references - Jessica Fletcher and 
Donald Bain

Hi All,

in such a situation, I'd probably chose

> But if the resources were split the following way, with some mentioning only
> Fletcher and others only mentioning Bain, then the problem is what to do with
> the extra Creator relationship if a 700 field is not used.
>
> Some resources hypothetically might have:
>
 >245 10 $a Trouble high tide / $c by Jessica Fletcher
> And others might have:>
> 245 10 $a Trouble at high tide / $c by Donald Bain
> Authority:
> 100 1_ $a Fletcher, Jessica. $t Trouble at high tide
> 400 1_ $a Bain, Donald, $d 1935- $t Trouble at high tide
>
>
> But there is a gap here, since the two Creators relationships shouldn't just
> be valid if the names appears in the same resource, but not valid if the
> names appear alone in separate resources, with Jessica Fletcher winning the
> spot for the 100 field in all records as the only access point for a Creator.

Fletcher for the author and make a note in the bib records that she's a 
pseudonym of Donald Bain.  If needed (under whatever perspective I was 
experiencing) I might enhance the note to something such as "First published in 
 with Jessica Fletcher (a pseudonym of Donald Bain) listed as the author."

Daniel







--
Daniel CannCasciato
Head of Cataloging
Central Washington University Brooks Library
Ellensburg, WA 98926

"Wearing the sensible shoes proudly since 1977!"

Re: [RDA-L] Access points vs. cross references - Jessica Fletcher and Donald Bain

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

An example which shows where the gap in AACR2/MARC is comes from a new RDA 
record where "Jessica Fletcher" is the Creator:

Based on LCCN 2011045099:

100 1_ $a Fletcher, Jessica
245 10 $a Trouble at high tide / $c by Jessica Fletcher & Donald Bain.
700 1_ $a Bain, Donald, $d 1935-

In AACR2 records, only Bain would be an access point, in the 100 field. Now 
both are access points because fictitious characters are bibliographic 
identities covered under the Person entity.


In identifying the main RDA entities and relationships we have:

Work: Fletcher, Jessica. Trouble at high tide

Creator: Fletcher, Jessica
Designator: author

Creator: Bain, Donald, 1935-
Designator: author



But if the resources were split the following way, with some mentioning only 
Fletcher and others only mentioning Bain, then the problem is what to do with 
the extra Creator relationship if a 700 field is not used.

Some resources hypothetically might have:

245 10 $a Trouble high tide / $c by Jessica Fletcher

And others might have:

245 10 $a Trouble at high tide / $c by Donald Bain



The solution from AACR2, carried forward into RDA, is the name-title reference 
(variant access point in RDA) as captured in an authority record for the work:

Authority:
100 1_ $a Fletcher, Jessica. $t Trouble at high tide
400 1_ $a Bain, Donald, $d 1935- $t Trouble at high tide


But there is a gap here, since the two Creators relationships shouldn't just be 
valid if the names appears in the same resource, but not valid if the names 
appear alone in separate resources, with Jessica Fletcher winning the spot for 
the 100 field in all records as the only access point for a Creator.


This all relates to the cumbersome burden presented by the structure of 
bibliographic records and authority records. These worked well for card 
catalogs, but the bibliographic record in particular is overburdened with 
carrying not only manifestations data (and sometimes item data), but also much 
if not all of the work or expression data, with some of that burden being 
offloaded to authority records on occasion.


AACR2 covers its bases through the name-title reference from Bain, and so a 700 
field for just the person Donald Bain would not be needed in a card catalog for 
records when only one of the two names appears alone in the statement of 
responsibility.

Carrying that forward with RDA in MARC is a problem because one can't make 
Person-to-Work relationships outside of a bibliographic record. Authority 
records make Person-to-Person relationships and Work-to-Work relationships 
(with some flexibility, such as person-to-corporate body, for example musical 
group members, etc.).

So to get the logic of RDA to work in MARC means either going without (and just 
relying on ongoing conventions from AACR2 such as the variant access point for 
a work), or using a kludge, such as populating bibliographic records with extra 
700 fields for the other identities that have been shown to be responsible for 
the work.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library











From: J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: October-18-13 3:03 AM
To: Brenndorfer, Thomas
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Access points vs. cross references

Thomas posted:

>100 1# $a Cunningham, E. V., $d 1914-2003.
>245 10 $a Sylvia / $c by Howard Fast
>700 1# $a Fast, Howard, $d 1914-2003

In earlier practice, we would have "[pseud.]" after "Fast" in the
statement of responsibility to explain why the SOR differs from the
main entry, and a cross reference from Fast to Cunningham.  That makes
sense.  The above just looks like a mistake.

If Fast is established as an author, and earlier editions were not
under Cunninham, why is not Fast the main entry?  (I tried to check
this in the LC catalogue, but got an "unexpected system error"
message.)  Didn't Kevin say both names would need to be on the item,
to have both in the bibliographic record. as in A wrting as B?

The above is what I thought you originally advocated.  But then I
understood both you and Kevin to say that is not what was intended.

Colour be confused.

Yes, these are two bibliographic identities.  But they are the same
*person*.


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

Re: [RDA-L] Access points vs. cross references

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

Considering this authority record for the name-title SEE reference (based on 
AACR2 22.2B3) ...


100 1# $a Cunningham, E. V., $d 1914-2003. $t Sylvia
400 1# $a Fast, Howard, $d 1914-2003. $t Sylvia


I wonder if catalogers are tempted to "fix" this in bibliographic records.

The 400 produces a SEE reference but many OPACs suppress or mangle name-title 
headings and/or name-title references in author browse lists.

AACR2 doesn't permit the following-- a 700 to fix what appears to be a lacuna 
in AACR2, in a bibliographic record:

100 1# $a Cunningham, E. V., $d 1914-2003.
245 10 $a Sylvia / $c by Howard Fast
700 1# $a Fast, Howard, $d 1914-2003



However, outside of the MARC environment, it might make sense to make the 
assertion that both identities (Cunningham and Fast) have a creator 
relationship to the work. 

The alternative at 6.27.1.3 for authorized access points for collaborative 
works where ALL the creators named in resources embodying the work or in 
reference sources can be stacked in front of the preferred title is indicative 
of a broader flexibility.

Example at 6.27.1.3 alternative:
Gumbley, Warren, 1962– ; Johns, Dilys; Law, Garry. Management of wetland 
archaeological sites in New Zealand


Suppose one takes the work "Cunningham E.V., 1914-2003. Sylvia" and replaces it 
with an identifier 

Although not possible in MARC encoding, would it be valid to make these two 
assertions about the two identities for Howard Fast/E.V. Cunningham:

  

and

  


Following 19.2, both names are "named first in resources embodying the work" 
then it seems both names could be considered core, even though only one is used 
for the authorized access point for the work, which is based on "frequency" of 
use in resources according to 6.27.1.7.

I also note the example under 19.2.1.3 where "Snoopy, Dr." as author and 
"Schulz, Charles M. (Charles Monroe), 1922-2000" as artist are both provided as 
authorized access points as creators for the work titled "Dr. Snoopy's advice 
to pet owners."

Here, two identities for the same human being are considered creators for the 
same work, although for different functions.

Therefore, it would seem logical to make the broad assertion that both 
Cunningham and Fast, two identities for the same human being, are creators for 
the same work, on the basis of both being named as such in resources, although 
not at the same time in those resources.

AACR2's solution is the name-title SEE reference in such a situation. This 
AACR2 convention is captured as a variant access point to the work represented 
by "Cunningham, E. V., 1914-2003. Sylvia." Since the work is one entity (unlike 
Cunningham and Fast, which are two identities captured in separate authority 
records), then the variant access point makes sense.

But RDA does appear to open the door that two identities for the same human 
being can be considered Creators of the work. If both are named together in a 
resource, then one is added to the 100 and the other is added to a 700. If both 
are named in resources, but never in the same resource, then it seems logical 
to assert there are creator relationships for both, even though there is no 
allowable way to do this directly in MARC. In a future encoding standard, I 
think this would make sense to allow. I do think it would not be tolerated that 
a display for the entity "Howard Fast" would not have a direct link to the work 
by him, and known to be by him under that form of his name.

And in a cataloging environment no longer dependent on authorized and variant 
access points, but just links via identifiers of entities, then it would seem 
that the dual Cunningham/Fast creator relationships would be permitted.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library





From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall 
[k...@northwestern.edu]
Sent: October-17-13 6:10 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Access points vs. cross references

Mac Elrod wrote:

> >The point that seems to be missed here is that "Fast, Howard,
> >1914-2003" is not a variant access point for the entity identified as
> >"Cunningham, E. V., 1914-2003".  It is an authorized access point for
> >a different entity ... Both forms of name are valid authorized access
> >points; as such, it is entirely appropriate to use one of them in a
> >variant access point for a work entered under the other name,
>
> Are you saying that even if each is a 500 see also reference in the
> authority record for the other, you want *both* as entries (main plus
> added) in the same bibliographic record?  I hope not.  But this
> new terminology makes it difficult for me to understand what
> you are saying.
>
> To me, a cross reference is a cross reference, whether see or see
> also, and negates the need for an entry under the other form in a
> bibliographic record.

No, I didn't 

Re: [RDA-L] Access points vs. cross references

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

> -Original Message-
> From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca]
> Sent: October-17-13 2:55 PM
> To: Brenndorfer, Thomas
> Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Access points vs. cross references
> 
> Thomas said:
> 
> >All cross-references are access points
> 
> That's a silly and confusing ambiguity, but unfortunately not the only one in
> RDA.  A cross reference leads one *to* an access point (or entry as we have
> traditionally called it).


All access points (authorized, variant, titles, codes, numbers, etc.) 
ultimately lead to the entities they stand for.

How they get there (indexing, card catalog design with cross-references to 
entries, hyperlinks, relational databases) is a matter of design.

There could even be multiple authorized access points for the same entity, as 
in VIAF. Access points of all kinds are just tools that lead to the same 
entity-- the person, or corporate body, or work, etc. represented by the access 
point. Even in traditional cataloging, authorized and variant access points 
could change places, as predominant usage changes.

One shouldn't cram card catalog rules about cross-references and entries into a 
generic discussion of relationships and access points. There are ways of 
handling access points other than what was possible in a card catalog.


> 
> >This understanding is just a carryforward from what was implicit in
> >AACR2 cataloging through its focus on headings and references for works
> >in bibliographic records.
> 
> A helpful distinction, the loss of which is resulting in more than one entry 
> for
> the same person or body in the same bibliographic record.
> 
> If "getting with the program" means having both Clemens and Twain as
> entries in a bibliographic record, I not getting with the program.
> We've changed from having Clemens as the entry, and Twain as the cross
> reference, to the reverse.  I am unwilling to have both as entries, as the RDA
> ambiguity has already caused to happen with some authors with two
> bibliographic identities.
> 

Getting with the program includes reading RDA and realizing it doesn't say 
anything of the kind.


RDA always begins with a simple assertion about a relationship, such as: a 
creator wrote a work.


In the case of Huckleberry Finn, one can use a single authorized access point 
to represent an entity:


The creator is identified with the authorized access point:
Twain, Mark, 1935-1910

The work is identified with the authorized access point (which is where one 
also finds the equivalent to the main entry rule in AACR2):
Twain, Mark, 1935-1910. Adventures of Huckleberry Finn


In MARC, one hacks and chops and slops this all together with a 100 and 245 
title proper, or 100 + 240, throwing in authority control to handle the 
variants from the preferred title "Adventure of Huckleberry Finn," and 
recycling the access points for the creator and for the work as needed for 
whatever purpose, such as subject headings.

In the end, there is still the assertion: a creator wrote a work.

RDA makes this clear and explicit. In AACR2 card catalogs, one infers this same 
relationship from the arrangement made via headings and entries and 
cross-references.



Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Access points vs. cross references

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

> -Original Message-
> From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca]
> Sent: October-17-13 12:36 AM
> To: Brenndorfer, Thomas
> Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
> Subject: Re: Access points vs. cross references
> 
> Thomas posted:
> 
> >Implementing these access points in a card catalog produces
> >
> >Fast, Howard, 1914-2003. Sylvia
> >
> >see
> >
> >Cunningham, E.V., 1914-2003. Sylvia
> 
> In a card catalogue, "Fast" is a cross reference, not an alternate access 
> point.


All cross-references are access points (i.e., identifiers for entities). RDA 
doesn't begin and end with bibliographic records or authority records as 
intended to be used in card catalog construction. The access points are to 
entities, in this case, to works, and the works in turn have primary 
relationships to manifestations. As such, these variant access points of works 
are not presented as access points to manifestations or traditional 
bibliographic records in 7XX fields. This understanding is just a carryforward 
from what was implicit in AACR2 cataloging through its focus on headings and 
references for works in bibliographic records.


What's clouding your vision is apparently a constant effort of cramming and 
shoehorning data elements into traditional bibliographic and authority record 
structures, and then introducing kludges when systems or OPACs don't fully 
utilize those bibliographic and, more likely, authority record structures.


RDA couldn't be any simpler in the questions it starts with. What are the 
things of interest in catalog data? Can we gather together all the data related 
to those entities? Can we define and improve upon the relationships between 
those entities?

This entity-relationship modeling language is how the rest of the world 
involved with data management thinks. There is nothing precious or special 
about catalog data that would say such an approach is inappropriate. It's time 
to get in with the program.
 
Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Pseudonyms under RDA

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

Implementing these access points in a card catalog produces


Fast, Howard, 1914-2003. Sylvia

see

Cunningham, E.V., 1914-2003. Sylvia


This captures the reality that users would legitimately seek the title Sylvia 
under the name they saw in a few cases.

RDA E.1.3.2 provides the instructions for these AACR2 display conventions for 
SEE references from variant access points to authorized access points.




This parallels AACR2 22.2B3:


"If, in the works of contemporary authors, different names appear in different 
editions of the same work or two or more names appear in one edition, choose, 
for all editions, the name most frequently used in editions of the work. If 
that cannot be determined readily, choose the name appearing in the latest 
available edition of the work. Make name-title references from the other name 
or names "

Example:

The rising tide / M.J. Farrell
(Two editions known. The later published under the name Molly Kean)
Use Molly Kean as the basis for the heading
Make a name-title reference using M.J. Farrell as the basis for the reference



Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library





From: J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: October-16-13 8:01 PM
To: Brenndorfer, Thomas
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Pseudonyms under RDA

Thomas quoted an RDA example:

>Authorized access point: Cunningham, E. V., 1914-2003. Sylvia
>Variant access point: Fast, Howard, 1914-2003. Sylvia

I ain't gwine do dat.  I agree with Adam that there should not be two
access points for the same person in the same bibliographic record.

A see or see also cross reference should take care of that.

There are other things I ain't  gwine do, such as non standard title
capitalization, unjustified added entries, and two periods if the
edition statement ends in an abbreviation.  We have practices
developed through centuries of experience, which we should not
sacrifice, whatever RDA allows.


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

Re: [RDA-L] Pseudonyms under RDA

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Arakawa, Steven
> Sent: October-16-13 6:32 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Pseudonyms under RDA
> 
> 
> 
> (KC) I am really asking about variant access points for the works. If there 
> is an
> authorized access point for a work under an author's real identity, and we
> have decided that he/she is so well-known that none of his/her alternate
> identities need to be given life as NARs in their own right, do we still need 
> or
> want variant access points for the works written under these identities,
> beginning with the appropriate variant name? For instance, a variant access
> point for "Bronte, Charlotte, 1816-1855. Jane Eyre" that reads: "Bell, Currer,
> 1816-1855. Jane Eyre"?
> 
> I suspect the answer is No, but I hoped to tap the collective wisdom on this.
> 
> 6.27.4.1. The instructions for variant forms for works/expressions are
> restricted to variant forms for works/expressions. If the AAP for the work is 
> a
> combination of the AAP of the creator followed by the preferred title, variant
> titles using the creator/title combination use the AAP, not the variant form,
> of the creator name. So, to account for variant forms of the creator name,
> the cataloger would consult, in the Charlotte Bronte/Currer Bell situation,
> 9.19. In practice, it seems to me that this implies that you record the 
> variant
> forms of Charlotte Bronte's name in the authority record for Charlotte
> Bronte, and in the authority record for Jane Eyre, you limit your variations 
> to
> title variations.


Some points to add:


RDA 6.27.4.1 (further down)...

"Construct additional variant access points if considered important for access"

Example provided:

*
Authorized access point: Cunningham, E. V., 1914-2003. Sylvia

Variant access point: Fast, Howard, 1914-2003. Sylvia

From explanatory note: "Novel originally published under the pseudonym E.V. 
Cunningham; author’s real name, Howard Fast, appears on some resources 
embodying the work, but the identity most frequently used is Cunningham"

*

Elsewhere, in 9.2.2.8, both E.V. Cunningham and Howard Fast are established 
identities, and as such would have relationship designators:


Fast, Howard, 1914-2003

Related Person: Cunningham, E . V., 1914-2003

Relationship designator: alternate identity

(and reciprocal designator "real identity")



Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Uniqueness of titles proper

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adger Williams
Sent: October-08-13 10:01 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Uniqueness of titles proper

Thomas said

No, there is no equation of 'preferred title for the work' and the authorized 
access point for the work.

The preferred title for the work is one element only. Mapping it in MARC would 
mean mapping it to 240 $a,$n,$p,$k -- but not to the rest of the 240 subfields.

RDA 5.3 says to record additional elements to differentiate identical titles of 
works.

To differentiate the title one could add tags in bibliographic or authority 
records corresponding to the additional elements in RDA 5.3:

Form of Work - 380 $a
Date of Work - 046 $k
Place of Origin of the Work - 370 $g (authority record only)
Other Distinguishing Characteristic of the Work - 381 $a


>If we can add all these distinguishing characteristics to make the preferred 
>title unique, why can't we add the most salient distinguishing >characteristic 
>of all to make the preferred title unique, the author?
>You can say that the relationship between the creator and the work is a 
>different kind of relationship from the relationship between the date of 
>>composition and the work or the form of the work and the work, or the place 
>of origin of the work and the work, or "other distinguishing >characteristics" 
>(yipes, who knows what kinds of relationship to the work these may have; why 
>do we have to dance around so much to avoid the >creator here?).  


RDA 5.5 indicates that if the authorized access point for the work (i.e., in 
name-title form) is used to represent the work, then the differentiating 
elements are applied when the authorized access point is not unique.

RDA 5.3, in making these extra attribute elements 'core' for differentiating 
reasons, covers the situation when authorized access points are not used (i.e. 
not in the current MARC scenario). I do think that specifying a relationship to 
a responsible agent does the job of differentiating as well-- for example, an 
easy way to differentiate translations is to specify the translator 
relationship to the expression.

In fact, the original FRBR report indicates the range of user tasks for that 
kind of relationship covers exactly that premise. While RDA focuses on the 
'Find' user task of the relationship between a Creator and a Work (RDA 18.2), 
the original FRBR report specifies that the relationship also serves the 
'Identify' and 'Select' user tasks.

But that handful of elements in RDA 5.3 has value beyond their role for 
disambiguating entities. Date of Work is useful generally for identifying the 
work when people are looking for the work that came out a particular year (such 
as with motion pictures). Form of Work is a nascent element at this point, as 
the whole form/genre infrastructure in cataloging needs more attention.

There is a difference between attribute elements and relationship elements.

As an attribute, Form of Work, is limited to the data present in the field.

As a relationship element, Form of Work would become like a subject access 
point (like a 655). As an entity, Form of Work would have its own attributes 
and its own separate relationships (such as hierarchical relationships as seen 
in subject headings).

But the reality today, in the current MARC environment, is that 5.5 governs, in 
that authorized access points for works (in name-title form) are used, and the 
only time differentiating elements are required is when there is a conflict in 
access points.

That being said, I do see RDA 5.3 as opening the door for the changes necessary 
to move past this limited use of this data as derived from AACR2 for 
constructing headings. In RDA, 'core' elements are defined primarily in their 
role for disambiguating entities. But the elements should be added on their own 
as separate elements anyways, even if not needed for differentiation, mostly 
because they assist users in other ways such as 'Identify' (as in confirm 
resource described is resource sought) and 'Select.' That applies to both these 
attribute elements, and the relationship elements or subelements such as 
Creator or Translator.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Uniqueness of titles proper

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

From: J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: October-05-13 6:40 PM
To: Brenndorfer, Thomas
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Uniqueness of titles proper


>>RDA 5.3 says to record additional elements to differentiate identical
?titles of works.

>In real life, I suspect most will add data to make titles unique only
>for title main entries, and for author/title subject and added entries
>for works in the *very* rare case of two works by the same author
>having the same title proper.  Otherwise, I suspect most will ignore
>identical titles proper; they are very common.  The access point with
>an author can be unique, even if the title alone is not.  The PS seems
>to me to support that supposition, referring as it does to access
>point rather than preferred title.


RDA 5.3 can also be read as not requiring those differentiating elements be 
added to the authorized access point when the overall access point (1XX+240) is 
unique.

Rather RDA 5.3 provides the option that the data could be recorded elsewhere, 
as is now possible with the new RDA-influenced MARC fields, if even in 
anticipation of possible conflicts. Regardless of potential conflicts, there is 
great value in that data for users, especially Date of Work.


>>But when they are created, the policy is to follow RDA 5.3 to
>>differentiate works by creating unique authorized access points for
>>works.

>I assume the reason you want an 046 date is that the 264$c applies to
>the manifestation rather than the work?  The MARC21 definitions of 046
>subfields seem also to apply to manifestations.   Since all we now
>have are manifestation records, our clients are quite happy with
>differences in the description making that differentiation.  While
>some use is made of 008 dates one and two, I am aware of none of our
>clients making use of 046 in their ILS.


Date of Work maps specifically to 046 $k. That's a great field to add to 
bibliographic records, such as for motion pictures, where users want the 
original date of the movie, not the date the DVD was published. The 500 note 
for the details of the original movie is not machine-actionable and often 
buried in the record. We've added a single element line for Date of Work based 
on the 046 values to our brief displays.

In the brief display, that Date of Work is of great significance because the 
130 uniform title is not mapped for display there.

Adding these qualifiers to the access point for the work does the job of 
creating a unique identifier for the work that can stand on its own. But in the 
end the user task these individual elements serve is "identify." What matters 
is that the identifying data be presented somewhere to the user.

The RDA approach of first emphasizing discrete data elements, rather than 
authorized access points, opens up so many doors for great functionality, such 
re-shaping web-based displays and entering data to be more amenable to machine 
action.


>>The RDA records are much simpler, much cleaner, and far easier to
>>understand than the MARC records.

>For you perhaps.


One only has to spend a short time with them to come to conclusion. No tag 
numbers to memorize. No subfield codes. Little to no punctuation requirements. 
Logical consistency in element name labels for the same function, such as 
relationships between entities, and identifying variants, and co-ordinated 
notes on main elements instead of generic MARC 500.

It's better to start with that, and then go ahead and teach the special 
implementation rules, such as constructing entries for collocation in card 
catalogs. One can start from the same base RDA instructions and then create an 
entirely different kind of catalog based on reciprocal relationships and 
hyperlinks, with more machine-actionable data.

If that didn't exist today I would imagine people would be clamoring for a 
cataloging code that wouldn't be out-of-step with all the new technology and 
methods of organizing and displaying data. A clean break wouldn't cut it 
either, as others would be clamoring for a bridge from legacy catalogs to newer 
systems.


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Uniqueness of titles proper

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

No, there is no equation of 'preferred title for the work' and the authorized 
access point for the work.

The preferred title for the work is one element only. Mapping it in MARC would 
mean mapping it to 240 $a,$n,$p,$k -- but not to the rest of the 240 subfields.

RDA 5.3 says to record additional elements to differentiate identical titles of 
works.

To differentiate the title one could add tags in bibliographic or authority 
records corresponding to the additional elements in RDA 5.3:

Form of Work - 380 $a
Date of Work - 046 $k
Place of Origin of the Work - 370 $g (authority record only)
Other Distinguishing Characteristic of the Work - 381 $a

In the MARC environment, the burden for differentiating lies mostly with the 
use of qualified authorized access points (and RDA anticipates this use as 
well-- it's just that RDA doesn't assume authorized access points are the only 
way ever to do this). These same qualifying elements are strung along the 
access point until the condition of uniqueness from the LC-PCC Policy Statement 
is met. In the current environment, authorized access points for works (130 or 
1XX+240) aren't created for every record.  But when they are created, the 
policy is to follow RDA 5.3 to differentiate works by creating unique 
authorized access points for works.


The goal is not "to have a unique title for every work."

The goal is to supply all the elements necessary to differentiate the work from 
other works so that when users are looking at the bibliographic data they can 
know which work is involved. Because only the Preferred Title for the Work is 
initially a core element, other elements should be brought in. In RDA, any 
element becomes a core element if the resource or entity is not differentiated 
from another entity.

With RDA we can meet this requirement by:

1. have a stack of discrete work elements starting with Preferred Title for the 
Work (in some future scenarios, this may be the only method)

2. qualify the authorized access point for the work with those same elements

3. both approaches (for example, copying and normalizing Date of Work in 046 $k 
is a useful idea -- even if it's not also needed in an authorized access point 
for a work)


To compare these approaches, have a look at the MARC-RDA examples of authority 
records:

http://www.rdatoolkit.org/sites/default/files/examples_of_rda_authority_records_041113.pdf


The RDA records are much simpler, much cleaner, and far easier to understand 
than the MARC records.

When trying to understand bibliographic data, I now routinely start with the 
RDA approach, and then work backwards to understand the complexities and 
shortcomings of the MARC/AACR2 approach.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: October-05-13 11:36 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Uniqueness of titles proper

Steven quoted RDA:

>"If the preferred title for a work is the same as or similar to a
>title for a different work ... differentiate them ..."

To resort of pre FRBR/RDA language we all understand, I think this
mist be understood as saying:

"If the preferred title [main entry] for a work is the same as or
similar to a title for a different work ... differentiate them ..."

Conversely, one may as does the PS, understand "preferred title" too
mean authorized access point.

It is clearly impossible to have a unique title for every work.

This demonstrates why we we the MRIs as opposed to the Toolkit.


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

Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points - some thoughts

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

There are two types of relationships being discussed here, in moving 240 to a 
700 name-title access point.

Primary relationships (RDA 17), such as Work Manifested, are for relationships 
like work-to-manifestation relationships.

Related works (RDA 25) include whole-part relationships, such as the 'contains 
(work)' relationship, which is a work-to-work relationship.

The LC-PCC policy statement for RDA 17 was moved to RDA 25 for two or more 
works in a resource. This means that the whole-part relationship between the 
analytical works and the compilation is emphasized, instead of saying that each 
work in isolation is a Work Manifested related directly to the manifestation.


The policy statement for RDA 17 refers to RDA 25 but also to RDA 6. I take this 
to mean that the individual elements that go into identifying the single work 
manifested or compilation can still be entered in a 240 field. But there has 
been a recognition that MARC (the 'current implementation scenario') doesn't 
fully support having an authorized access point for a work serving as the value 
for a Work Manifested element.

The same limitation is highlighted in the MARC-RDA bibliographic examples-- one 
can implicitly map a 1XX+240 (or even a 1XX+245) to an authorized access point 
and a Work Manifested element-- but not explicitly in MARC encoding:

http://www.rdatoolkit.org/sites/default/files/6jsc_rda_complete_examples_bibliographic_apr0913_rev.pdf


To get it to work would require new MARC codes. Adding $t to 100 doesn't work 
well, as it overburdens the 100 field, especially now that designators can also 
be added for the 100 creator relationship to the work.

Perhaps there should be a Work Manifested (or Expression Manifested) indicator 
for a 7XX, separate from second indicator '2' for an analytical work. The 130 
and 1XX+240 would be moved there, and, following the RDA examples, the 1XX+245 
title proper could also be duplicated there as authorized access points for 
works when applicable.


RDA has already eliminated one use of the 240 -- for the first of two works in 
a compilation:

Example (AACR2 25.7A):

100 Dickens, Charles
240 Hard times
245 Dickens' new stories
700 Dickens, Charles. Pictures from Italy

Example (RDA):

100 Dickens, Charles
245 Dickens' new stories
700 Dickens, Charles. Hard times
700 Dickens, Charles. Pictures from Italy


There are three works in total here: the collective work and the two individual 
works.

In RDA elements, one has:

Work Manifested: Dickens, Charles. Dickens' new stories

Related Work: Dickens, Charles. Hard times
Relationship Designator: contains (work)

Related Work: Dickens, Charles. Pictures from Italy
Relationship Designator: contains (work)


That's all separate from:

Creator: Dickens, Charles
Relationship Designator: author

(creator relationship to the compilation: Dickens, Charles. Dickens' new 
stories)

and

Title Proper: Dickens' new stories

(transcribed manifestation element that is re-used in turn for the work 
element, Preferred Title for the Work).


Some observations:

RDA elements identifying works can be found in both MARC bibliographic and 
authority records. In many ways, bibliographic records serve as stand-ins for 
authority records for works, which has added to the confusion.

The individual elements, such as Preferred Title for the Work, can serve 
various purposes for indexing, filing, and searching.

RDA separates out the recording of each element from the process of 
constructing authorized access points (the instructions for authorized access 
points are always stuck at the end of the respective chapters for each entity). 
Authorized access points are treated as special identifiers for entities, are 
put to use as values for relationship elements in the second half of RDA.

The authorized access point for the work serves a function as connecting 
entities together through relationship elements. This could involve connecting 
the Work to the Manifestation (or to the Expression), but also connecting a 
Work to another Work (as in a whole-part relationship).

The main problem in MARC is that several fields (such as 100 and 245) can serve 
several of these different functions, and entering duplicate text strings is 
avoided by overlaying different functions on these MARC codes.

The ideal would be to have separate encoding for each different function, as we 
want each separate individual element to serve user needs such as finding and 
identifying entities, and we want to connect entities so users can find and 
navigate the relationships between those entities.


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] WEMI and Bibframe

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

There is a handy diagram, Barbara Tillett's Family of Works that shows the 
categories for works and expressions, and where the cataloging conventions have 
put the boundary between new works and new expressions.

For a working link, there is page 2 of
http://www.frbr.org/files/denton-frbr-talk-handout.pdf


The decision of the cut-off for new expression and new work has various 
dependencies. The main entry concept, reborn as the authorized access point for 
the work, is dependent on determining responsibility for the work. That 
identifier for the work remains the same for all expressions of that work. 
Subject relationships are typically defined at the work level.

There has also been the idea of 'superworks' which draws in adaptations. I 
think such concepts can be handled on the fly by grouping works via the 
relationship designators. For example, a relevancy ranking in a search result 
could elevate "adaptation of" or even the whole category of derivative work 
relationships over other categories (even if those derivative works don't have 
the keyword used in the search). Displays of search results or within 
individual records could be co-ordinated around the categories of relationships 
(derivative, descriptive, whole-part, accompanying, sequential). Such an 
approach is dependent on underlying relationships being made and links 
established throughout, vertically from work to expression to manifestation to 
item, and horizontally at each of those levels. I see a lot of rich 
functionality at the manifestation-item relationship, where availability and 
location information at the item level can be embedded within the brief display 
at the manifestation level. It would be great if that consistent functionality 
could be extended into the other areas of the catalog data through rigorous 
relationship structures.


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adger Williams 
[awilli...@colgate.edu]
Sent: October-03-13 9:19 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] WEMI and Bibframe

 Surely, the difference between an original and its translation is a 
difference that is a useful to everyone, and the difference between formats of 
presentation is clearly a useful difference also, but it doesn't seem to me 
that they are the same kind of difference or, at least, not always so.
I'm not sure where the boundary line between performances/recordings that 
are mere expressions of a work, and performances/recordings that are so 
cooperative as to merit being new works lies.  (I'm told that a film and is 
screenplay are separate works.)  Surely, different performances of a jazz 
standard may be so different as to be unrecognizably the same work to the 
un-initiated.
There are whole groups of things: (mythology, folk-tales, fairy tales, 
plots of Shakespeare plays (many of which come out of his Holinshead anyway)) 
that get constantly recycled and re-used and we don't consider each re-use to 
be an expression of the original work.

 I think the categories of Work and Expression are quite stable in their 
central parts, but they start to lose coherence the further away one gets from 
the prototypical examples.  (That's the nature of categories, of course.)  For 
those of us who get to work with the good examples of a particular category, 
they make perfectly good sense; for those of us who are doing more fringey 
things, they don't necessarily work too well.

   Personally, I think the category "Expression" is too amorphous to stick 
around, so I'm delighted to see if absent from Bibframe, but I still want to be 
able to group like things together (Works) and then sort them by the attributes 
that are ascribed to Expressions.  I just don't think their relations to a work 
are similar enough to each to make Expression a useable category.




On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Robert Maxwell 
mailto:robert_maxw...@byu.edu>> wrote:
I personally find the expression level extremely useful for distinguishing 
between, e.g., different translations, different formats, etc. It's not a 
relationship between works. A translation isn't a different work from the 
original. A recording of a work isn't a different work from the text.

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
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.


-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 1:59 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: 

Re: [RDA-L] Role of relators and labels in display

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: September-29-13 7:26 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Role of relators and labels in display
..
> As long as the publisher is in 264  1, I've no objection the the
>printer being in 264  0.

One should object. The 264 0 is only for unpublished resources and the 264 
1,2,3 are only for published resources. They never appear together as the 
resource has to be one or the other.

If an institution or company issues microform copies of a print resource (such 
as a newspaper), or digitizes them and puts them online ("consider all online 
resources to be published" - RDA 2.8.1.1), then that institution (or even an 
individual) becomes the publisher, and the original publisher is entered in a 
Related Manifestation element (775 or 776).

Going the other way, from digital to print, why wouldn't the same thing happen?

In case of a one-off printout, the decision would likely be that it's in an 
unpublished form and so a Production Statement is used. I had noted that LC-PCC 
PS 2.8.1.1 covers privately printed resources made available to small groups 
and treats those resources as published, and so there is a continuum when one 
(or a few) printouts are considered unpublished to a situation where a larger 
(but still small) distribution can mean they are published.

So if I digitize a book (public domain, published in the 1800s) and put the PDF 
online, then I am the publisher of that PDF.

If I later print out that same PDF then I am a producer of that printout 
(treated as unpublished). If I make many printout copies for wider distribution 
then I am a publisher of those printouts. The production or publication 
statement is for the resource in hand-- a manifestation-level relationship. The 
original publisher from the 1800s is not the publisher of the PDF, nor of the 
printouts, but only the publisher of the original manifestation.

When combining publisher, distributor, and manufacturer statements, these all 
pertain to one and the same manifestation. When the carrier changes then the 
slate is wiped clean because this is a different manifestation, and the first 
question to ask if this is published (copies made for distribution) or 
unpublished. If published then the new agent responsible is identified.

If unpublished, only the Date of Production is a core element. The 264 0 field 
never appears with a 264 1,2 or 3 field.


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Questions for videodisc reproduction of videocassette

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

>>I could understand not adding relationship designations at all, since
>>they are not RDA core, and legacy records lack them.

>True, but this refers to those designators in Appendix I, J, and K.  In my 
>reading, RDA has--how to put this, an expectation?
>--that if we're tracing a name, it should fit under one of the relationship 
>categories in Chapters 19-22, even if the appendix
> designators aren't employed.


That's an interesting point, and perhaps the full implication of that hasn't 
hit home yet. In RDA, many relationships are not core and the designators are 
not core. But for a proper RDA record, there is that "expectation" of something 
more just a choice between a 1XX or 7XX tag number.

If any relationship IS recorded, core or non-core, RDA requires that the access 
point be recorded as the value for a relationship element like Creator, 
Contributor, Publisher, Owner.

And if that's the case, and if only a single subfield ($e/$j) is being used for 
either the relationship element or the relationship designator, then it makes 
sense to supply the more specific term when possible.

One would always be recording something more specific than a 1XX or 7XX tag. 
The starting point in RDA is the relationship element when adding access 
points, and there are eleven relationship elements to choose from, as spelled 
out in RDA chapters 19-22.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

>Also getting into new territory for me, would the RDA Manuscript-related 
>elements (RDA 3.9.2) apply for a >single cataloged print-out of a published 
>electronic resource?

>Production Method for Manuscript: printout


Scratch that idea. Better to apply the basic RDA concept of choosing the right 
kind of element-- an attribute element or a relationship element.

The use of "printout" here is as an attribute of the manifestation. Since there 
is a related manifestation element at play here, it's better to use "printout" 
as a relationship sub-element-- a designator in this case-- under the Related 
Manifestation element. Since such a designator doesn't exist yet, so it would 
have to be created.


Printout

Related Manifestation:
Printout of (manifestation): Author. Title. Publication Statement of original


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] GMD - where is everyone on this?

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

That's similar to our situation.

Once we went with a system that used fixed field generated icons, the GMD was a 
burden. The icon also produces an equivalent term that is appended to titles in 
the Title Browse index, which means the last place the GMD had any value was 
gone.

In the regular displays, the GMD is sometimes suppressed which means the 
associated ISBD punctuation is missing. The whole edifice of the GMD inserted 
into the 245 was a terrible idea to begin with.

A far better solution would be supply a local subfield at the end of the 245 
field. This subfield can easily be deleted in batch operations. So, for 
example, the Title Browse index can display subfields a n p b plus the extra 
subfield (perhaps repurposing h) which is put at the very end of the 245, after 
subfield c.

We've recently added Content Type and Carrier Type in the Brief and Full 
Displays.

In some cases they add useful additional information to the icons. One problem 
with fixed field icons is that they are not good at capturing the content and 
media aspects of complex or hybrid resources. The 336 and 338 values can 
capture all the categories.


Content Type and Carrier Type can produce better results than the GMD. In a 
test implementation, I got this result for a case of 1 work, 2 expressions, and 
4 manifestations:


Vision in white
by Roberts Nora
[part of the brief record repeated for the following:]

Content Type: text
Carrier Type: volume

Content Type: text
Carrier Type: online resource

Content Type: spoken word
Carrier Type: online resource

Content Type: spoken word
Carrier Type: audio disc



The inferior GMD equivalents would be:

none

[electronic resource]

[electronic resource]

[sound recording]




The fixed field terms are:

Book

Ebook

Audio Ebook

Nonmusical Sound Recording




Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library





From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kimberly Montgomery 
[kimberly.montgom...@ucf.edu]
Sent: September-27-13 12:48 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] GMD - where is everyone on this?

Our consortia got rid of display of the GMD years ago.  The public services 
people felt that it confused patrons too much.  Icons are used instead.  
Unfortunately, integrating resources get no icon, so those are not easily 
identified as online resources.  On the other hand, there is a link at the top 
of the results (and another in the sidebar facets) to limit to things that are 
available online.

Kimberly Montgomery
Electronic Resources Cataloger Librarian
Cataloging Services Department
University of Central Florida Libraries
kimberly.montgom...@ucf.edu


From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Nelson
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 11:39 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] GMD - where is everyone on this?

Hi, everyone;

Could we get some postings on what others are doing now with the GMD? There are 
lots of opinions out there on this, I know.

Accepting but not displaying in OPAC?
Displaying? Etc.

Some rationales would be helpful too. My librarian thanks you!

Re: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

Nonexistent data for an element such as Production Statement can still mean 
there is a Production Statement.

There is also the method to record the subelements in a production statement or 
publication statement if known or probable data cannot be determined. A related 
manifestation element would still exist, and some of the production or 
publication could still be recorded even if it is only probable data, and so it 
makes sense to continue to keep that data separate.


Place of Production: Place of production not identified
Producer's Name: Producer not identified
Date of Production: Date of production not identified

Related Manifestation:
Reproduction of (manifestation): Author. Title. Publication Statement (of 
original)


Also getting into new territory for me, would the RDA Manuscript-related 
elements (RDA 3.9.2) apply for a single cataloged print-out of a published 
electronic resource?

Production Method for Manuscript: printout


On another note, related to another post, there seems to be no designator for 
the relationship element "Producer of an Unpublished Resource," even in the 
reconciled RDA-MARC-id.loc.gov list 
http://www.loc.gov/marc/annmarcrdarelators.html . In RDA, though, the top-level 
relationship elements are not repeated as designators. "Publisher" is an 
element, not a designator, whereas there is a more specific designator that 
falls under Publisher, "broadcaster."


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Tarango, Adolfo [atara...@ucsd.edu]
Sent: September-27-13 11:13 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts

Weighing in with trepidation to comment on the part of 2.8.1.3 addressing the 
appearance of publication data. Note, that 2.8.1.3 states a condition must be 
met, that when both publication data of the reproducer and the original are 
found on the item, then in that case, you record the data for the reproducer. 
The implication is that if the data for the reproducer isn't presented, then 
you use the data of the original.

Just saying.

Adolfo

-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: Thursday, September 26, 2013 1:13 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts

I would tie two RDA instructions together:

RDA 1.1.2 "The term 'resource' is used in chapters 2-4 to refer to a 
manifestation or item."

RDA 2.8.1.1 "A publication statement is a statement identifying the place or 
places of publication, publisher or publishers, and date or dates of 
publication of a resource."

The manifestation in Chapter 2 is the actual physical object in hand, not the 
original, and so the publication statement, in refering to the manifestation, 
refers to that physical object. Elsewhere in RDA, 'resource' can refer to work, 
expression, manifestation, or item, but not in Chapter 2 where it is only 
applied to manifestations or items.


In addition, there is 2.8.1.3 Facsimiles and Reproductions, which directs the 
use of a Related Manifestation element for the original publication statement:

"When a facsimile or reproduction has a publication statement or statements 
relating to the original manifestation as well as to the facsimile or 
reproduction, record the publication statement or statements relating to the 
facsimile or reproduction. Record any publication statement relating to the 
original as a publication statement of a related manifestation."


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library


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: September-26-13 3:21 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts

Mac,

I was speculating about what one would do if adhering strictly to RDA.
But I could be persuaded by Thomas Brenndorfer's argument that the publisher of 
the printout is the agency that printed it out.  I would also be content with a 
decision to apply the provider-neutral guidelines in reverse and give the 
publisher of the online in the publication elements.
But that would not be what RDA itself says to do.

Adam

On Thu, 26 Sep 2013, J. McRee Elrod wrote:

> Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 10:38:59 -0700
> From: J. McRee Elrod mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca>>
> To: asch...@u.washington.edu<mailto:asch...@u.washington.edu>
> Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca<mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca>
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts
>
> Adam said:
>
>> I think in RDA y

Re: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

Current LC-PCC PS on Related Manifestations, RDA 27.1:

"The word "reproduction" is being used in its broadest sense ..."

and

"When the decision has been made to create a separate record for the 
reproduction, generally follow the guidelines below for giving MARC 775 and 
MARC 776 fields. The guidelines do not apply when the "single-record" or 
"provider neutral" technique is being used."

In such an environment I would emphasize 775 and 776 in the displays so that 
people can better understand the relationship, and not worry that they would 
see the publisher of the original twice as it would only be entered once in the 
775 or 776.


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

> -Original Message-
> From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca]
> Sent: September-26-13 4:38 PM
> To: Brenndorfer, Thomas
> Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts
> 
> Thomas quoted:
> 
> "When a facsimile or reproduction has a publication statement or statements
> relating to the original manifestation as well as to the facsimile or
> reproduction, record the publication statement or statements relating to the
> facsimile or reproduction. Record any publication statement relating to the
> original as a publication statement of a related manifestation."
> 
> Try selling that to the provider neutral e-book folk.
> 
> We have repeating 264 with indicators.  There is no excuse not to have the
> content relevant information needed by patrons in a 264.
> 
> An e-book provided by an aggregator, and a print-out from an electronic
> publication, both have publishers.  The publishers are not the aggregator or
> printer.  These are not reproductions in the sense that facsimiles are
> reproductions.
> 
> 
>__   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
>   {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
>   ___} |__
> \__
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

I would tie two RDA instructions together:

RDA 1.1.2 "The term 'resource' is used in chapters 2-4 to refer to a 
manifestation or item."

RDA 2.8.1.1 "A publication statement is a statement identifying the place or 
places of publication, publisher or publishers, and date or dates of 
publication of a resource."

The manifestation in Chapter 2 is the actual physical object in hand, not the 
original, and so the publication statement, in refering to the manifestation, 
refers to that physical object. Elsewhere in RDA, 'resource' can refer to work, 
expression, manifestation, or item, but not in Chapter 2 where it is only 
applied to manifestations or items.


In addition, there is 2.8.1.3 Facsimiles and Reproductions, which directs the 
use of a Related Manifestation element for the original publication statement:

"When a facsimile or reproduction has a publication statement or statements 
relating to the original manifestation as well as to the facsimile or 
reproduction, record the publication statement or statements relating to the 
facsimile or reproduction. Record any publication statement relating to the 
original as a publication statement of a related manifestation."


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library


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: September-26-13 3:21 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts

Mac,

I was speculating about what one would do if adhering strictly to RDA.
But I could be persuaded by Thomas Brenndorfer's argument that the
publisher of the printout is the agency that printed it out.  I would also
be content with a decision to apply the provider-neutral guidelines in
reverse and give the publisher of the online in the publication elements.
But that would not be what RDA itself says to do.

Adam

On Thu, 26 Sep 2013, J. McRee Elrod wrote:

> Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 10:38:59 -0700
> From: J. McRee Elrod 
> To: asch...@u.washington.edu
> Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts
>
> Adam said:
>
>> I think in RDA you would supply:
>>
>> 264 _1 [Place of publication not identified] : $b [publisher not
> identified], $c [date of publication not identified]
>> 264 _3 [Place of printing] : $b [place of printing], $c [date of
> printing]
>
> But you DO know the place, publisher and date for the electronic
> content. which remains the same in the printout.   Who would benefit
> from that erroneous space consuming 264  1?
>
> When changing print to electronic, the Provider Neutral Standard calls
> for the original print publisher in 264  1.  When changing electronic
> to print, the same principle should apply; the electronic imprint
> should carry over.  They published it.  The library is just printing
> it.
>
> We very much approve of the PN standard abandoning the LCRI, and
> describing what one has.  The PN standard gets it right that the
> publisher of the content belongs in imprint.  (We add 264  2 for the
> aggregator, but we seem to be alone in that.  We would never
> substitute the aggregator for the publisher, anymore than we would
> substitute a printer for a publisher.)
>
>
>   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
>  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
>  ___} |__ \__
>
>
>
>

^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~

Re: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

Would the scope of "privately printed resources" under Publication Statement in 
LC-PCC PS 2.8.1.1 not also cover local printouts of a published online resource?

If an organization or individual prints out copies for local use, and these are 
cataloged, then it seems who issued or released the physical resource-- the 
printout in this case-- should be indicated in the Publication Statement, as 
distinct from the original publisher, which belongs to the related 
manifestation as identifying information for that manifestation.


What is needed is the mirror image of the relationship designators "electronic 
reproduction"/"electronic reproduction of (manifestation)", which only refer to 
a process where a digital manifestation is produced from an analog 
manifestation, and not the other way.

Paralleling "reprint of (manifestation)" there should be something like 
"printout of" for the digital-to-analog reproduction.


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library 

> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Deborah Fritz
> Sent: September-26-13 12:27 AM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts
> 
> I agree with you, Michelle--I think we might be looking at Production rather
> than Publication + Printing. I don't think you can put the Publication details
> for the original in the record for the reproduction. So the question is: who 
> is
> responsible for making the reproduction, and is that reproduction published
> (because it is intended for/capable of distribution) or not published
> (therefore, produced).
> 
> But I don't think you can have Production + Manufacture (Printing) together,
> because if something is manufactured (what we think of as 'printing' when it
> comes to books), it is done in quantity and therefore intended for
> distribution, and therefore publication. Whereas, if only one 'thing' is
> made/fabricated/produced, then it is not intended for publication and is
> therefore Produced (unless it is digital online and therefore, 'out there' and
> therefore published).
> 
> But I agree that a printout of a digital resource does seem to be a special
> case, because it is the same 'thing' only being printed by different people, 
> so
> it would be great to know how the PCC task force is coming along with
> looking into this entire reproduction issue, because, it is, as you say,
> complicated. For example, I think that what Patricia actually has is a 
> printout
> (reproduction?) of a reproduction of the original.
> 
> Can anyone at PCC tell us the status of this task force on reproductions?
> 
> Deborah
> 
> 
> Deborah Fritz
> TMQ, Inc.
> (321) 676-1904
> debo...@marcofquality.com
> www.marcofquality.com
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Cronquist, Michelle J
> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 1:37 AM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts
> 
> Patricia,
> 
> I think what you're describing looks great.  We also catalog a lot of local
> printouts and reproductions and are struggling with how to deal with these in
> RDA.  #858396574 is an example of one I did recently.  The one thing that I
> would do differently in your record is to use 264 _0 instead of 264 _3; I 
> don’t
> think you can just have printing information without production or
> publication information.
> 
> When I wrote to LChelp4rda earlier this year to ask how to deal with
> reproductions, I was told that the PCC was going to form a task force to look
> into this issue, though I haven't heard anything about this since.   The 
> current
> way in RDA is just impractical, since it means that each library has to 
> create a
> new record for their own local reproduction, rather than editing an existing
> record.  Also, it doesn't make sense for the date field to reflect the
> reproduction date rather than the date of the original; this is particularly a
> problem for microfilmed newspapers, of which we have many in my
> collection.
> 
> Michelle
> 
> ---
> Michelle Cronquist
> North Caroliniana Cataloger
> Special Collections Technical Services
> CB#3926, Wilson Library
> University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
> 
> 919-962-6901
> 919-962-3594 (fax)
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of FOGLER, PATRICIA A
> GS-11 USAF AETC AUL/LTSC
> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 1:46 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts
> 
> My question is in regard to local print reproductions (reports run off a 
> library
> printer) of a government document (public domain) PDF received (for
> example) in email by a bibliographer.  We get a fair number of these and I
> need to figure this ou

Re: [RDA-L] "All illustrations"

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

Comparing Extent of Text in RDA to AACR2:


RDA: Extent of Text is for "resources consisting of printed or manuscript text 
(with or without accompanying illustrations)".
Further in RDA 3.4.5.1: "These instructions apply to text resources in volumes, 
sheets, portfolios or cases."

AACR2: for "separately published monographic printed items." These "comprise 
books, pamphlets, and single sheets."

In both cases exceptions are made for cartographic resources and notated music.


RDA is much more specific about the Content Type "text" and makes reference to 
illustrations as being only accompanying in nature.


As such it would be odd to use the element name "Extent of Text" in this case:

Extent of Text: 20 unnumbered leaves
Illustrative Content: illustrations


But in RDA, "Extent" is an element used when the exceptions don't apply.

Possibility here (note that "Extent of Text" is not used):

Extent: 1 volume (20 unnumbered leaves)


In RDA 7.15 for Illustrative Content, the primary content of the resource is 
covered by the work element in RDA 7.2 (Nature of the Content). So if the 
reference is to the other element then that should be used to describe the 
primary content.

Nature of the Content: An "illegible book" without text consisting of leaves of 
different colors and shapes.

Which could be mapped to MARC 520 as one of the possibilities for Nature of the 
Content in the RDA-MARC map in the Toolkit.


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kathie Coblentz [kcobl...@nypl.org]
Sent: September-20-13 12:54 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] "All illustrations"

OK, the very next thing I picked up to catalog is one of a series of "illegible 
books" by the Italian Futurist artist Bruno Munari: "Libro illeggibile N.Y. 1."

There is NO text except for the back flap of the book jacket (which, 
admittedly, is a pretty integral part of the volume in this case, since the 
front cover of the jacket bears a Munari design, and beneath it there are only 
plain black wrappers).

The back flap has the title, the artist's name, a brief historical statement in 
Italian and English and publication information. (I have seen similar works 
that have none of this, but only (if you're lucky) a slip in the box with the 
title and artist's name.)

But in terms of actual "primary content of the resource," we have a series of 
pages, or leaves (I speak loosely, since they are not functioning as "units of 
extent of text" here) of various gray, black and translucent papers, some of 
which contain a white spiral design, a round cutout, and/or a black circle the 
size of the cutouts. A red thread is strung through several leaves. Several of 
the translucent leaves are blank or bear only the "image content" provided by 
the thread that penetrates them. According to the back flap, "it is one of a 
group of books in which visual discourse, rather than a text composed of words, 
carries the thread of the story."

There are two AACR 2 records for this in OCLC, and I may just use one of them 
more or less as is. One has "[40] p. : ǂb ill." and the other has "[20] leaves 
: ǂb ill. "

I think the "leaves" solution is better here, since the designs, when present, 
are on one side of the leaf only, but I understand the "pages," since the 
cutouts are naturally on both sides of the leaf. Both records do account for 
all leaves including blanks, thus properly ignoring the directive not to count 
blank leaves. In this case, they are clearly part of the work as it is intended 
to be perceived.

However, even under AACR 2, the use of "ill." seems to me inadequate. "All 
ill." would have been better, but there is the semantic problem of downgrading 
this work of art to mere "illustrations." At least, however, it would probably 
have been understood by catalog users.

How would I handle this item according to the letter, or even the spirit, of 
RDA?


Kathie Coblentz, Rare Materials Cataloger
Collections Strategy/Special Formats Processing
The New York Public Library, Stephen A. Schwarzman Building
5th Avenue and 42nd Street, Room 313
New York, NY  10018
kathiecoble...@nypl.org

My opinions, not NYPL's

Re: [RDA-L] "All illustrations"

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

--
>From that, I suppose I could add another possibility:
> 300  |a 1 comic book (ix, 45 pages) : |b color ; |c 24 cm


This I think is a good fit.


One could say that neither Extent of Text nor Extent of Still Image apply for a 
comic book or graphic novel as the resource is a hybrid of content types and so 
one would not be forced to use either subset of instructions.

Who says we should treat a comic book as an exception for recording extent in 
RDA 3.4.1.3? If it's not an exception then the main instruction applies. The 
main element is still called "Extent" which is used when we don't use "Extent 
of Text" or "Extent of Still Image." Using the element name is a useful flag 
indicating that the exceptions for extent are not being used.


Extent is first and foremost the number of carrier units. One could also apply 
the alternative in RDA 3.4.1.3 and just say instead of 1 volume:

1 comic book


For the number of subunits there is no specific example matching a comic book 
in the cases listed in 3.4.1.7, but I wouldn't take the cases as exhaustive. 
The cases all follow the main instruction of using the number of carrier types 
as the main value for Extent. One could take the same freedom allowed in 
applying as subunits the extent of a parallel counterpart (printed text in a 
volume):


1 comic book (ix, 45 pages)


Colour Content is applicable.

1 comic book (ix, 45 pages) : color ; 24 cm


Because 'still image' is used for a predominant content type, and there isn't a 
comparable instruction to use "chiefly illustrations" I would drop 
"illustrations" altogether. Illustrative Content has a meaning restricted to 
illustrations of the primary content, which doesn't make sense for a comic 
book, where the primary content consists of illustrations. Also the exception 
for using Extent of Text is to use it for printed text "with or without 
accompanying illustrations". I would take that mean that adding "illustrations" 
in 300$b means we're adding it because it accompanies the text, and if that's 
the case then the Extent should probably also be Extent of Text, which would 
mean we couldn't use "1 comic book."


In RDA elements:

Content Type: text
Content Type: still image
Media Type: unmediated
Carrier Type: volume

Extent: 1 comic book (ix, 45 pages)
Dimensions: 24 cm
Colour Content: color




Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Alternate forms of name as "access points"

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

The rest of my post referred to the possibility of identifers replacing 
authorized access points, and that RDA lists identifiers before authorized 
access points.

The implication is that, yes, users can be taken directly to the entity sought, 
not to another access point.

RDA, though, doesn't preclude the traditional card catalog approach. The 
instructions from AACR2 are dropped in in many places so one can continue to 
create legacy catalogs.

But the starting point has changed. RDA allows one to talk about main/added 
entries and references, and it allows one to talk about relationships and the 
direct links described below. RDA, as a new baseline, supports these different 
implementation scenarios, and it can be seen to function as a bridge between 
these scenarios.

This bridge needed to be constructed before new systems are designed. We have 
to make it clear as to what the things ("entities") of interest are in 
catalogs, and how exactly they are related. It's easer to derive main/added 
entries from a discussion about relationships than vice versa. The older 
vocabulary was rooted in physical card catalog construction, which means 
systems designers would be forced to use metaphors rather than use the more 
common language of entity-relationship models.

Note that in RDA access points always follow identifiers in the relationship 
chapters, and the instructions for authorized and variant access points always 
follow the instructions for choosing and recording attribute elements for the 
entity. The emphasis has shifted away from the card catalog paradigm.


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Dan Matei
> Sent: September-14-13 3:53 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Alternate forms of name as "access points"
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: "Brenndorfer, Thomas" 
> Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 10:12:03 -0400
> 
> >
> > 2. Establish some identifier for the entity (a single authorized
> > access point, for example). If there are other possible identifiers refer
> users to the authorized identifier.
> >
> 
> 
> And you think that's reasonable ? These days, in our "linked" century ? Why a
> single "authorized" access point ? And why to refer the poor user to
> something else if (s)he actually did hit an identifier ?
> 
> If the user search for:
> 
> Pieter Breugel the Elder
> or
> Brueghel the Droll
> or
> Peasant Breughel
> 
> and the system "knows" who are we talking about, why to send (s)he to
> 
> Bruegel, Pieter, approximately 1525-1569
> 
> i.e. giving her/him the "authorized access point" instead of giving her/him
> what (s)he is looking for ?
> 
> Dan
> 
> --
> Dan Matei
> director, Direcția Patrimoniu Cultural Mobil, Imaterial și Digital [Movable,
> Intangible and Digital Heritage Department] (aka CIMEC) Institutul Național al
> Patrimoniului [National Heritage Institute], București [Bucharest, Romania]
> tel. 0725 253 222, (+4)021 317 90 72; fax (+4)021 317 90 64, www.cimec.ro

Re: [RDA-L] Alternate forms of name as "access points"

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

Using terms like "entry" is confusing.

RDA has a quite simple structure at its core, and one not dependent on thinking 
only in card catalog terms:

1. Gather up the attributes of the entity, and record/transcribe them. Whether 
dealing with manifestations, works, persons, or subjects, the process is 
essentially the same.

2. Establish some identifier for the entity (a single authorized access point, 
for example). If there are other possible identifiers refer users to the 
authorized identifier.

3. In the second half of RDA, establish relationships between entities, such as 
between a resource and a person. The person can be represented by the single 
authorized access point. In traditional cataloging, we say making an entry; in 
RDA, we're establishing a relationship, which is a neutral term that is more 
easily understood by system developers.


Such a process can be used to build card catalogs (where terms like "entry" 
make sense), or relational or object-oriented databases, where identifiers are 
more machine-friendly tools and where there is significantly more flexibility 
in display. For example, instead of the blinkered perspective in card catalogs, 
where we are mostly forced to see only headings and references in a flat file 
structure, all of the attributes of a Person could be displayed.

In this example in WorldCat Identities:
http://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n79-41870

one sees the authorized access point ("Woolf, Virginia, 1882-1941) as the main 
identifier, and the variant access points listed on the right, along with many 
other attributes.


In the Virtual International Authority File, different authorized access points 
have been established and this is where a machine identifier is used to connect 
them:

http://viaf.org/viaf/39385478/#Woolf,_Virginia,_1882-1941

It's of note that when RDA specifies the use of identifiers, control 
number-style identifiers are always mentioned first, before authorized access 
points. It's in the second half of RDA, on relationships, where one sees 
identifiers put to use to connect entities.

Once one sees the pattern, RDA is actually the simplest way of presenting how 
bibliographic data can be organized, as it can be applied to many different 
implementation scenarios.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library


From: J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: September-13-13 3:12 PM
To: Brenndorfer, Thomas
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: Alternate forms of name as "access points"

Thomas posted:

>Preferred name > basis for authorized access point
>Variant name > basis for variant access point
>Variant name > basis for variant access point

Could this not be misunderstood to mean one may have more than one entry
for the same entity in a bibliographic record, despite your comment
that they should be "displayed" as see references?

So much of RDA's terminology is capable of being misinterpreted.

While LAC puts alternate forms in 9XX in the bibliographic record,
these are seen as cross references, not access points.


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

Re: [RDA-L] YouTube video, "Resource Description & Access (RDA) Basics for Copy Catalogers" available

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

>From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
>[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jack Wu
>Sent: September-13-13 12:05 PM
>To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
>Subject: Re: [RDA-L] YouTube video, "Resource Description & Access (RDA) 
>Basics for Copy Catalogers" available

>Toot on. If you don't who will. It has already been passed on to the 
>discussion list of our OPAL group of libraries that's a sub-group of OhioLink, 
>and I >thank you for encouraging that. Although I don't fully share your 
>overall positive endorsement of RDA, that's probably water over the dam. I 
>>will agree that it is a very, very good presentation. I think you have 
>managed to synthesize a lot of information in a concise understandable manner.
 
>Just to point out a couple of places where I think maybe is a bit ambiguous. 
>In your side by side comparision, where on the left you listed for AACR >the 
>See reference, and on the right Variant access point for RDA, perhaps it would 
>be closer to compare the See Also to RDA Variant Access point? 


Variant access points are SEE references to the authorized access point. These 
are covered in the chapters on attributes of entities (RDA 9 to 11)

The SEE ALSO is a relationship between entities. These are covered in the 
chapters on relationships between entities (RDA 30 to 32)


Entities represented by authorized access points would be presented this way:

  

where "related person" would be displayed as SEE ALSO, and perhaps with an 
additional more specific designator for the relationship.


Variant names begin as additional attributes for a single entity:

Preferred name > basis for authorized access point
Variant name > basis for variant access point
Variant name > basis for variant access point

and with the variant access points displayed as SEE references to the 
authorized access point.


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Displaying media terms

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

>337 Media Type aligns most frequently with the GMD:

>projected [for moving images] = motion picture

>Obviously it is not possible to walk from 337 to GMD.  This is the way
>we do it in preparing AACR2 compatible records from RDA records:

>If 338 is:  Export as 245$h:
>audio cartridge [sound recording]
>audio cylinder  [sound recording]
>audio disc  [sound recording]
>sound-track reel[sound recording]
>audio roll  [sound recording]
>audiocassette   [sound recording]
>audiotape reel  [sound recording]
>computer card   [electronic resource]
>computer chip cartridge [electronic resource]
>computer disc   [electronic resource]
>computer disc cartridge [electronic resource]
>computer tape cartridge [electronic resource]
>computer tape cassette  [electronic resource]
>computer tape reel  [electronic resource]
>online resource [electronic resource]
>ressource en ligne  [electronic resource]
>aperture card   [microform]
>microfiche  [microform]
>microfiche cassette [microform]
>microfilm cartridge [microform]
>microfilm cassette  [microform]
>microfilm reel  [microform]
>microfilm roll  [microform]
>microfilm slip  [microform]
>microopaque [microform]
>film cartridge  [motion picture]
>film cassette   [motion picture]
>film reel   [motion picture]
>film roll   [motion picture]
>filmstrip   [filmstrip]
>filmstrip cartridge [filmstrip]
>overhead transparency   [transparency]
>slide   [slide]
>cardno GMD
>[equipment] [equipment]
>flipchart   [chart]
>[kit]   [kit]
>object  [realia]
>rollno GMD
>sheet   no GMD
>volume  no GMD
>video cartridge [videorecording]
>videocassette   [videorecording]
>videodisc   [videorecording]
>videotape reel  [videorecording]



Many of these converge to the GMD because the Media Type is a common attribute 
among groups of Carrier Types.

There are exceptions, such as with moving and still image carriers, where there 
is a nod to Content Type for [motion picture] but a swerve to Carrier Type for 
GMDs like [filmstrip]. In other similar cases, the Content Type maps to a GMD 
such as [cartographic material] for volumes and objects like globes. And not 
all "objects" are mapped to [realia] in AACR2-- the GMD maps to a unit of 
extent in RDA in several cases.

And if there are multiple carrier types then how many GMDs are to be created? 
This gets into the same choice for predominant form that the LC-PCC Policy 
Statements get into, given the constraints of MARC.

>>... one is stuck with multiple 300 fields, or 300$e ...

>Nothing wrong with repeating 300 and/or $e, or a general unit name and
>a 505, e.g.:  300  $a1 kit (various pieces) 


The Carrier Type has more in common with repeating 007 fields, where all 
related characteristics are grouped together.

The point was that the 300 field combines multiple short bits of information, 
and other related bits are scattered elsewhere in the record, perhaps stitched 
together with a $3 field. Too much has been abbreviated and crammed into 300$b 
for the specific characteristics, when there is a great need for controlled 
vocabulary and discrete data elements.

If a kit contained an audio cassette where is the early warning that an 
intermediary device is required? Obviously, "kit" belongs to a different 
element, as it describes the nature of the contents, and not in any way the 
specific physical characteristics of the media involved. Nothing wrong with 
local adjustments to fit the limitations of a particular system, but it's in 
modeling the data correctly that these things will best be resolved. For 
example, I've used the MARC leader code for a kit (and generated a nice icon 
for a book club kit) but used RDA conventions for the rest where the different 
carriers and units of extent are spelled out. It's very clear, and "kit" works 
well as a different kind of element working in a different capacity from the 
co

Re: [RDA-L] Displaying media terms

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

>>One of the problems with showing 336 followed by 338 is that
>>multi-carrier or hybrid resources have sets of these fields that may
>>not align to create a single value for a "Format" field display.

>I prefer displaying 338 before 336, because the 338 terms align better
>with GMDs in legacy records.


337 Media Type aligns most frequently with the GMD:

video = videorecording
audio = sound recording
computer = electronic resource
microform = microform
projected [for moving images] = motion picture


There are otherwise no other good alignments with the GMD since the GMD was all 
over the map. Sometimes Content Type would be referenced ([text], [cartographic 
material]), and other times Carrier Type ([filmstrip], [slide]), and other 
times a non-general unit of extent ([model], [toy]).



>The MRIs suggest that for multi-carriers, the media terms be preceded
>by to what part of the resource it applies, e.g., CD: performed music,

>MARC21 33X $3 does that well, and works whether one line or two.


In some cases that can be useful, but in others not so much. Online resources 
will have one Carrier Type term and potentially several Content Type terms.

In addition, for Carrier Type and all other characteristics, RDA 3.1.4.2 
actually proposes something like a 007 fixed field, where all associated values 
for each carrier are stacked together. Because of the sloppiness of AACR2 and 
MARC, this is actually difficult to do with current encoding. One is stuck with 
multiple 300 fields, or 300$e, plus new 34X fields, or crushed together in 
300$b which may be crowded with expression data independent of the carrier 
("color", "sound"). Subfield $3 can play a role, sprinkled about with these 
fields.


No, MARC does not do some things well, and AACR2 is much to blame.


>>In RDA, the element name is an important part of the meaning of the
>>overall data.

>Unless the element name is nonsense to public service staff or
>patrons.  Remember the Dublin Core cataloguer who entered the person
>who gave the item to the library in "Contributor"?  Language is
>ambiguous.  (Love those non ambiguous MARC field tags.)


MARC field tags are overburdened because AACR2 lumps too many concepts together 
as the threshold AACR2 had to meet went no further than the minimum required 
for catalog card creation.

In RDA, one isn't just filling in fields willy-nilly. That's the blinkered 
thinking AACR2 has forced upon us by cramming too many unrelated concepts into 
a constrained space. "Contributor" isn't just dangling there, ambiguously. For 
"Contributor" one is explicitly declaring a relationship between an Expression 
and a Person, which is how the data entry forms should be presented. One is 
making a relationship, not supplying a name as an attribute as if filling in a 
tax form.

The future encoding would need to have this:



In fact, I have used RDA relationship designators for item-level relationships. 
A genealogical society has deposited items with us, and I added the RDA 
designator "depositor" after an access point for them.

 is the ideal form.

Instead, we're stuck the awful MARC choices of:

710 2_ $aCorporate Body,$edepositor

I did take advantage of the $3 option to add information that the 710 refers to 
specific items attached to the record.


>IMNSHO the unlabeled ISBD display has not been improved upon.  Many
>labels are sometimes wrong (e.g., non authors in 100),


Except that doesn't happen in RDA. "Author" is only assigned to authors. 
"Creator" is only assigned to creators. Print constants abound in MARC as well, 
but many unadorned notes are disconnected from their antecedents. It's absurdly 
circular reasoning to criticize labels when the starting point is AACR2, which 
created the mess in the first place.


Years ago, and even recently, I encountered library users at the reference desk 
who handed me something like this, thinking it must be some code for a call 
number or location, as it looked otherwise otherworldly:

ii, 137 p. : ill. ; 23 cm

Many times the truncated, unlabelled clumps of data in traditional records have 
produced the wrong results, and created havoc for system designers who know 
much more could be done with cataloging data if it wasn't for the conventions 
which have crippled catalog records for too long.


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] RDA cheat sheet request

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

> -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: September-12-13 12:20 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA cheat sheet request
> 
...

> 
> An idea in Sevim's video which I found new and helpful was to suppress
> display of 337 media type, and to display 336 text and 338 carrier in one line
> as "Format:".  KSU's public service staff reaction that "Carrier" means an
> airline or other mode of transporation was interesting, and points up RDA's
> nonstandard use of English.
> 
> The MRIs also suggest not displaying 337, and to display [338 : 336] at head 
> of
> all other data, or after 245$a, where the GMD displayed.


One of the problems with showing 336 followed by 338 is that multi-carrier or 
hybrid resources have sets of these fields that may not align to create a 
single value for a "Format" field display.


The method we have chosen is to display two elements: Content Type and Carrier 
Type (Media Type, 337, is an attribute of the Carrier Type and so not needed 
for display.)

In the brief display, the Content Type values are shown on one line and Carrier 
Type values on another line. In the full display they are shown stacked.

In RDA, the element name is an important part of the meaning of the overall 
data. While the label can be changed, and indeed any controlled vocabulary term 
such as Content Type and Carrier Type can have different surface values as well 
(eventually), there is value in keeping the data elements separate and linked 
to a label.

Content Type and Carrier Type are the means by which record format is handled 
in RDA. They do not determine record types as in MARC, but function more like 
facets. The Content Type is an expression facet and the Carrier Type is a 
manifestation facet, and there is utility in keeping them separate.

In some tests I've run in a test database, this is the kind of display that 
could result (one work, two expressions, four manifestations):

Vision in white
by Roberts Nora
[part of the brief record repeated for the following:]


Content Type: text
Carrier Type: volume

Content Type: text
Carrier Type: online resource

Content Type: spoken word
Carrier Type: online resource

Content Type: spoken word
Carrier Type: audio disc


It's easier to identify and select the right resource with the values laid out 
like this.


For complex and hybrid resources, one might have something like this:

Content Type:
text
notated music
spoken word
performed music

Carrier type:
volume
audio disc


With complex resources like these, the RDA elements can sometimes work better 
than icons generated from fixed fields. There are some icons for hybrid 
resources I've been able to use, but I've found the fixed field approach can 
sometimes lead to incorrect icons or icons that don't capture the range of 
carrier and content types.


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Composite identities/pseudonyms in RDA?

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

 

> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Galletta, Rosanne
> Sent: September-10-13 3:10 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: [RDA-L] Composite identities/pseudonyms in RDA?
> 
> Cross-posting to PCC-List. Please excuse duplication.
> --
> --
> -
> I have a question about how to set up a composite identity/pseudonym in
> RDA. I am cataloging a CIP (ECIP) book by Lloyd Johnson, The Beginner's
> Guide to Growing Marijuana. There are several Lloyd Johnsons in OCLC, but it
> is apparently a pen name in this case, actually a composite of two different
> authors, Alicia Williamson and  Catherine Abbott. I found the relevant rule in
> RDA for pseudonyms (9.2.2.8) and read the corresponding LC PCC PS, but it
> doesn't explain what to do about composite identities or how to
> differentiate from another Lloyd Johnson in this case.


The examples in RDA 9.2.2.8 include joint pseudonyms (examples include Wade 
Miller, Zizou Corder, Ellery Queen, and T.W.O.).

With joint pseudonyms, one is likely constructing three entities (all still 
called "Persons" in RDA). To join them, refer to the relationship chapters, 
specifically RDA 30, Related Persons.

The relationship designators to use for Related Persons are listed in Appendix 
K. In this case, use the designators "alternate identity" and "real identity".

There is also an associated subelement for Related Person called "Explanation 
of Relationship" (RDA 30.2, mapped to MARC authority 663).

In RDA, for Wade Miller, one would specify a joint pseudonym this way:



Miller, Wade

Relationship elements:

element: Related Person: Miller, Bill, 1920-1961
subelement: Relationship Designator: real identity
subelement: Explanation of Relationship: Joint pseudonym of Bill Miller and Bob 
Wade.

element: Related Person: Wade, Bob, 1920-
subelement: Relationship Designator: real identity
subelement: Explanation of Relationship: Joint pseudonym of Bill Miller and Bob 
Wade.


In MARC, one just enters the explanation once:
663 $aJoint pseudonym of Bill Miller and Bob Wade.



In addition, there is a subelement called "Cataloguer's Note" (RDA 29.7, mapped 
to MARC authority 667) for instructions for other cataloguers, if needed.



Going back to RDA Chapter 9 and adding elements to distinguish identical names 
one can start with the elements that are used for authorized access points:

RDA 9.19.1.1 -- add elements listed in RDA 9.19.1.2 to 9.19.1.7. These include 
titles, dates, fuller form of name, period of activity, term of rank, or other 
designation.

It's likely the element "Other Designation Associated with the Person" that 
would be most useful in this case. The instructions for the element by itself 
are in RDA 9.6. Here, one finds standard terms like "saint" or "spirit." In RDA 
9.6.1.9, if no other attribute is sufficient, then one constructs an 
appropriate designation. The LC-PCC PS says just to be "sufficiently specific".

For providing notes on the decisions about the authorized access point, there 
is another "Cataloguer's Note", this time an attribute element under Person 
(RDA 8.13, mapped to several MARC authority tags) and, if unavoidable, 
"Undifferentiated Name Indicator" (RDA 8.11).


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Source and coding of data

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

>>All well and good but not relevant for the topic that was raised --
>>the basis for including a possible date of publication ...

>The topic under discussion was a cataloguer's reluctance to use a
>publication date "nowhere on the piece" which he learned from the
>author.

The suggested solution also referenced MARC 588, with a comment that there was 
incomplete mapping in RDA. The RDA elements, because they're arranged more 
logically by entity-attribute-relationship, have an internal logically 
structure that cannot be dependent on MARC given the slapdash way MARC has 
sprouted fields over the years, and its original design to support the 
constraints of 5x3 cards. The mappings are essentially all there, but with more 
consistency in RDA, with MARC occasionally having greater granularity in some 
cases (such as public vs non-public fields).

In RDA, there is a specific element comparable to 588 "Note on Issue, Part, or 
Iteration Used as the Basis for Identification of Resource", but for other 
notes for cataloguers, RDA has separated that out with subelements for 
Cataloguer's Notes for relationship information for the various types of 
relationships. Otherwise, data annotating attribute elements are entered under 
the corresponding "Note on..." subelement, including the source used for data 
in the element.


For the note indicating where the information came from, RDA 2.2.4 (Other 
Sources of Information) points to RDA 2.20 (Note on Manifestation or Item).

So the original question is answered by RDA-- the subelement under 2.20, Note 
on Publication Statement (RDA 2.20.7, because this is specifically an 
annotation on the date of publication), is to be used "to indicate that the 
information is supplied from a source outside the resource itself."


Anything like the following should work:

RDA:
Date of Publication: [2013]

Note on Publication Statement: Date of publication 2013 based on email from 
author, Sept. 5, 2013.


MARC:
500 __ $aDate of publication 2013 based on email from author, Sept. 5, 2013.


The fallback position would be to use a probable range of years (RDA 1.9.2.4) 
using the information that was available (such as not before 2011 based on 
information in text):

Date of publication: [between 2011 and 2013?]

This would cover the probable years for publication 2011, 2012, and 2013, and a 
note may be useful as well.



Again, the specific instruction in RDA asks to exhaust all reasonable 
possibilities for even just approximate dates first:
RDA 2.8.6.6:
If an approximate date of publication for a single-part resource cannot 
reasonably be determined, record "date of publication not identified".

Unlike the allowance of stowaway data in AACR2, copyright date and distribution 
date don't get to perch in the Date of Publication element, as that is not what 
the data element means. This is also more consistent with how 008/07-11 is 
presented, as my system just presents this date as Date of Publication-- when 
it's often a probable date of publication based on the copyright date or 
distribution date. 260$c's "Date of publication, distribution, etc." looks like 
a silly run-on comment to display.


Some of the difficulties in RDA shouldn't be too surprising. In recasting AACR2 
to fit a more modern structure, this means all the warts, flaws, workarounds, 
kludges, inconsistencies, and decisions driven by outmoded constraints would 
all come to the surface. There is more work to be done, and that will involve 
using the new extensible structure of RDA to create better catalogs and go 
beyond just what was in AACR2, as well as gradually retiring and replacing the 
remaining AACR2 kludges and limitations.


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Source and coding of data

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: September-07-13 1:38 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Source and coding of data

>Thomas said:

>>In RDA, the 588 is mapped only to the note for the issue used as the
>>basis for identification of the resource (as used for serials and
>>multipart monographs).

>Not the only example of incomplete mapping.

>Field 588, like 246, while beginning life as a serial related field,
>may have other uses.  This is one of the examples in MARC:

>588 ## Description based on print version record.


All well and good but not relevant for the topic that was raised -- the basis 
for including a possible date of publication, which should really be in a note 
annotating the publication statement (which has only the date of publication 
information and not other stowaways as in MARC 260$c such as the copyright date 
or distribution date).



>One of the major problems with MARC is no logical order to notes,
>e.g., separating 506 and 540.  Having some source notes in 500 (as
>MARC 588 directs for notes giving source of title) and some almost as
>far away as possible in 588, does not give good patron service.  This
>is more of a problem in systems which can only display in tag order,
>but in other systems you have the additional time required to try to
>create some logical order.  I hope Bibframe does a better job of note
>order.

>>RDA is superior to AACR2 and MARC in that notes are organized as
>>annotations on the basic elements, and they are labelled as such.

>That's no help in MARC. 


To the extent that MARC now supports new RDA elements, it's quite possible to 
create very flexible displays. I already have several new fields displayed: all 
five flavors of the 264 with separate labels, Content Type, Carrier Type, and 
Date of Work. Notes are a weak point, and reflect the need to move on to a new 
standard that doesn't assume the constraints of a 5X3 catalog card.



>It remains to be seen what happens in
>Bibframe.  So far Bibframe does not seem to be very influenced by RDA,
>e.g., RDA's Work/Expression/Manifestation/Item  vs. Bibframe's'
>Work/Instance.

Bibframe's Work is a container for works and expressions, just as Bibframe 
Authority is a container for various authority types: Family, Jurisdiction, 
Meeting, Organization, Person, Place, Topic, Classification, and Temporal 
Concept. Even at that a Bibframe Authority is more of a bridge device and not a 
replacement for full library authority records (which would have the 
information about authorized access points). Bib"frame" is just that at this 
point -- a framework in development that can support of all of RDA and other 
standards.



Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

This misses the point that RDA always has a date as a core element. The core 
if... language points to the cascading use of other dates such as copyright 
date, and then only if a date of publication "cannot reasonably be determined". 
The core if ... instructions provide the sequence of preferences:

publication date > distribution date > copyright date > manufacture date

It's inappropriate and misleading to suggest that RDA leaves things hanging 
with only an "unidentified" value for date.


The LC-PCC Policy Statements provide additional guidelines about how to form a 
reasonable date of publication from the copyright, distribution, or manufacture 
date information. In those cases square brackets are used even if the date is 
inferred from other dates found on the piece.


The element for supplying information about a source of the date is also 
covered in the "Note on Publication Statement Element" (RDA 2.20.7 -- MARC 500).

In RDA, the 588 is mapped only to the note for the issue used as the basis for 
identification of the resource (as used for serials and multipart monographs).

RDA is superior to AACR2 and MARC in that notes are organized as annotations on 
the basic elements, and they are labelled as such. If the information pertains 
to the date in the publication statement then it's an explicit note on the 
publication statement. Your recommendation for the 588 is ironic, since the 
many of the choices available in AACR2/MARC often force one into using less 
explicit elements and encodings than what is possible with RDA.



Example:

RDA:

Note on publication statement: Probable year of publication based on date range 
in which the publisher was active.


MARC:

500 __ $aProbable year of publication based on date range in which the 
publisher was active.


For external sources, RDA's language is "any other available source" and the 
LC-PCC PS language is "a source outside a resource itself." There doesn't seem 
to be a point to start enumerating possible external sources in the 
instructions as RDA's language covers the universe.



Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library




From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: September-07-13 12:24 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication

Gary Oliver:

>I only know the date because I emailed the author;  it is no where on
>the piece.  Adding this date, especially without a note, is
>deceptive.  The AACr2 practice of n.d  was much better.

If you know the date *give it*!!  Where the data came from is the
function of 588.

AACR2 did NOT have "n.d."  AACR2 instructs one to guess the century,
decade, or year, e.g., [20--], [201-], [2013?].  Even the century is
better for patrons than the earlier "n.d." or RDA's "not identified".
But in this case you are *not* guessing, so no question mark needed;
you have an authoritative source, the author.

A source outside the item gets brackets, as opposed to AACR2's
brackets if not in the prime source.  In RDA brackets *mean* the data
is "nowhere on the piece".  There is no rule justification for
omitting core information you have, regardless of source.  As others
have indicated, the provision at d) should be interpreted to include
you e-mail; granted the instruction could be more explicit, but that's
true of much of RDA.


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

Re: [RDA-L] Relator terms relation to work

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

"Judge" and similar relationship designators are already handled quite well in 
RDA.

There are two relationship elements to a work:

1. Creator

2. Other Person, Family or Corporate Body Associated with a Work


Under the second relationship element would fall such designators for roles 
that led to the creation of the work, such as judge, consultant, honouree, 
addressee, host institution, sponsoring body.

Such persons or bodies become core elements (RDA 18.3) when they are also used 
to form the first part of the authorized access point for the work, as 
indicated for special kinds of works in RDA Chapters 6.27-6.31. "Defendant" is 
such a role, and the instructions for the authorized access point for the court 
proceedings are in RDA 6.29.1.24. A "defendant" is not a creator in RDA.

Also, the absence of a specific designator does not preclude a person or body 
from being associated with a work. There are many cases where a relationship 
element exists but no specific designator exists.

There is great value in the lists of designators in the RDA appendixes. These 
can be viewed as a useful compendium of all the reasons access points are made, 
and the lists include the roles identified in AACR2 as important for added 
entries. Recording the designator serves to encode the thinking behind 
catalogers' decisions for access points, as does the broader relationship 
element which at a minimum establishes the basic category of relationship and 
that is needed at times for functional devices such as access points for works. 


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library
 

> -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: September-03-13 4:23 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: [RDA-L] Relator terms relation to work
> 
> I've forgotten whether it was on Autocat or RDA-L that someone raised an
> objection to "chairperson" as the relator term for the chair of the issuing
> committee, saying the person was not chair of the work.
> 
> The same could be said of other relators, e.g., "judge".  The person is the
> judge of the case described in the work, not of the work itself.
> 
> I suspect most patrons could figure out what is meant in these cases.
> 
> 
>__   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
>   {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
>   ___} |__
> \__

Re: [RDA-L] Bibliographic 380

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

"Large print" is mapped to 340 $n, although it hasn't appeared there yet 
(currently "(large print)" is free text found after the pagination in 300$a).

The RDA element name is Font Size, and this is a manifestation element.

It is extremely important that "Large print" not be used as a work element such 
as 380. Adding it as a work element is the same as saying a new work has been 
created since it would function as a distinguishing element. From a database 
design perspective that would create a mess because the work is independent not 
only of the different publications and formats in which is found, but also of 
the different ways it can be expressed (text or spoken word, for example).

In addition, the value in 380 is the same that can be used as a qualifier after 
the preferred title in the authorized access point for the work. The primary 
purpose of this element is to assist in identifying the work. Terms like "kit" 
and "equipment" seem appropriate.

There is also the RDA work element "Nature of the Content" which is a place for 
more complex phrasing that one doesn't also want to use as a qualifier. 
Unfortunately, there is no 1:1 mapping in MARC, as its values can be found in 
various places (245$k, 513$a, 516$a, 520$a,$b,$u).

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library




From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: August-29-13 12:47 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Bibliographic 380

Thank you Thomas for letting me know that 380 may be used in
bibliographic records.  (One cataloguer reports seeing them in some
records for Blu-rays.)

We don't want to use it if redundant with data in other fields,
particularly 33X.  We depend on 008/33 letter codes (added to MARC21
from CanMARC) for literary form, although Margaret Mann advocated a
bracketed term added to title, much like the later GMD.  Her example
was I seem to remember "Fire [poems]".

The following has been added to the RDA editing and monograph
cataloguing cheat sheets:


380  Form of work

May be used with or without $2 source code.

[Assign a clarifying term if 33X do not adequately describe the
nature of the resource, e.g., kit, large print, equipment. computer
game.]


Thomas, I expect you to not agree with one or more of these terms,
particularly large print.  It is good to have a field not restricted
to a set list of terms. No finite list can cover all possible
situations.


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

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

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

MARC Bibliographic has Form of Work as well...

http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd380.html

Many work and expression elements are now found in both bibliographic and 
authority records.



While computer file-based resources in MARC are required to have either 
LDR/06=m or 006/00=m, that corresponding idea of "computer program" (or 
"computer dataset") doesn't seem to carry over to Content Type as an equal 
requirement.

For example, E-book records are "language material" in the Leader field, and 
require a 006/00=m, but that doesn't mean there's also a Content Type = 
computer program to go with Content Type = text for e-books.

If there is no expectation that the video game can also be installed on a 
computer like other applications (only available therefore for dedicated game 
consoles), then it appears "computer program" isn't being used as a Content 
Type for those video games.


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

From: J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: August-28-13 5:58 PM
To: Brenndorfer, Thomas
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Content/Media/Carrier Types - Video Games

Thomas said:

>For LDR/06=m, the preference is to use it in case of doubt, but to
>prefer another code for Type of Record if the aspect brought out
>(language material, music, moving image) is most significant. RDA
>tilts towards two-dimensional moving image as the significant aspect
>for video games.

Most but not all computer games have moving images.  Unless
"computer program" is used, there would be no content term in common
among all computer games.

>The records also clarify that 380 Form of Work is used for "Video
>games."

According to MARC21, 380 is an authority field.  Are you saying we
should use it in bibliographic records?


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

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

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

The two RDA examples for video games on this page are informative:

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


While LDR/06=m is used, treating the video games as a computer file record 
type, that is not reflected exactly in the 336 Content Types. Both records have 
a 336 for two-dimensional moving image, but only one has a 336 for computer 
program. The disc that is used only with a game console doesn't have a Content 
Type = computer program.

For LDR/06=m, the preference is to use it in case of doubt, but to prefer 
another code for Type of Record if the aspect brought out (language material, 
music, moving image) is most significant. RDA tilts towards two-dimensional 
moving image as the significant aspect for video games.

The records also clarify that 380 Form of Work is used for "Video games." RDA 
does not leave things up in the air when there is a need to tell people what 
the resource is. The nature of the resource is covered in several elements, and 
338 Content Type only deals with very broad categories of aspects of the 
fundamental communication of the content. Shoehorning unrelated data into an 
element would only bring back messes like the GMD which packed in too many 
overlapping concepts and which was pulled off in different directions to 
squeeze bits of infromation into the limits of traditional displays.

I'm currently testing out PAC displays that bring forward very useful elements 
such Form of Work and Date of Work. There is great potential with the new RDA 
element set approach to create displays that are both informative and quick to 
glance through.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library




From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: August-28-13 12:54 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Content/Media/Carrier Types - Video Games

Katrina Gormley asked:

>What Content/Media/Carrier Types are people using for Video games


336  $acomputer program$2rdacontent
336  $atwo-dimensional moving image$2rdacontent*
336  $aperformed music$2rdaconten * **
336  $aspoken word$2rdacontnt**
336  $atext$2rdacontent**
336  $asounds$2rdacontent**

If you follow the RDA option of single most important, I would use
"computer program", although a computer game is not a what most
patrons think of as a program (something one applies to data).  It
seems to me a content term for interactive resources is needed.

In assigning content terms, I think we should adopt a middle course
between single most important and all which might apply.  Would anyone
go to a computer game for text, spoken word, performed music, or
sounds, even though the game might have all of those?  It's on that
bases that I don't think we should apply "still image" to all
illustrated items; only if a patron would go to the item for the
images, e.g., an exhibition catalogue, an art book.


337  $acomputer$2rdamedia***

338  $acomputer disc$2rdacarrier

*or 336  $aimage (moving)$2isbdcontent; also some games are still
image, so of all computer games are to have the same content term,
"computer program" is a better choice than "... moving image".

**as applicable

***or  337  $aelectronic$2isbdmedia

or 338  $aonline resource$2rdacarrier if online

OCLC will be accepting $2isbd for content and media in November.  ISBD
does not have carrier terms.

In the absense of a content term which actually tells the patron what
the resource is, it is important to have "computer game" as the unit
name.



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

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

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

There are often other perceptions involved with individual content types, 
according to the RDA-ONIX Framework. The focus is on the intent for how the 
content is to be primarily perceived. There can be other incidentals with 
content type, including taking the content and using it in other ways than for 
which it was primarily intended (closing one's eyes and listening to the music 
of a movie, for example).

A spreadsheet document can be considered "text." Interactive creative content 
may contain other content types. But a copy of Excel in a box on the shelf 
falls under the "computer program" content type. The primary purpose of the 
content is to get the computer to operate, among which may include establishing 
input and output methods, but I wouldn't consider the programming code (the 
actual creative and intellectual content) itself as intended for people to 
perceive and decode in their heads.

Computer programs are instructions primarily for computers to take in. People 
don't interact directly with the digitally encoded instructions, but only 
indirectly and incidentally through any input and output components arising.

If anything, RDA establishes "computer dataset" not "computer program" as the 
content type where catalogers are directed to use other content types. If the 
intent of the dataset is for direct human perception, then the instruction in 
RDA for "computer dataset" is to use any of the other visual or audio content 
types as appropriate. It's the creative and intellectual content arising from 
the data that is directly perceived by people, and the Content Type gets at the 
senses and human faculties involved to take in that creative and intellectual 
content. If the raw data is used by the computer to perform its functions, 
perhaps even independently of human operators, then the content type remains 
"computer dataset."

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library


From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse 
[babra...@mit.edu]
Sent: August-28-13 10:34 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Content/Media/Carrier Types - Video Games

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 Carri

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

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

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] Extent -- some ideas

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

That separation of content and carrier is what makes sense. In much the same 
way that the different concepts in the GMD were unpacked, the Extent element 
needs to go further than it has, and currently it looks compromised because of 
the need for backwards-compatibility for the compact displays in traditional 
catalog displays.

An example like "26 unnumbered pages of plates" shows that Extent of "Text" is 
not the right concept to apply, as the plates may include nothing but 
illustrations. RDA 3.4.5.1 also pushes the boundaries when it indicates that 
Extent of Text can also be used as subunits in an atlas and in a resource 
consisting of notated music.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joan Wang 
[jw...@illinoisheartland.org]
Sent: August-21-13 9:55 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Extent -- some ideas

My initial thought is to separate carrier from content. Carrier types and 
extent of carrier should be defined irrelevant of content. A sheet is a sheet. 
A volume is a volume, no matter what content is on or in. They all are about 
physical objects in your hand. Pagination seems to be a part of some carriers. 
So if a carrier type includes a pagination, record it.

Apparently RDA attempts to use pagination instead of volume to record extent of 
volumes mainly with text. But it forgets that not only text could be carried by 
a  volume. I feel that is why it causes a trouble :-)

Thanks,
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System


On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Brenndorfer, Thomas 
mailto:tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca>> 
wrote:
Use subelements under Pagination.


Example of similar situation:

Element: Dimensions
SubElement: Dimensions of Map, Etc.
SubElement: Dimensions of Still Image

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library


From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>] On Behalf 
Of Laurence S. Creider [lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu<mailto:lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu>]
Sent: August-20-13 5:45 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Extent -- some ideas

I am with you until, "The other benefit to treating Pagination as a
separate element is that it's unique in that the measurement isn't usually
based on the actual number of pages, but on the recording of the last
numbered page."

How would this be different from recording the complete sequences of pages
(whether paginated or not), as one does in the description of early
printed materials and in using DCRM(B)?

Thank you,
Larry

--
Laurence S. Creider
Head, Archives and Special Collections Dept.
University Library
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM  88003
Work: 575-646-4756
Fax: 575-646-7477
lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu<mailto:lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu>

On Tue, August 20, 2013 1:53 pm, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
> On the topic of improving the idea of "Extent," this discussion paper is
> on the right track:
>
> http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ALA-Discussion-1.pdf
>
> The main problem has its source in cramming too many overlapping ideas
> into the 300$a field. There are different things being counted.
>
> Extent of Expression and Extent of Manifestation are the first
> distinctions that should be made. Extent of Notated Music is unabashedly
> an expression level measurement as the terms are pulled from the
> expression element in RDA 7.20.1.3. Cartographic resources and still
> images often don't have the same measurement as the number of carrier
> units (as in "1 atlas (2 volumes)" or "1 print on 24 sheets").
>
> The norm for Extent should be the number of carrier type units,
> accompanied by carrier subunits as appropriate:
>
> Carrier type: audio disc
> Extent: 3 audio discs
>
> Carrier type: filmstrip
> Extent: 1 filmstrip (28 frames)
>
>
> I do have an issue with Extent of Text, in that this measurement shouldn't
> be associated just with text. The other problem is that pagination
> subunits aren't just associated with physical volumes either. Consider the
> example in RDA 3.4.1.7.1: "1 computer disc (xv pages, 150 maps)" or in RDA
> 3.4.1.7.4: "3 microfiches (1 score (118 pages))".
>
>
> For those reasons I would treat Pagination as a new independent element
> under Extent of Manifestation, to be used wherever it is appropriate.
>
> To make this work one would have to count out every Extent measurement. To
> recreate the classic catalog card display as found in 300$a, one would
> have to follow rules and/or algorithms to collapse some

Re: [RDA-L] recording on unnumbered plates

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Sian Woolcock 
[sian.woolc...@adelaide.edu.au]
Sent: August-20-13 8:45 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] recording on unnumbered plates



>However once you get to the end of the chapter it states

>“Exception
>Early printed resources. For early printed resources, if the leaves and pages 
>of plates are numbered, or if there are both numbered and >unnumbered plates, 
>record each sequence of leaves and pages of plates in the appropriate terms.

>EXAMPLE
>246 pages, 38 leaves of plates, 24 pages of plates

>Disregard unnumbered sequences of plates,”


>So my question is, are we disregarding all unnumbered sequences of plates or 
>just ones in Early printed resources? Toolkit is a bit >unclear.





"Disregard unnumbered sequences of plates" begins a new part of the 
instruction. In the cases you do include unnumbered sequences of plates one 
also has to use the word "unnumbered", as in the RDA examples:

... 43 unnumbered leaves of plates

... 19 unnumbered pages of plates

The use of qualifier "unnumbered" is also covered in RDA 3.4.5.8.


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Extent -- some ideas

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

Use subelements under Pagination.


Example of similar situation:

Element: Dimensions
SubElement: Dimensions of Map, Etc.
SubElement: Dimensions of Still Image

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library


From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Laurence S. Creider 
[lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu]
Sent: August-20-13 5:45 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Extent -- some ideas

I am with you until, "The other benefit to treating Pagination as a
separate element is that it's unique in that the measurement isn't usually
based on the actual number of pages, but on the recording of the last
numbered page."

How would this be different from recording the complete sequences of pages
(whether paginated or not), as one does in the description of early
printed materials and in using DCRM(B)?

Thank you,
Larry

--
Laurence S. Creider
Head, Archives and Special Collections Dept.
University Library
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM  88003
Work: 575-646-4756
Fax: 575-646-7477
lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu

On Tue, August 20, 2013 1:53 pm, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
> On the topic of improving the idea of "Extent," this discussion paper is
> on the right track:
>
> http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ALA-Discussion-1.pdf
>
> The main problem has its source in cramming too many overlapping ideas
> into the 300$a field. There are different things being counted.
>
> Extent of Expression and Extent of Manifestation are the first
> distinctions that should be made. Extent of Notated Music is unabashedly
> an expression level measurement as the terms are pulled from the
> expression element in RDA 7.20.1.3. Cartographic resources and still
> images often don't have the same measurement as the number of carrier
> units (as in "1 atlas (2 volumes)" or "1 print on 24 sheets").
>
> The norm for Extent should be the number of carrier type units,
> accompanied by carrier subunits as appropriate:
>
> Carrier type: audio disc
> Extent: 3 audio discs
>
> Carrier type: filmstrip
> Extent: 1 filmstrip (28 frames)
>
>
> I do have an issue with Extent of Text, in that this measurement shouldn't
> be associated just with text. The other problem is that pagination
> subunits aren't just associated with physical volumes either. Consider the
> example in RDA 3.4.1.7.1: "1 computer disc (xv pages, 150 maps)" or in RDA
> 3.4.1.7.4: "3 microfiches (1 score (118 pages))".
>
>
> For those reasons I would treat Pagination as a new independent element
> under Extent of Manifestation, to be used wherever it is appropriate.
>
> To make this work one would have to count out every Extent measurement. To
> recreate the classic catalog card display as found in 300$a, one would
> have to follow rules and/or algorithms to collapse some measurements into
> the original compact displayed form.
>
> So for example, a book would be:
>
> Carrier Type: volume
> Extent of Carrier: 1 volume
> Pagination: xiv, 383 pages
>
> Traditional display: xiv, 383 pages
>
>
>
> But where the units of extent draw in the Carrier Type (from RDA
> 3.4.5.17), the logic of this arrangement becomes more apparent:
>
> Carrier Type: volume
> Extent of Carrier: 3 volumes
> Pagination: xx, 300 pages
>
> Traditional display: 3 volumes (xx, 800 pages)
>
>
> Such a clean and logical separation would do wonders.
>
>
> Consider atlases in RDA 3.4.2.5 in this way:
>
> 1 atlas (1 volume (various pagings))
>
> would be encoded as:
>
> Content Type: cartographic image
> Extent of Cartographic Resource: 1 atlas
> Carrier Type: volume
> Extent of Carrier: 1 volume
> Pagination: various pagings
>
> where Extent of Cartographic Resource would be under a new Extent of
> Expression element.
>
>
> Consider notated music in this way:
>
> 1 score (viii, 278 pages)
>
> Content Type: notated music
> Extent of Notated Music: 1 score
> Carrier Type: volume
> Extent of Carrier: 1 volume
> Pagination: viii, 278 pages
>
>
>
> Another example of multiple things being measured-- here we see Extent of
> Manifestation, Extent of Expression, and Pagination all together:
>
> 3 microfiches (1 score (118 pages))
>
> Content Type: notated music
> Extent of Notated Music: 1 score
> Carrier Type: microfiche
> Extent of Carrier: 3 microfiches
> Pagination: 118 pages
>
>
> The other benefit to treating Pagination as a separate element is that
> it's unique in that the measurement isn't usually based on the actual
> number of pages, but on the recording of the last numbered page.
>
>
> Thomas Brenndorfer
> Guelph Public Library

[RDA-L] Extent -- some ideas

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

On the topic of improving the idea of "Extent," this discussion paper is on the 
right track:

http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ALA-Discussion-1.pdf

The main problem has its source in cramming too many overlapping ideas into the 
300$a field. There are different things being counted.

Extent of Expression and Extent of Manifestation are the first distinctions 
that should be made. Extent of Notated Music is unabashedly an expression level 
measurement as the terms are pulled from the expression element in RDA 
7.20.1.3. Cartographic resources and still images often don't have the same 
measurement as the number of carrier units (as in "1 atlas (2 volumes)" or "1 
print on 24 sheets").

The norm for Extent should be the number of carrier type units, accompanied by 
carrier subunits as appropriate:

Carrier type: audio disc
Extent: 3 audio discs

Carrier type: filmstrip
Extent: 1 filmstrip (28 frames)


I do have an issue with Extent of Text, in that this measurement shouldn't be 
associated just with text. The other problem is that pagination subunits aren't 
just associated with physical volumes either. Consider the example in RDA 
3.4.1.7.1: "1 computer disc (xv pages, 150 maps)" or in RDA 3.4.1.7.4: "3 
microfiches (1 score (118 pages))".


For those reasons I would treat Pagination as a new independent element under 
Extent of Manifestation, to be used wherever it is appropriate.

To make this work one would have to count out every Extent measurement. To 
recreate the classic catalog card display as found in 300$a, one would have to 
follow rules and/or algorithms to collapse some measurements into the original 
compact displayed form.

So for example, a book would be:

Carrier Type: volume
Extent of Carrier: 1 volume
Pagination: xiv, 383 pages

Traditional display: xiv, 383 pages



But where the units of extent draw in the Carrier Type (from RDA 3.4.5.17), the 
logic of this arrangement becomes more apparent:

Carrier Type: volume
Extent of Carrier: 3 volumes
Pagination: xx, 300 pages

Traditional display: 3 volumes (xx, 800 pages)


Such a clean and logical separation would do wonders.


Consider atlases in RDA 3.4.2.5 in this way:

1 atlas (1 volume (various pagings))

would be encoded as:

Content Type: cartographic image
Extent of Cartographic Resource: 1 atlas
Carrier Type: volume
Extent of Carrier: 1 volume
Pagination: various pagings

where Extent of Cartographic Resource would be under a new Extent of Expression 
element.


Consider notated music in this way:

1 score (viii, 278 pages)

Content Type: notated music
Extent of Notated Music: 1 score
Carrier Type: volume
Extent of Carrier: 1 volume
Pagination: viii, 278 pages



Another example of multiple things being measured-- here we see Extent of 
Manifestation, Extent of Expression, and Pagination all together:

3 microfiches (1 score (118 pages))

Content Type: notated music
Extent of Notated Music: 1 score
Carrier Type: microfiche
Extent of Carrier: 3 microfiches
Pagination: 118 pages


The other benefit to treating Pagination as a separate element is that it's 
unique in that the measurement isn't usually based on the actual number of 
pages, but on the recording of the last numbered page.


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print?

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mitchell, Michael
> Sent: August-01-13 9:10 AM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print?
> 
> -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, July 31, 2013 8:26 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print?
> 
> [...]
> Currently we require:
> 008 fixed field -- this generates a Large Print icon and facet term; it also
> shows up at the end of a title in the Title Browse index)
> 300 $a ... (large print) -- this is the current placeholder for the RDA Font 
> Size
> element; 340$n would be its replacement, and I would put that in the Brief
> Display as well
> 650 Large type books
> 
> [...]
> 
> Thomas Brenndorfer
> Guelph Public Library
> 
> 
> Since we are not analyzing books ABOUT large type books, one should use,
> rather than a 650 Topical subject, a 655 _0 Large type books. Particularly if
> one is trying to engage in some consistent separation of elements and
> precision in description.
> 
> Michael Mitchell
> Technical Services Librarian
> Brazosport College
> Lake Jackson, TX
> Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu



That is on my to-do list. Because so many other new 655 headings have occupied 
my time over the last few years (these are the LC authorized ones), changing 
the 650 for Large type books has not been a priority, especially as we get 
records from multiple sources, many of which continue to use 650 (including LC).

It would be about a 15-minute batch job to change just under 5000 large print 
bibliographic records.

There does seem to be a need for greater co-ordination between 
genre/form/audience 650/655 terms and bibliographic elements (variable and 
controlled).

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print?

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

FRBR user tasks are another way to specify which elements to use.

The edition statement is used to identify the resource in two main ways:
1. help identifying the manifestation by recording what's on the manifestation 
(this should be done if "Large print edition" is on the resource).
2. distinguish the manifestation from similar ones

For the latter case it doesn't make sense to supply in brackets something like 
[Large print edition] because there may not be another edition (some titles 
I've seen, such as from Mills and Boon, I believe have only been printed in 
large print).

The Font Size element on the other hand is used to serve the Select user task, 
in that this is information that a user may seek out, perhaps independent of 
any other consideration, because they are only interested in reading something 
in large print format.

Over the years, our large print catalog records have been treated differently, 
with a period of time when we were applying 245$h[text (large print)], and for 
a while a local indexed field that showed up in some reports and results lists 
in one system (we no longer add this-- there are far too many other ways to 
indicate an item is large print already).

Currently we require:
008 fixed field -- this generates a Large Print icon and facet term; it also 
shows up at the end of a title in the Title Browse index)
300 $a ... (large print) -- this is the current placeholder for the RDA Font 
Size element; 340$n would be its replacement, and I would put that in the Brief 
Display as well
650 Large type books

We do not rely upon the 250 edition statement or the occasional "lg print" that 
appears after ISBNs. Currently I remove the 245$h as this is redundant, and I 
use the opportunity to restore the punctuation (some of our displays suppress 
the 245$h, with the effect being that a piece of punctuation separating 
elements goes missing as well).

For providing assistance to users there is no problem wherever "large print" is 
in the brief display. People aren't scanning the tops of catalog cards 
anymore-- they scroll down a result list, passing over all information. If 
anything, the information at the bottom of our brief display garners a lot of 
attention, and is prime real estate to put information alongside the 
availability count and holds count. I can tell this is the case because every 
so often, when on the reference desk, library users come to me with a slip of 
paper asking me to find a call number in what looks to them like an obscure 
code: "125 p. : ill. ; 23 cm."

Those people have no idea of what the AACR2-based 300 field is about, but they 
are certainly looking at that spot, and would have no problem spotting "large 
print."

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library





From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall 
[k...@northwestern.edu]
Sent: July-31-13 7:23 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print?

Mac Elrod wrote:

> If the item says "Large print edition" seems to me that belongs in
> 250, just as you indicated for "Abridged edition".  Field 340 is far
> too late for identification of the resource.

Yes, it would still be appropriate to record "Large print edition" as an 
edition statement, *if* that's what appeared on the resource.

But field 340 would be where you would record the font size itself as a 
descriptive aspect.

The edition statement, and the fact that the book is in large print, are two 
different things, and they get recorded two different ways.  Just like the 
statement of responsibility, which gets recorded in 245 $c, is a different 
thing from the authorized access point for the creator, which goes into 100.

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] Still doing edition statements for large print?

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

>>Whether or not it has an edition statement, you could (would be
>>advised to) >add Font Size (3.13) "large print",  in either the 300$a
>>or 340$n or both

>True.  But in the absence of a GMD, or a large print icon, a 250 large
>print edition statement (transcribed or supplied) would give helpful
>to patrons early warning.  Perhaps early display of [carrier :
>content] (as advocated by the MRIs*) would fill that need for most
>resources, but not for large print, since it lacks an RDA content
>term.

>We do not create records as an end in themselves for bibliographic
>utilities or catalogues, but as a service to patrons in identifying
>what they seek.


Why not [carrier : content : font size] derived from [338a : 336a : 340n]?

That would result in "volume : text : large print."


It's in the granular nature of the data elements that we can serve users best. 
All of these terms are registered vocabulary which opens the door in the future 
to local substitution of displayed terms. Far better than the ridiculous 
punctuation requirements of sequencing 245$h in the midst of the title 
statement or the lack of the granularity in 300$a (as in 300$a 125 pages (large 
print)).

And, yes, I am going to add those new RDA elements to the search result brief 
display in my catalog. In the tests I've run they look just fine.


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] ] The "A" in RDA

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

I have memories of a job in an interlibrary loan department where I 
occasionally had to work with whatever scrap of data I could lay my hands on to 
find the books people had requested.

On one occasion, I had limited information to use to search for nearly 
identical books, which were otherwise not well distinguished from each other. I 
turned to the page count to be the deciding factor to find the match requested.

RDA Chapter 3 describes Extent as fulfilling the Select user task, but there is 
an additional blurb in RDA 3.0 that speaks to the real world situation I 
encountered:

"These elements are also used to identify a resource (i.e., to distinguish 
between resources with similar characteristics)."

[By the way, note James' mischaracterization of the FRBR user tasks as limited 
to left-anchored browse searches. His critique of the user tasks as limited to 
finding, identifying, selecting, and obtaining entities (in his words) "by 
their authors, titles and subjects" indicates he has not read FRBR. All the 
elements come into play, not just those used to form left-anchored search 
strings. And all the entities are potential entities of interest, not just 
WEMI. In addition, the critique breaks down further when one considers FRAD and 
FRSAD, with the much wider scope of entities considered, and additional user 
tasks identified.]
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 Stephen Early
Sent: July-30-13 3:10 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] ] The "A" in RDA

I agree with Kevin on this one. Here's my own FISO example involving an online 
commercial search engine. Recently, I intended to purchase a book for my Amazon 
Kindle, but couldn't remember the author or the title, only recalling that it 
was a collection of short stories on a particular topic. I guessed on some 
search-words in Google (FIND) which led to an entry containing an exact author 
and title that appeared to match what I was looking for (can't remember if it 
was a direct link to Amazon, a review, or a Wikipedia article) (IDENTIFY). I 
then opened up Amazon and searched the exact author and title, found the exact 
entry I was looking for, then clicked on the "Kindle version," (SELECT) and 
then completed my purchase (OBTAIN).

Steve

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 Kevin M Randall
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 1:15 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] ] The "A" in RDA

And yet again I get a long, rambling response that goes nowhere near answering 
my question.  The only thing that comes remotely close is the statement:

Today, there are brand new ways of searching, by keyword, by citations, by 
"likes" of others, or of your friends, of your friend's friends, or even their 
friends, by the idiosyncracies of your own personal profile, and by who knows 
what else, but the method uses all kinds of algorithms.

And yet all of these things are very clearly part of the FRBR user tasks.  They 
are all about FINDing, IDENTIFYing, SELECTing, and OBTAINing entities based on 
various criteria.

...
Etc.
...

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 James Weinheimer
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 11:40 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] ] The "A" in RDA

On 29/07/2013 21:31, Kevin M Randall wrote:

Even after a few years of hearing this, I'm still trying to figure out what are 
these "other types of tasks" users have that do not fit into the FRBR user 
tasks.  Would it be possible to list just a few of them?  And not dissertations 
about them, but just some succinct examples.  I have a feeling (a very strong 
one) that if we're able to come to agreement about the meaning of the FRBR 
tasks there would be much less disagreement about what users are actually doing.


I have already done this several times.

The FRBR user tasks (one more time) are to be able to find, identify, select, 
and obtain (what?) works, expressions, manifestations, and items (how?) by 
their authors, titles and subjects. (Again, this is short-hand because nobody 
wants to obtain all items of a work)

Please show us how you can do this in Google, or Yahoo. Sure, you can search by 
Mark Twain, but there is no telling what you will get, and certainly not 
anywhere near w

Re: [RDA-L] RDA Content/Media/Carrier types [was: The "A" in RDA]

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

The main problem with 006/007 add-ons is where they are optional for 
accompanying material they can really mess up the use of fixed fields to 
generate icons for type of material.

I've frequently amputated these 006/007 fields when they conflict with an icon 
that represents the primary content or material of the resource. I believe 
there are other systems where this problem exists when using fixed fields to 
generate icons.

They cannot be abandoned entirely, since in cases (especially where they are 
mandatory), they are the only codes available to generate icons. In electronic 
resources, a 006 and a 007 field (and a value in the 008 field) are required to 
produce a distinctive e-book icon.

The key shifts that have occurred in RDA are that these categories have been 
incorporated into the standard, but not in ways in which we have to choose some 
kick-off category for record type (which prior to format integration I recall 
as being deeply embedded in the Dynix system I used). The categories emerge as 
facets with the rest of the data, and also flow with the respective entities. 
The expression data (which sometimes can be incorporated in authority records), 
will have an associated Content Type that allows for recycling of data in ways 
that are practically impossible to do in MARC.

In the short term I expect the 336, 337, 338 to compensate somewhat in the 
cases when I have to amputate 006 and 007 fields because misleading icons are 
produced.

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 Mitchell, Michael
Sent: July-30-13 10:58 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA Content/Media/Carrier types [was: The "A" in RDA]

Yes, if Bibframe is devised, used widely, and makes adequate provisions for 
converting MARC records using RDA (and not incidentally AACR2 & 1). Until then 
we would do well to continue using the 006/007/008 combos as well as any other 
new, less granular, fields. RDA by itself is not going to make anything 
available as linked data.

Michael Mitchell
Technical Services Librarian
Brazosport College
Lake Jackson, TX
Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Amanda Raab
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 9:44 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA Content/Media/Carrier types [was: The "A" in RDA]

But those 006/007/008 codes are only useable in MARC and understandable by 
librarians (actually: just catalogers). RDA provides that same description 
written out in actual words and made available as linked 
data so that description can viewed and used in schemas, 
structures, and displays that aren't MARC or MARC-dependent.

Amanda Raab | Catalog and Metadata Librarian
ROCK AND ROLL HALL OF FAME + MUSEUM | Library and Archives
2809 Woodland Ave. | Cleveland, OH  44115
ar...@rockhall.org | 216-515-1932 | fax 216-515-1964
www.rockhall.com/library | 
Facebook | 
Twitter
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Mitchell, Michael 
mailto:michael.mitch...@brazosport.edu>> wrote:
The 006 has 17 places for pertinent information by the way which is pretty 
granular.

Michael Mitchell
Technical Services Librarian
Brazosport College
Lake Jackson, TX
Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On 
Behalf Of Mitchell, Michael
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 9:31 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA Content/Media/Carrier types [was: The "A" in RDA]

"in the case of the record type, they require one to assign one and only one 
type"

Unless, of course, one also uses the repeatable 006 field.


Michael Mitchell
Technical Services Librarian
Brazosport College
Lake Jackson, TX
Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu

Re: [RDA-L] ] The "A" in RDA

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

> -Original Message-
> From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca]
> Sent: July-29-13 2:31 PM
> To: Brenndorfer, Thomas
> Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] ] The "A" in RDA
> 

> 
> >Both RDA and Bibframe follow modern data modeling techniques, such as
> >the entity-relationship analysis.
> 
> The phrase "entity-relationship analysis" is opaque to many, with no
> relationship to their daily work.  The same applies to much of the new
> terminology being tossed about.

No, that's simply wrong. My daily work is based on an ILS that utilizes data 
models such as entity-relationships for a vast array of functions.

I've seen the rapid improvements made to Circulation and Acquisition and other 
modules in part because of underlying entity-relationship structures. Such 
improvements are slow in coming to traditional catalog records, in part because 
they are not amenable to the kind of improvements found elsewhere.

Years ago I sat in a class with students learning database design. It was 
painfully obvious that the rest of the world was using things like 
entity-relationship models and creating applications loaded with functionality. 



> 
> It seems to me that rules should be arranged in the order in which they are
> needed.  The general description rules are now needed in ISBD order.
> Unless/until we have an interface with WEMI order, the present RDA
> arrangement is a major handicap to our daily work.

No, most systems work better with an entity-relationship model. I first noticed 
the discrepancies in the late 1990s when I started to customize web-based 
OPACs. It was far easier to translate to the lingua franca of 
entity-relationships than to use worn-out catalog terms for building card 
catalogs. It was easier to see the possible functionality that could accrue 
with a content standard redesign than it was to spend time with the kludges and 
workarounds that were increasingly obvious with AACR2-MARC systems.

Catalogers today already have to invest a vast amount of time to master the 
intricacies of MARC and AACR2.

When I look at the sample RDA records, and the likely workforms associated with 
them, I see a return to basics and a much easier time for catalogers.

Once you learn the entity-relationship model you can't shake it. The reason is 
obvious. You can take that knowledge and instantly translate it into how 
systems today maximize use of the catalog data. It's much harder to do that 
when stuck with a card catalog paradigm, and the language rooted in that era.


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] ] The "A" in RDA

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

> -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: July-29-13 12:27 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] ] The "A" in RDA
> 
> Barbara said:
> 
> >That is not different from earlier cataloging codes.
> 
> RDA is *very* different from earlier codes in that:


There will always be those say it's gone too far and those that say it's not 
gone far enough.


> 2) Unlike the clear English of AAR2 (thanks to Michael Gorman), the language
> is complex and difficult to comprehend.

As was demonstrated on cataloging mailing lists over the years many of the 
wording difficulties that you cited as problems in RDA actually had their roots 
in AACR2 and were often lifted straight out of the old context into the new. Do 
you remember multiple statements of responsibility and functions of persons? 
Your critique of RDA at the time was based on a misreading of the poor language 
originating in AACR2.


> 
> 3) The arrangement of RDA is not parallel to ISBD or MARC, but rather
> according to FRBR/WEMI, which not even the proposed Bibframe (at
> present) follows.


Both RDA and Bibframe follow modern data modeling techniques, such as the 
entity-relationship analysis. Surely you're not suggesting that Bibframe has a 
closer affinity with the flat file card catalog paradigm of AACR2?

> 
> 4) Although the "A" stands for access, there is not one word about indexing
> or display.

There are appendixes and tools and links that link to all sorts of display and 
encoding schemes.

There is a "word" on display and indexing-- one shouldn't mix it in with the 
content standard, which would have (and has had) the effect of precluding 
better displays and fouling up opportunities for better systems.


> 
> 5) Standareds which have evolved since Panizzi are abandoned (e.g,
> srandardization of capitalization).
> 

Except it's still there, and there is recognition that for local practices and 
for special projects and for varying international traditions different 
approaches can be taken given the priorities of the cataloging institution 
while still maintaining compatibility in ways that matter.


>
> 7) Internationalization is abandoned (4.g., ISBD inclusions).
>

Registered elements and vocabulary is a better basis for internationalization 
than overreliance on free text. There is little logic in selective Latin when 
the rest of the description is in the language of the agency, and then ignoring 
the major new emphasis in RDA on controlled vocabulary for many elements.

 
Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] ] The "A" in RDA

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

>From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
>[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Ford Davey
>Sent: July-28-13 9:57 AM
>To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
>Subject: Re: [RDA-L] ] The "A" in RDA

...

>That disturbs me, a lot! I would like to know how those of you who can 
>"explain" to the rest of what the 33x fields are all about (and to be honest 
>>those explanations are far too wordy for me to follow!)  How do you 
>explain them to your users, you know the folks who actually want to find 
>>stuff! 


Separating content from carrier is a basic deduplication issue. One should be 
able to easily assert:

"This text in this volume is the same text as found in that microfilm and the 
same text you see online."

as well as

"The text in this volume is the same work as that spoken word form found in 
that e-audiobook."


Various methods have arisen that help users find and distinguish these various 
forms for the same content. Currently my online catalog uses a mixture of 
descriptive fields and authority headings, along with icons and terms generated 
off of MARC fixed fields. All of this already capture some of the essence of 
what RDA is about, but not to the extent that would be most helpful to users.

The main problem now is the vast complexity of the AACR2/MARC structure, 
originally and still rooted to a large extent in card display restrictions 
requiring vast manuals to wade through to figure what works and what doesn't in 
any one online environment.

Consider the complexity of how MARC fixed fields work-- selecting certain 
general codes trigger subsequent groupings. Selecting certain Leader fields 
will generate different 008 fields. The first code in a 006 or 007 determines 
the sequence that follows.

The RDA content-media-carrier terms follow very closely what MARC has always 
done-- general categories give way to more specific attributes related to the 
general category.

So in explaining this to other librarians and to users, there are really only 
two salient points to get across:


1. Recognize that the same content can be found in different carriers, and 
there are ways of defining the character of this content separate from the 
details for the carrier.

2. General categories are used to group more specific categories. Users will 
often need those specific categories to select what they need (they may want 
"Blu-Ray" and may not find the general term "videodisc" that useful). But 
general categories do what they've always done-- group related information 
together, and allow for a layer of comparison between different things. 
Basically RDA took all of our existing general categories (from the GMD, from 
MARC fixed fields, etc.) and hammered out a general layer of categories that 
are more consistent among themselves.
 

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library





 

Re: [RDA-L] RDA 2.3.2.9 Resource lacking a collective title

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

>For example, labeling 100 as "Author" does not apply to a criminal
>defendant in 100.  Labeling 100 "Person" adds no useful information.
>I've seem nothing better than an unlabeled ISBD display.


All of those are corrected in RDA, where it is recognized that all the names in 
a 100 field are not necessarily authors. The RDA element labels differentiate 
between creators and others associated with a work. When it comes to those who 
are clearly authors, there is also the designator "author." When it comes to 
criminal defendants, there is the designator "defendant."

I particularly like the element names and designators because they make 
explicit what was previously implicit. A cataloger has to know that defendant 
can go in a 100 field-- the term "defendant" is already in mind. Instead of 
having that information disappear after the cataloger makes the decision, that 
designation can now be left in the record where it can clarify the nature of 
the relationship. Far better than forcing the user to hunt and sift through the 
record to find out how people are associated with the resource-- especially 
important given the possibility that catalog data can and should be re-used in 
other contexts, where only select data may be chosen for presentation. This 
already occurs in brief displays, reports, receipts, etc. within the context of 
a single system.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] RDA media terms

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

From: J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: July-27-13 12:15 PM
To: Brenndorfer, Thomas
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA media terms

>>
>>In he RDA/ONIX framework for Content Type one checks off an attribute
>>for "two-dimensional" or "three-dimensional,"

>While content may be two dimensional, e.g. projected moving images,
>but the carrier, e.g, the DVD, is three dimensional.  Even the
>thinnest piece of paper has thickness.  Only the images on the paper
>are two dimensional.


The dimensions for content type are not based on the carrier but only on the 
expected human perception for the content.

That's what Content Type is all about. Two-dimensional content or 
three-dimensional content are attributes that can apply to different content 
types, such as moving images. That attribute is not completely dependent on the 
dimensionality or physicality of the Carrier Type. It has to do with the 
intended primary way in which the content of the resource is to be absorbed by 
people.

Certainly, the unmediated "object" Carrier Type is defined as 
three-dimensional, but that doesn't preclude other Content Type associations 
other than a one-to-one with "three dimensional form." For example, if the 
object also had notated music on it, or a map, that could easily be 
accommodated in RDA because Content Type is kept distinct from Carrier Type. In 
addition, as I indicated earlier, three dimensional form content can also be 
microscopic, and that requires a different Carrier Type and Media Type than 
"object" and "unmediated."

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] RDA 2.3.2.9 Resource lacking a collective title

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

In 2.4.1.6, multiple statements of responsibility are linked to the 
"corresponding title, edition, or series information."

RDA D.1.2.2 prescribes semicolons to separate these statement of responsibility 
elements.

So once the individual titles proper are recorded for resources lacking a 
collective title, one just adds the associated statements of responsibility in 
conjunction with each title proper.


Punctuation separating elements and subfield codes are display and encoding 
conventions outside of RDA. I'm working on a project now with some archival 
relational database software that uses the labelled element-by-element and 
entity-by-entity approach as seen in the RDA element set. Creating an RDA 
overlay that would work with this software appears to me to be quite 
straightforward, as it would be unencumbered by the stringent punctuation and 
subfield dependencies, and occasional lack of granularity, as found in AACR2 
and MARC.

In addition to labeling values with the element name (providing meaning and 
context to recorded data), there is a feature in this software that points to 
how one can treat recorded data that can be turned into machine-actionable 
data. Entering a date in one field, for example, results in a recorded form 
that is automatically converted into an accompanying normalized form (as found 
in 008 and 046). All forms of the date are seen together so the cataloger can 
see how the date will appear to the user and how it will be manipulated by the 
computer.

>From this software one can see why there was a desire to move away from the 
>logjam of AACR2/MARC where content rules, display conventions, and encoding 
>structure are crammed together, impeding simpler interface designs and easy 
>extensibility with additional attributes and relationships, and enhanced 
>functionality.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library


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: July-27-13 9:40 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA 2.3.2.9 Resource lacking a collective title

Thanks, Thomas.

So the "real" instruction can, in this case, only be found in appendix
D.1.2.2, and turns out to be nothing new ;-)

But I wonder: Shouldn't there be an eqivalent rule to the second part of
2.3.2.9 for the statement of responsibility, somewhere in chapter 2.4?

I mean something like "If the sources of information identifying the
individual parts are being treated as a collective source of information
for the resource as a whole (see 2.1.2), record the statements of
responsibility of the parts in the order
in which they appear in the resource."

with an example like this:
Darius Milhaud
Henry Barraud

Heidrun


On 27.07.2013 15:06, Thomas Brenndorfer wrote:
> Check RDA D.1.2.2 Title and Statement of Responsibility Area for ISBD 
> punctuation
>
> Use semicolons to separate titles proper if by same person.
>
> Use full stop to separate each grouping of titles proper and statements of 
> responsibility if by different persons.
>
>
> Using the example:
>
> Saudades do Brasil : suite de danses pour orchestre / Darius Milhaud. 
> Symphonie concertante pour trompette et orchestre / Henry Barraud
>
> Separated into MARC subfields (note that $c carries the burden of all 
> repeating elements).
>
> 245 $a Saudades do Brasil :$b suite de danses pour orchestre /$c Darius 
> Milhaud. Symphonie concertante pour trompette et orchestre / Henry Barraud
>
>
> But RDA always combines a value with the name of the element and includes no 
> instructions for punctuation or repeatability, but some elements are defined 
> as being associated with, appearing in conjunction with, or subordinate to 
> other elements:
>
> Title proper: Saudades do Brasil
> Other title information: suite de danses pour orchestre
> Statement of responsibility relating to title proper: Darius Milhaud
>
> Title proper: Symphonie concertante pour trompette et orchestra
> Statement of responsibility relating to title proper: Henry Barraud
>
>
> Thomas Brenndorfer
> Guelph Public Library
>
> 
> 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: July-27-13 5:54 AM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: [RDA-L] RDA 2.3.2.9 Resource lacking a collective title
>
> Could anybody please explain to me the second part of 2.3.2.9 "Resource
> lacking a collective title"? I'm quite at a loss here.
>
> "If the sources of information identifying the individual parts are
> being treated as a collective source of information for the resource as
> a whole (see 2.1.2), record the titles proper of the parts in the order
> in which they appear in the resource."
>
> One of the examples given is:
> Henry Es

Re: [RDA-L] RDA 2.3.2.9 Resource lacking a collective title

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

Check RDA D.1.2.2 Title and Statement of Responsibility Area for ISBD 
punctuation

Use semicolons to separate titles proper if by same person.

Use full stop to separate each grouping of titles proper and statements of 
responsibility if by different persons.


Using the example:

Saudades do Brasil : suite de danses pour orchestre / Darius Milhaud. Symphonie 
concertante pour trompette et orchestre / Henry Barraud

Separated into MARC subfields (note that $c carries the burden of all repeating 
elements).

245 $a Saudades do Brasil :$b suite de danses pour orchestre /$c Darius 
Milhaud. Symphonie concertante pour trompette et orchestre / Henry Barraud


But RDA always combines a value with the name of the element and includes no 
instructions for punctuation or repeatability, but some elements are defined as 
being associated with, appearing in conjunction with, or subordinate to other 
elements:

Title proper: Saudades do Brasil
Other title information: suite de danses pour orchestre
Statement of responsibility relating to title proper: Darius Milhaud

Title proper: Symphonie concertante pour trompette et orchestra
Statement of responsibility relating to title proper: Henry Barraud


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library


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: July-27-13 5:54 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] RDA 2.3.2.9 Resource lacking a collective title

Could anybody please explain to me the second part of 2.3.2.9 "Resource
lacking a collective title"? I'm quite at a loss here.

"If the sources of information identifying the individual parts are
being treated as a collective source of information for the resource as
a whole (see 2.1.2), record the titles proper of the parts in the order
in which they appear in the resource."

One of the examples given is:
Henry Esmond
Bleak House

I assume that this refers to a resource which includes both Thackeray's
"The history of Henry Esmond" and Dickens' "Bleak House". I also assume
that this resource doesn't have a title page which names both works (as
in the examples in the first part of 2.3.2.9), but instead has two
separate title pages, one for each novel (e.g., as tête-bêche). Is this
the correct interpretation?

If so, I'm still not clear as to how the two titles proper are to be
recorded. What would it look like in MARC? And does it mean that I have
two instances of the RDA element "title proper" in this case, or do the
titles proper of both novels together make up the element "title proper"
of the manifestation?

Heidrun

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

Re: [RDA-L] RDA media terms

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

>thomas Brenndorfer said:
>>Generated from MARC codes, "objects" in my system are flagged as
>>"Three Dimensional Object (Artifact)" ...
>Please explain to me how an object could be one, two, or four
>dimensional. "Tooth dentist" as my Granny would  have said had I used
>a phrase like that.



>From http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bdleader.html

LDR/06=r

Three-dimensional artifact or naturally occurring object
 
"Includes man-made objects such as models, dioramas, games, puzzles, 
simulations, sculptures and other three-dimensional art works, exhibits, 
machines, clothing, toys, and stitchery. Also includes naturally occurring 
objects such as, microscope specimens (or representations of them) and other 
specimens mounted for viewing. "

There has been an historic categorization in MARC and AACR2 between 
two-dimensional objects and three-dimensional objects.

The Content Type in RDA is about the human perceptions that are intended to be 
used in accessing the content in a resource. If content is intended to be 
apprehended or sensed primarily in three-dimensions then that aspect is drawn 
out. In the RDA/ONIX framework for Content Type one checks off an attribute for 
"two-dimensional" or "three-dimensional," in addition to other applicable 
attributes such as visual perception or tactile perception. Each combination of 
attributes produces a Content Type. The list in RDA in not exhaustive-- by 
comparison, in ISBD Area 0, the olfactory and gustatory sensory modes are 
accounted for in additional Content Types. For example, in ISBD Area 0, a 
two-dimensional scratch and sniff card has the content type "Image (olfactory)".

If it's cartographic and a three-dimensional object, one has to use LDR/06=e. 
Instead of blindly lumping things under "cartographic material," RDA pushes 
forward with the root distinctions between Content Types, so one sees 
cartographic resources in the context of their counterpart Content Types for 
other resources, such as still images and three-dimensional forms, and their 
tactile variations.

Not all three-dimensional forms have the unmediated Carrier Type "object." For 
example, microscopic three-dimensional forms may have the carrier type 
"microscope slide" which in turns requires an intermediary device.

At all points, if one is surprised by what is in RDA, one should keep in mind 
that RDA is drawing upon the depths of what was buried in AACR2 and MARC, and 
re-assigning all that pre-existing data debris into categories that reflects 
better on the fact that the same content can be found in multiple carriers.
 
Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] RDA media terms

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

>"object"

> could see using this for a rock, but for a Kobo or other equipment?

>The RDA media terms include ones for resources I've not encountered in
>over 50 years of cataloguing, and lacks terms for resources
>encountered on a regular basis.

Generated from MARC codes, "objects" in my system are flagged as "Three 
Dimensional Object (Artifact)" which is how all pieces of equipment will be 
flagged.

Most of the RDA content and carrier terms have parallels in MARC fixed fields, 
and there has always been unwieldy terms (such as "non-musical sound 
recording").


The primary difference now in RDA is that all the terms are assigned to 
elements that distinguish between aspects of content and carrier. The old GMD 
careened wildly from terms that were not "material" to terms that were not 
"general" to terms that obfuscated the content type due to emphasis of some 
aspect of the carrier.


There is a complication in RDA though. In some cases, the original RDA-ONIX 
framework for content/media/carrier have been extended to include genre terms 
for specific communities.

For example "cartographic image" is an embellishment of the original "still 
image", which is where things could have remained. But it is useful to keep 
this in mind as it helps in understanding where RDA is going in in Extent of 
Cartographic Resources in RDA 3.4.2-- when you run out of cartographic-specific 
terms to pick from you can draw from the list of "still image" terms in RDA 
3.4.4.2. Likewise for three-dimensional objects, where there is a starter list 
in RDA of "globe" and "model," one can pull from the list of other 
three-dimensional forms in RDA 3.4.6.2 for the unit of extent of the 
three-dimensional cartographic resource.

As always with general terms, one should stick with the most general. After 
all, the "general" material designation in AACR2 was not "map" or "globe" but 
"cartographic material." A casual glance at the list of terms to use for extent 
of cartographic resources in RDA 3.4.2 is sufficient in clarifying why the 
general Content Types are what they are, and more specific terms like "map" or 
"globe" are not used for that "general" category.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] 338 field for a "volume" of art prints

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kathie Coblentz [kcobl...@nypl.org]
Sent: July-26-13 11:58 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 338 field for a "volume" of art prints

>May I take the occasion to point out another confusing definition in the RDA 
>glossary?

>"Portfolio: A unit of extent of text that is a container for holding loose 
>materials (e.g., paintings, drawings, >papers, unbound sections of a book, and 
>similar materials) usually consisting of two covers joined together at >the 
>back."

>There is something I'm not getting about how the RDA mind works. If something 
>is "a unit of extent of text," >how can it be a container for, e.g., 
>paintings? I was driven back to the definition of "text" to see if maybe 
>>somehow it includes non-verbal images, but no, it's "Content expressed 
>through a form of notation for >language intended to be perceived visually." 
>Though I suppose one picture IS worth a thousand words, so >maybe that's how 
>they figure it.


As "portfolio" is given as a unit of still image in an example in RDA 3.4.4.5, 
then the definition should include that.

Suggestion for revision...

Portfolio: A unit of extent of text or extent of still image that is a 
container 


"Extent of text" and "Extent of still image" have their own definitions in the 
glossary, referring to the number and type of units making up the resource.

A "portfolio" is a unit (also defined-- a physical or logical constituent of a 
resource). The extent elements consist of a unit, a number, and possible 
subunits and numbers of subunits.

Perhaps it would be clearer to say: a unit of the Extent of Text element or 
Extent of Still Image element.


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] 7.17 Colour content

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

>From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
>[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Nelson [knel...@capilanou.ca]
>Sent: July-24-13 12:36 PM
>To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
>Subject: [RDA-L] 7.17 Colour content

>I have read the RDA ToolKit instructions over and over, and looked at the 
>workflows, and checked online…

>Can’t see that RDA actually says much about “how”, but online I am seeing a 
>whole lot of versions of how the recording of colour content is to be done. 
>Are we agreed on anything?

>I have seen:

>300  45 p. : illustrations in colour
>300  45 p. : coloured illustrations

>300  45 p. : illustrations, some coloured
>300  45 p. : illustrations, some in colour

>300  45 p. : illustrations, chiefly coloured
>300 45 p. : chiefly coloured illustrations

>And many similar, but with the usual parentheses, though not so many include 
>parentheses.


One thing to consider is that RDA presents the value of the element alongside 
the name of the element.

So one would have:

Illustrative content: illustrations

Colour content: some color


But RDA also allows longer values that are normally found in 500 notes:

Illustrative content: Map of Australia on endpapers

Colour content: 2 maps in colour



Recombining these in MARC would require thinking about roundtripping the 
values, so one could take:

Illustrative content: illustrations

Colour content: some color


and make


300$b illustrations (some color)

where 300$b combines two RDA element values.



Grammatically linking the element values is where there would be problems 
roundtripping the data values.

So "illustrations in colour" and "chiefly coloured illustrations" would be 
awkward since one has to rip these values apart to put them in separate RDA 
elements.


The RDA example "2 maps in colour" for Colour Content also points to how to 
finetune the description of the content, since I could use the example (RDA has 
it with 4 maps, 2 of which are in colour) in the following way:

Illustrative content: 4 maps

Colour content: 2 maps in colour

which can be roundtripped in MARC as:

300$b 4 maps
500$a 2 maps in colour.


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Designator Relator Code

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

The RDA-MARC example bibliographic records in the Toolkit have examples with 
multiple designators after names in the 100 and 700 fields. The designators can 
fall into any category of relationship element.

http://www.rdatoolkit.org/sites/default/files/6jsc_rda_complete_examples_bibliographic_apr0913_rev.pdf


100 1# $a Porter, Kalan, $e composer, $e singer.


700 1# $a Morgan, Glen, $e screenwriter, $e film producer, $e film director.


These conventions are MARC conventions, and so one would not find these in the 
RDA instructions. The parallel RDA record for each MARC record in the examples 
lists names by relationship element, so names can be listed several times. A 
"Creator" element can only have associated values that connect to the Work, 
whereas a "Contributor" element is specific to the Expression.

A 700 field in MARC in undifferentiated, as the name could refer to a 
relationship to the Work, Expression, Manifestation, or Item. The name in the 
100 field must have at least have one Work relationship because the main entry 
in AACR2 must be based on responsibility for the work, but the name could have 
additional relationships beyond a relationship to the Work.


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library


> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Lee, Deborah
> Sent: May-17-13 12:01 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Designator Relator Code
> 
> We have decided to put multiple relationship designators in the 100, mostly
> due to the fact that I can't find a rule or example which implies that this is
> incorrect.  I have to confess to feeling slightly uneasy when one of those
> relationship designators is for a "creator" role and the other is for a
> "contributor" role.  However, the alternative of repeating the index term as a
> 700 does feel a bit redundant.
> 
> 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
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Will Evans
> Sent: 17 May 2013 14:29
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Designator Relator Code
> 
> Mac et al,
> 
> Are folks using multiple $e designators in a 100 field? Admittedly, I'm old-
> school in my thinking, but I'm inclined to designate the principle role of the
> individual in the $e of the 100 and add a 700 with the other designator(s).
> 
> Any thoughts, yea or nay?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Will
> 
> -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: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:00 AM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Designator Relator Code
> 
> Malar Thomas asked:
> 
> >I have an item of which the author plays multiple roles. How can I
> >enter the relator code, #e?
> 
> 
> Subfield $e is repeating, separated by commas, e.g., 700 1  $aBlow,
> Joe,$edirector,$eactor.  If using codes, no commas: 700 1  $aBlow,
> Joe.$4drt$4act.
> 
> 
>__   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
>   {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
>   ___} |__
> \__
> 
> 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] Title main entry equivalent in RDA?

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

> 
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Shorten, Jay
> Sent: May-13-13 5:05 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: [RDA-L] Title main entry equivalent in RDA?
> 
> I'd like someone to confirm my understanding of the rules. The AACR2 rules
> for title main entry are as follows:
> 
> AACR2 21.1C.
> Entry under Title
> 21.1C1.   Enter a work under its title proper or, when appropriate, uniform
> title (see chapter 25) if:
> a) the personal authorship is unknown (see 21.5) or diffuse (see 21.6C2), and
> the work does not emanate from a corporate body
> or
> b) it is a collection of works by different persons or bodies (see 21.7)
> or
> c) it emanates from a corporate body but does not fall into any of the
> categories given in 21.1B2 and is not of personal authorship
> or
> d) it is accepted as sacred scripture by a religious group (see 21.37).
> 
> According to the links the RDA toolkit took me to, there is no equivalent of
> 21.1C1c.
> 


RDA 6.27 for constructing authorized access points for most works is based on 
identifying at least one creator. Special instructions exist for musical works, 
legal works, religious works and official communications, so those instructions 
will need to be consulted directly.


Staying with the general cases in RDA 6.27, if there is no creator identified, 
then it's a work of uncertain or unknown origin (RDA 6.27.1.8). There may be 
corporate bodies identified, but if they don't fall into the list in RDA 
19.2.1.1, then they are not creators responsible for the work.


RDA 6.27.1.8 includes this extra instruction when responsibility for the work 
cannot be pinned down to any person or corporate body:


"If: the person, family, or corporate body responsible for the work is unknown, 
or, the work originates from an unnamed group

then: construct the authorized access point representing the work by using the 
preferred title for the work"


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] authorized access point for person/family/corporate body

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

Just sticking with moving image works, and the exception for a creator of a 
moving image work with the designator "filmmaker"...

It seems possible that a corporate body can indeed by a "filmmaker" and 
therefore a Creator and therefore a core element, along with the first part of 
the authorized access point for the moving image work.

The definition of the designator "filmmaker" (RDA I.2.1) includes the 
possibility of a corporate body in that role: "A person, family, or corporate 
body responsible for creating an independent or personal film. A filmmaker is 
individually responsible for the conception and execution of all aspects of the 
film."

However, as soon as at least one other person or corporate body is identified 
with having a role of responsibility for the work, then this becomes a 
collaborative work, with different designators,  with an authorized access 
point under preferred title, and with no core relationship element.


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 Joan Wang
Sent: May-13-13 3:46 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] authorized access point for person/family/corporate body

Sorry. The question should be: any examples under this rule for a corporate 
body considered to be a creator? I try to understand the rule.

d)  Works that result from the collective activity of a performing group as 
a whole where the responsibility of the group goes beyond that of mere 
performance, execution, etc.
Thanks.

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Joan Wang 
mailto:jw...@illinoisheartland.org>> wrote:
Is a filmmaker (a corporate body) considered to be a creator under this rule?

d)  Works that result from the collective activity of a performing group as 
a whole where the responsibility of the group goes beyond that of mere 
performance, execution, etc.
I tried to figure out any examples. But ...
Thank you very much.
Joan

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Adam L. Schiff 
mailto:asch...@u.washington.edu>> wrote:
Thomas,

What you said about films is not quite totally correct.  Appendix I does have a 
relationship designator under creator of work:

filmmaker A person, family, or corporate body responsible for creating an 
independent or personal film. A filmmaker is individually responsible for the 
conception and execution of all aspects of the film.

For a very small subset of films, if one person/family/corporate body were 
responsible for all aspects, that entity would be the creator of the work and 
the film would be named using the combination of Creater/Preferred title.  This 
is most likely to happen for student works and home movies, I imagine.  If you 
think of all of those YouTube videos where someone points a camera at 
themselves and just talks to the camera, I think that would be a case that 
would fall under the designator "filmmaker".

Adam

^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu<mailto:asch...@u.washington.edu>
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~~~~~


On Mon, 13 May 2013, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
If an "other" person/family/corporate body associated with the work is used to 
construct the authorized access point representing the work, then that *one* 
person, family or corporate body associated with the work is the core element.

Another way to state this is to say whoever became the main entry in AACR2 is a 
core element value in RDA (the instructions for authorized access points for 
works in RDA 6.27-6.31 are where one finds the equivalent to AACR2 main entry 
rules). Only one person, family or corporate body is chosen for that spot, 
whether it's a "creator" or an "other associated with the work."

In MARC terms, what RDA 18.3 is saying is that the name found in the 1XX field 
is the core element, but names found in 7XX fields are not core elements.


Interestingly, for moving image works like movies, there is no core 
relationship element. All persons or corporate bodies associated with the work 
when it comes to movies fall under the element "Other Person, Family or 
Corporate Body Associated with the Work" (examples: film director, film 
producer). There are none that fall under the "Creator" element.

But because the authorized access point for a moving image work is formed only 
with the preferred title (RDA 6.27.1.3) then there is no person or corporate 
body that becomes part of the authorized access point for a moving image work. 
Therefore, the director or producer for a moving image work are not core 
elements.

In other words, in the case of a movie, there may be several people that fall 

Re: [RDA-L] authorized access point for person/family/corporate body

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

 

> -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: May-13-13 2:01 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] authorized access point for person/family/corporate
> body
> 



> Interestingly, for moving image works like movies, there is no core
> relationship element. All persons or corporate bodies associated with the
> work when it comes to movies fall under the element "Other Person, Family
> or Corporate Body Associated with the Work" (examples: film director, film
> producer). There are none that fall under the "Creator" element.


I should have mentioned there appear to be some exceptions for moving image 
works, such as "filmmaker" (responsible for an independent or personal film, 
and not a collaborative work, as this role encompasses all aspects in the 
making of the film)-- this falls under the Creator element, and so would be a 
core element according to RDA 18.3.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] authorized access point for person/family/corporate body

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

If an "other" person/family/corporate body associated with the work is used to 
construct the authorized access point representing the work, then that *one* 
person, family or corporate body associated with the work is the core element.

Another way to state this is to say whoever became the main entry in AACR2 is a 
core element value in RDA (the instructions for authorized access points for 
works in RDA 6.27-6.31 are where one finds the equivalent to AACR2 main entry 
rules). Only one person, family or corporate body is chosen for that spot, 
whether it's a "creator" or an "other associated with the work."

In MARC terms, what RDA 18.3 is saying is that the name found in the 1XX field 
is the core element, but names found in 7XX fields are not core elements.


Interestingly, for moving image works like movies, there is no core 
relationship element. All persons or corporate bodies associated with the work 
when it comes to movies fall under the element "Other Person, Family or 
Corporate Body Associated with the Work" (examples: film director, film 
producer). There are none that fall under the "Creator" element.

But because the authorized access point for a moving image work is formed only 
with the preferred title (RDA 6.27.1.3) then there is no person or corporate 
body that becomes part of the authorized access point for a moving image work. 
Therefore, the director or producer for a moving image work are not core 
elements.

In other words, in the case of a movie, there may be several people that fall 
under the element "Other Person, Family or Corporate Body Associated with the 
Work" but not a single one of them becomes a core element because none of them 
are used to form the authorized access point for the movie.


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 Joan Wang
>Sent: May-13-13 1:21 PM
>To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
>Subject: [RDA-L] authorized access point for person/family/corporate body

Hi, all
I have two questions about authorized access points for person/family/corporate 
body. 
Q1: 
RDA 18.3 says that creator is a core element. If there is more than one, only 
the principle or the first-named creator is required. It also says that other 
person/family/corporate body associated with a work is a core element (if the 
access point representing that person/family/ corporate body is used to 
construct the authorized access point representing the work). But it does not 
mention the situation of "more than one". I assume that we can follow the 
requirement for creator if there is more than one person/family/corporate body 
associated with a work other than a creator. 

Re: [RDA-L] What to include in statement of responsibility

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

It would be useful to enumerate how RDA treats all the different types of 
statements of responsibility.

In a similar situation, RDA limits the use of the statement of responsibility 
relating to series. RDA instructs to include it only if necessary for the 
identification of the series. In many situations, a book in a series by one 
author will have a statement of responsibility relating to title proper, and a 
series statement which may be accompanied by the author's name on another page. 
The logic in RDA for limiting the recording of the statement of responsibility 
relating to series would seem to be because it's redundant when responsibility 
for a title in the series is already indicated in the statement of 
responsibility relating to the title proper.


It's always assumed that there must be a relationship between the title proper 
and those named in the statement of responsibility. Carried forward from AACR2 
is the idea of words for function or role in statements of responsibility, and 
RDA 2.4.1.7 instructs to add words to clarify the role of those named in the 
statement of responsibility and the title, designation of edition, etc.

In the case of recording "with contributions by ..." for authors responsible 
for separate works that could be included in a contents note, then it might 
make sense to add it as a statement of responsibility relating to title proper 
if the contents note doesn't include statements of responsibility. But it would 
also be important to clarify the role of those named in the statement of 
responsibility as creators of separate works in a compilation. Without such 
clarification then one would incorrectly assume that those named are 
responsible in a collaborative sense for the work (with the first named 
becoming part of the authorized access point for the work, i.e. the main entry 
heading).

I don't think there's any way around this--  the "with contributions by ..." 
statement for names associated with separate titles in a contents note is not 
the same as a statement of responsibility listing names that are jointly 
responsible for the content, and where the first named becomes part of the 
authorized access point for the work (which, unlike in AACR2, happens 100 
percent of the time in RDA because of the elimination of the rule of three for 
statements listing four or more persons or bodies responsible for the content 
of the work).

To avoid any confusion I would put such a statement into the RDA element Note 
on Statement of Responsibility (just a 500 note in MARC). RDA 18.6 provides an 
instruction to make such notes to explain relationships. I would reference the 
RDA principles of accuracy (RDA 0.4.3.5) and of attribution (RDA 0.4.3.6) which 
would mean recording data that reflects attributions of responsibility in such 
a way to clarify responsibility for creative or intellectual content.



List of instructions in RDA related to statements of responsibility:



Statement of responsibility (for all situations)

- if more than one, record in order indicated by the sequence, layout or 
typography

- if sequence is ambiguous, record in the order that makes the most sense



Statement of responsibility relating to title proper



- first statement is core

- if not recording all statements, give preference to those identifying 
creators of the intellectual or artistic content; in case of doubt, record the 
first statement



Statement of responsibility relating to the edition



- in case of doubt, or if there is no designation of edition, record as 
statement of responsibility relating to title proper

- when describing the first edition, record all statements as statements of 
responsibility relating to title proper



Statement of responsibility relating to named revision of an edition



- generally apply; no special instructions



Statement of responsibility relating to series



- record only if considered necessary for identification of the series



Structured description (such as a Contents note, which can include statements 
of responsibility)



- full or partial description of the related resource using the same order of 
elements that is used for the resource being described



Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library



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: May-12-13 5:48 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] What to include in statement of responsibility

I'm afraid Mac and I will have to live with this disagreement then, because 
after some more thinking about his and Thomas' arguments I find that I still 
can't be convinced.

This may be simply due to the fact that in German cataloging, we always record 
"with contributions by" statements in the title and statement of responsibility 
area. We don't use contents notes (505), so this wouldn't be an alternat

Re: [RDA-L] Abridging statement of responsibility

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

> -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: May-11-13 4:31 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Abridging statement of responsibility
> 
> Thomas,
> 
> > It's probably even less complicated than that.
> >
> > The name of the specific RDA element under discussion is "Statement of
> responsibility relating to title proper" which means a statement listing
> authors for separately titled pieces within the resource is not likely 
> related to
> the title proper in question.
> >
> 
> Now you get me confused. Are we talking about the same thing? I'm thinking
> of a title page which looks like this:
> 
> [Title proper of the resource]
> Edited by A and B
> With contributions by C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K
> 
> In my opinion there are two instances here of the element "statement of
> responsibility relating to title proper", whereas you seem to think that only
> the first one belongs to this element.
> 
> The definition in RDA 2.4.2.1 says: "A statement of responsibility relating to
> title proper is a statement associated with the title proper of a resource 
> that
> relates 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 the resource."
> 
> The "with contributions by" statement ist certainly associated with the title
> proper in the case discussed. What is perhaps debatable is the exact meaning
> of "the intellectual or artistic content of the resource".
> Although the people named aren't creators of the work as a whole, I'd still
> say that they had something to do with "the intellectual or artistic content 
> of
> the resource".


But not "contributing to the realization"-- this is for expression level roles, 
such as the writer of a forward, who contributes to the realization of existing 
intellectual or creative content.

It would be up to cataloguer's judgment to add them as a subsequent statement 
of responsibility relating to the title proper. Do they help in identifying the 
manifestation? If they appear as statements of responsibility in the contents 
note then the title page statement would be redundant.

I see this as similar to a prominent series statement on the title page. It 
goes into own separate series statement field, and it may have its own 
statement of responsibility.


> 
> It's interesting to compare RDA's definition with the one in ISBD 1.4:
> "A statement of responsibility consists of one or more names, phrases, or
> groups of characters relating to the identification and/or function of any
> persons or corporate bodies responsible for or contributing to the creation or
> realisation of the intellectual or artistic content of a work contained in the
> resource described."
> 
> Note the "of a work contained in the resource described".


In RDA, there's a difference between "Statement of Responsibility" and 
"Statement of responsibility relating to the title proper". There are many 
kinds of statements of responsibility (such as related to edition, or to 
series), and they reappear in structured descriptions such as contents notes.



> There can't be any
> doubt that the "with contributions by" type falls under this definition. I 
> find it
> hard to believe that RDA should have wanted to express a different meaning
> here - perhaps it was just sloppiness (or a rare attempt to make it short)?
> 
> If we really read RDA's definition to mean "Only a statement naming either
> creator(s) or contributors (in the RDA sense) of the work as a whole can be a
> statement of responsibility relating to title proper", this would lead to odd
> results. Not only the "with contributions of"
> type would not meet the criteria. The same would go for statements like
> "with an introduction by".


No, see note above. An introduction is related to the expression-- to a 
realization of a work.


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Abridging statement of responsibility

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

> -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: May-11-13 2:01 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Abridging statement of responsibility
> 
> Heidrun said:
> 
> >
> >I've been wondering: Which statement would be core in the case of an
> >edited collection, when you have one statement naming the editors and
> >another one naming the people who have contributed?
> 
> SLC preferes to record the editors in 245/$c, but the contributing authors in
> 505 and 700$a$t.  Recording contributors in 245 can lead to their being
> confused with joint authors of the whole, and the first named being made
> main entry.
> 


It's probably even less complicated than that.

The name of the specific RDA element under discussion is "Statement of 
responsibility relating to title proper" which means a statement listing 
authors for separately titled pieces within the resource is not likely related 
to the title proper in question.

A "structured description" for the contents in 505 means that the elements 
there follow the same order as a regular description-- title proper, followed 
by statement of responsibility relating to the title proper.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Recording alternate content and physical forms -- Bibframe

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

> -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: May-09-13 9:10 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording alternate content and physical forms"
> 
> Deborah said concerning incorporating expression level format into 520:
> 
> >It might not seem to matter so much with our mixed-up MARC bib records,
> >especially in the 500 general note fields, but it will matter a great
> >deal in the future that we use the correct element for the data that we
> provide.
> 
> Expression level does not exist in Bibframe, only work / instance / authority 
> /
> annotation.  So why are we concerned with expression level data?



http://bibframe.org/vocab/Work.html

has recently added the RDA-derived properties "hasExpression" and 
"expressionOf" to the Work resource type.

The top level resource types (Work, Instance, Authority) can contain further 
subtypes. For example, Bibframe Authority is similar to MARC authority records 
for persons, corporate bodies, and subjects.

The Bibframe Work resource type splits off work and expression data from MARC 
authority records for works and expressions, and combines them with data for 
works and expressions found in bibliographic records.

Bibframe Work is essentially a new way of capturing work and expression data 
that was once done in MARC authority records, and adds data for works and 
expressions found repeated in bibliographic records. This is very much in 
keeping with RDA chapters 6 and 7 which group together all data associated with 
works and expressions, including instructions for authorized access points, 
regardless of this data being found scattered in MARC authority or MARC 
bibliographic records.


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] What is the appropriate RDA element for a term like "Board book" or "Scented book"

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

> -Original Message-
> From: Brenndorfer, Thomas
> Sent: May-09-13 2:43 PM
> To: Brenndorfer, Thomas
> Subject: RE: [RDA-L] What is the appropriate RDA element for a term like
> "Board book" or "Scented book"
> 
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Julie Moore
> Sent: May-09-13 2:38 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] What is the appropriate RDA element for a term like
> "Board book" or "Scented book"
> 
> Ooops! My mistake. For some reason, I was thinking we put that into the
> 300, but I don't think we actually did. (I don't normally catalog board books 
> --
> but I do catalog a lot of other funny formats!) So the 300 would probably stay
> similar to how it is now (except spelling everything out) ... something like
> this:
> 
> 300  12 unnumbered pages : ǂb color illustrations ; ǂc 24 x 30 cm Your 336-338
> look fine to me.
> 336 ## $atext $2rdacontent
> 336 ## $astill image $2rdacontent
> 336 ## $athree-dimensional form $2rdacontent
> 336 ## $asounds $2rdacontent
> 337 ## $aunmediated $2rdamedia
> 338 ## $avolume $2rdacarrier
> (Resource is a children's pop-up book with sound effects) Along with a 500
> note to express the interesting form of the book. I would think that a
> strangely shaped book would also go in a 500 note.
> 500 Board book.
> or
> 500 Pop-up book with sound effects.
> or
> 500 Board book in the shape of a shark.


For the RDA element to support this 500 note, I'm not sure that "Nature of the 
Content" (RDA 7.2) is appropriate, as RDA 7.2 is a work-related element for the 
"primary content" of the resource.

I think this 500 note falls under RDA 7.29 "Note on Expression" as it annotates 
the other expression elements such as those found in the 336 fields.

Also, I read the other expression elements such as "Sound Content" as fallback 
elements in case the 336 for "sounds" isn't chosen. A Content Type like 
"sounds" should be chosen if all or most of the resource is of this content 
type, or it is important for identification or selection. But if not, then the 
other expression elements like "Sound Content" or "Illustrative Content" or 
"Supplementary Content" should be chosen, as these refer to complementary 
expression attributes that support the primary content of the resource.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Relator terms in author/title added entries?

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

> -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: May-07-13 3:46 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relator terms in author/title added entries?
> 
> Kevin answered me:
> 
> >> By definition isn't any person, body, or family in 1XX a creator?
> >
> >No, the entity in the 1XX field may be an "Other Person, Family, or
> .Corporate Body Associated with a Work"
> 
> Why is this not also true of 700 in a 700 12 $a$t? 
> The 700 being
> assumed to be creator was the reason given for no relator terms or
> coded in 700$a$t.



The relationship designator as found in 100 $e is not part of any access point 
for any entity. It exists as an independent element establishing relationships 
between entities. In a database, the relationship designators would be in their 
own separate table, and be the basis for creating many-to-many relationships 
between entities in other tables. Running searches, filters and displays on 
these tables is what these designators are designed to support.

It's true that the name-title form for the Work has an implicit relationship 
(most often "Creator") but the relationship designators are not intended to be 
part of the way the Work entity is identified.


The logic is always presented as:


  


It's not



The 100 field is doing two distinct jobs-- it's the placeholder for the "Name 
of Person" and it's the first part of the "Name. Title" form representing the 
work.

The 100 $e designator is not part of either access point. There could even be 
more designators piled on, as in the example from 
http://www.rdatoolkit.org/sites/default/files/6jsc_rda_complete_examples_bibliographic_apr0913_rev.pdf

where "100 1_ $a Porter, Kalan, $e composer, $e singer" occurs because the 
Person "Porter, Kalan" has a relationship to the work as a Creator, and to the 
expression as a Contributor.

The work itself is designated as "Porter, Kalan. 219 days" and the relationship 
designator is not part of it.



Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Relator terms in author/title added entries?

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

> -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: May-06-13 1:12 AM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relator terms in author/title added entries?
> 
> John said:
> 
> >No, because there is no instruction for including relationship
> >designators in authorized access points for works and expressions.
> >In any case, any name that is included in such an AAP is by definition
> >some kind of creator or one of the categories from 19.3.
> 
> By definition isn't any person, body, or family in 1XX a creator?


No, there are two elements, or top-level categories, of work-related 1XX 
entities-- "Creators" and "Other Person, Family or Corporate Body Associated 
with a Work".

While RDA Chapter 19 covers examples of the types of persons or bodies that can 
fall under either category, the choice for the first element in the authorized 
access point identifying the work (the name-title form) is covered in RDA 
Chapter 6.27 to 6.31. The AACR2 idea of the main entry heading for the work is 
covered in RDA Chapter 6.

This first element in the authorized access point for the work is either the 
first named person or body, or it's a name chosen for particular works (such as 
"defendant" which is not a Creator but "Other Person, Family or Corporate Body 
Associated with a Work".)

The 1XX field is about choosing an element as the lead-off element in forming 
the authorized access point for the work-- this is about creating an identifier 
for a work in preferred title or name+preferred title form.

RDA Chapter 19 is only about covering off all the possible creators or others 
associated with a work. There are no instructions in Chapter 19 about picking 
one creator above others (apart from a reference back to RDA chapter 6). In RDA 
Chapter 19, there is no difference between a name in a 1XX field and one in a 
7XX field if they are both related to the work in some way. It's in Chapter 6 
where the instructions lie for choosing that special name for the 1XX spot.


>  For systems
> which list the 700$t titles along with 245, 246, and 247 titles under an 
> author's
> name, won't having no relators when the 700 has a $t be an inconsistency?
> 

The authorized access point for the work (as found in 700$a$t) is an identifier 
for the work.  Packaging more information into that tool, like inserting the 
designator "author", would probably create more problems for systems than 
solving them.

For example, the authorized access for this work:

"Kinsella, W. P. Shoeless Joe"

is an identifier for the work that appears in this formulation:

  

or in full:

  


or one can choose a relationship designator that falls under the Creator 
element:

  


Fields 245 or 246 or 247 are not "under" an author's name in the same sense. 
These are primarily titles that identify a specific manifestation. The 245 
title proper can do double duty as the preferred title for the work, and when 
joined with the 1XX author acts as the de facto authorized access point for the 
work, which can be recycled in 700$a$t or 600$a$t or 100+240 forms. The 246 
title may show up in a variant access point in a name+title form.


One problem I see with tossing the designator into the mix is that the included 
punctuation preceding the designator will foul the authorized access point for 
the work. One could end up with an extra comma:

Kinsella, W. P., Shoeless Joe

once the authorized access point for the work was extracted from "Kinsella, W. 
P., author. Shoeless Joe".


I think leaving "author" in the formulation for the authorized access point for 
the work is not a good idea. This would miss entirely what the element 
structure in RDA is all about. We would end up with a set of controlled 
registered elements looking like this:


  


In addition, what would one choose for the relationship? The elements "Creator" 
or "Other Person, Family or Corporate Body Associated with a Work" are the top 
level elements. "Author" is a more specific relationship that falls under 
"Creator."


And there are some examples in RDA where there are no specific relationship 
designators for some cases.  "Other Person, Family or Corporate Body Associated 
with the Work" may be all one has to work with.

One outcome if this idea was pursued to its logical conclusion would be an 
unwieldy example like this:






In the end, RDA has **no** instructions for adding relationship elements or 
designators to the authorized access point for the work. This is as far as RDA 
goes in creating the relationship structure for the various separate and 
distinct elements:





This is the logic as presented in RDA, but often only implied in MARC, where 
numerous shortcuts and workarounds abound, with some fields doing double-duty 
or triple-duty for various functions and relationships. It would be a bad idea 
to retrofit RDA with such MA

Re: [RDA-L] Periods in titles

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

> -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: April-30-13 1:18 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Periods in titles
> 


> But as Deborah Fritz pointed out, the Title Proper is a *single element*.  The
> different parts of the title proper are not separate RDA elements; rather, the
> common title, section numbering, and section title are all taken together to
> form the single element "Title Proper". 


That does seem to be a weak spot in the current draft Bibframe mapping for some 
elements, such as Instance Title:
http://bibframe.org/vocab/Instance.html

where 245$a is mapped, but 245$a $n $p are the three subfields that make up the 
title proper.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

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

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

You should allow the U.S. Metric Association to provide some assistance.

Here’s a quick guide
http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/common.html

and a set of exercises for those who have trouble with this matter 
http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/correct.htm

One no longer needs to wonder what to do when  using metric symbols with 
exponents (hint: because it’s a symbol you don’t need to add a period between 
the unit symbol and the exponent when writing the symbol for “cubic 
centimeters”) or quotients of two units (as in km/h for velocity, which is 
built out of metric symbols).

Perhaps if catalogers got out a bit and spoke to others in fields where metric 
is more common, such as in some industries and in athletics, this would be less 
of a problem.

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 James Weinheimer
Sent: April-25-13 11:56 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] cm period/no period and sample records

On 25/04/2013 16:50, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:

Any user who notices "cm" instead of "cm." will assume, with good reason, that 
it is a typo; and the explanation why it's not is so rube-goldbergian in its 
nature it won't repay the effort to make it.


I have followed this but after the experience with this topic on Autocat, I 
have kept quiet.

Thanks for putting it so succinctly and so well.
--
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

Re: [RDA-L] Can "Lecturer" be used as a valid relator term and do you have a good example of a DVD + Book RDA record?

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Browning, Sommer 
[sommer.brown...@ucdenver.edu]
Sent: April-05-13 5:21 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Can "Lecturer" be used as a valid relator term and do you have 
a good example of a DVD + Book RDA record?

>I’ve searched the list and couldn’t find if these questions had been asked 
>before so here goes.


>1.   We are cataloging a Great Courses DVD and course guide. We have the 
>lecturer and course guide author in the 100 field. What should his relator 
>term be? Is $e creator sufficient? Though he isn’t the creator of the DVD…? He 
>is a kind of performer and author…? Using $e lecturer seems silly.





The presence in the 100 field also would mean that the name would form part of 
the authorized access point for the work, but this is not appropriate for 
moving image works (Great Courses DVDs are cataloged primarily as moving image 
DVD videos, with the course guide being accompanying material).



For moving images works, only the preferred title for the DVD is used alone for 
the authorized access point for the work (RDA 6.27.1.3), so the lecturer would 
not be found in the 100 field.



As a lecturer, the person would be contributing to the expression, essentially 
as a 'performer'. In the list of designators under 'performer' are 'speaker' or 
'teacher'. The designator ' speaker' is the best fit, as RDA refers 
specifically to the delivery of a lecture (as opposed to a 'teacher' who is 
providing instructions or a demonstration).



The lecturer is also the writer of the course guide, so that is a clear work 
relationship. Instead of a contributor to the expression, the lecturer is the 
Creator of a work, specifically an 'author.'





Adding these two designators to the lecturer in 700 field would be the best fit 
for the two roles:



$e speaker $e author







2.   Related note: Can the relationship designator just be left off 
entirely?



Yes, but the person would not be found in the 100 field because the description 
is primarily for a moving image work. A name in a 700 field can have 
designators supporting relationships to works or expressions in the resource, 
but the 100 field is reserved for allowable names that can form part of the 
authorized access point for the work.





Thomas Brenndorfer

Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] multiple relationship designators

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

> -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: April-04-13 3:33 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] multiple relationship designators
> 
> Rochard Baumgarten asked:
> 
> 
> >I am listing all four editors.  All of them have some of their writings
> >in the book.  I am not creating a Contents note because of the sheer
> >size that it would be.  Should I just use the relationship designator
> >of editor or use both author and editor?
> 
> We would not use $eauthor ore $faut.  They are not not authors of the work,
> only of parts of it, so are contributors not authors.

Not to be confused with 'contributors' in the RDA sense, which are 
relationships to expressions only (editor, translator, etc.)

The added entries are indeed and emphatically "authors"  in the RDA sense, of 
the respective parts. The appearance of $econtributor on an RDA record for any 
of these will be corrected as a clear mistake if the persons have no role 
beyond author of one or more parts.

$4ctb would be considered valid, because that uses a very different definition 
of 'contributor,' used only in a narrower sense. This sense doesn't appear in 
AACR2, and the situation closest to making added entries for authors of parts 
of works is found in AACR2 21.7B1 which only refers to making added entries for 
those "responsible" for the parts, which is the same wording used for work 
relationships (rendered in RDA as 'creator,' or more specifically 'author').


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] order in 245 when title is more than one language, with bits in each language interspersed

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Harden, Jean
> Sent: April-03-13 5:58 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: [RDA-L] order in 245 when title is more than one language, with bits
> in each language interspersed
> 
> How should this 245 be ordered? The title page of the item says this:
> 
> Trio in G-Dur, Trio in G major, für Violine, Violoncello und Klavier, for 
> violin,
> cello and piano, B. 446
> 
> This particular example is complicated by being one of the sorts of music
> titles that is made up of a type word, key, medium, and number, in which
> case all those elements are included in the title proper. So in this case we
> have essentially a title proper and a parallel title proper, but neither 
> appears
> as a unit on the title page.
> 
> Under AACR2, we followed the ISBD admonition to keep elements in one
> language together, even if that meant some transposition from title page
> order. With ISBD punctuation, that would look like this:
> 
> Trio in G-Dur für Violine, Violoncello und Klavier = Trio in G major, for 
> violin,
> cello, and piano, B. 446
> 
> RDA says simply to transcribe the title as it appears on the source of
> information. RDA 2.3.3.4 talks about the situation of having medium, key, etc.
> in multiple languages and says to transcribe information in the order it is on
> the source of information, but the example does not show the languages
> intertwined. The example has languages grouped together, but one cannot
> tell whether they were already grouped together on the source of
> information or not.
> 
> What are we supposed to do under RDA?
> 


I read RDA 2.3.2.8 (Other Elements Recorded as Part of the Title Proper) as 
meaning to pull all the elements in the same language together to form a title 
proper in the special case when all one would have as a title proper is a type 
of composition. A title proper should not just consist of a type or types of 
composition if the other statements referring to medium, key, date of 
composition, or number exist anywhere on the chief source of information. The 
instruction to treat all the elements together in the order in which they 
appear I would take to mean as pulling them out of intertwined parallel 
statements in the order in which they appear.

That's bolstered by the instruction "In case of doubt, treat statements of 
medium of performance, key, date of composition, and number as part of the 
title proper."

That would result in these RDA elements:

Title proper: Trio in G-Dur für Violine, Violoncello und Klavier, B. 446
Parallel title proper: Trio in G major, for violin, cello, and piano, B. 446

Repeating "B.446" supported by RDA 1.7.7 to repeat data meant to be read twice.

However, RDA 2.3.3.4 points to not repeating the type of composition if it 
appears in only one form:

Title proper: Concerto, D-Dur, für Horn und Orchester
Parallel title proper: D major, for horn and orchestra
Parallel title proper: ré majeur, pour cor et orchestra



Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization of approximately in 300

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

> -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: April-02-13 3:21 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization of approximately in 300
> 
> Amanda posted:
> 
> >approximately 60 slides
> >approximately 600 pages
> 
> Apart from capitalization, there is the problem of Anglocentrism.
> 
> If we can't use "ca. 60 slides", how about "[60?] slides"?
> 


How is the use of the word "slides" not Anglocentrism?


For the carrier type value "slide", the RDA metadata registry already has two 
languages listed:
http://metadataregistry.org/concept/show/id/569.html

English preferred label: slide
German preferred label: Dia


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

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

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

> -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: April-02-13 2:17 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator and "in cooperation with"
> 
> Alison Hitchens posted:
> 
> >/ Giuseppe Barbaro, Franck Boccara (Eds) ; in cooperation with Giorgio
> >Barb= arini
> 
> >=3D700  1\$aBarbaro, Giuseppe,$eeditor of compilation.
> >=3D700  1\$aBoccara, Franck$eeditor of compilation.
> >=3D700  1\$aBarbarini, Giorgio. 
> 
> How about Barbarini, Giorgia,$econtributor.?
> 
> When one donesn't know what the contribution was, that's a nice catchall.
> SLC would use $4ctb.
> 

The $4 relator term "ctb" is likely not the same as the broader element 
"contributor".

Dublin Core appears to have the same problem:
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/diglib/loc.terms/relators/dc-contributor.html

where for the broad relationship element "contributor" several refinements 
pulled from the MARC relator term list are offered. One is $4ctb for 
contributor -- a refinement of "contributor" in Dublin Core and applied in a 
narrower set of circumstances.



Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] eBooks & Playaways

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

The RDA Content Type "audio" does cover MP3 players as the intermediary device 
(RDA 3.2).

Which would result in:

Content type=audio
and
Carrier type=other

and which does correspond generally with current Playaway AACR2 record values:


GMD = [sound recording]
300$a = 1 sound media player

007/00=s - sound recording
007/00=z - other

But there is also a 006/00=m (computer file/electronic resource) and a 007/00=c 
(electronic resource), as well as a 008/23=q (direct electronic).

I'm wondering for the computer-like "other" carrier, there couldn't be a 
simplification based around the idea of the "file server".

For Carrier Type=online resource, according to the RDA/ONIX Framework 
(http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2007/5chair10.pdf) the StorageMediumFormat value 
is "file server."

This makes sense when considering remote access or online resources, but a file 
server can also be accessed directly (similar to "direct electronic"). A 
portable media player is essentially a miniaturized and mass-produced "file 
server," but accessed in a "direct electronic" way.

So perhaps all one needs is a new value for StorageMediumFormat parallel to 
file server such as "digital media player". The word "player" denotes this will 
be a direct electronic device as opposed to a remote access file server.

So, following RDA/ONIX generally one could have:

StorageMediumFormat = digital media player

HousingFormat = not applicable

IntermediationTool = audio

producing a label for Carrier Type "audio media player" and Media Type = audio.


Switch to  IntermediationTool = video for Playaway Views and one gets Carrier 
Type = "video media player" and Media Type = video.

and

switch to IntermediationTool = computer for portable multimedia devices 
(perhaps for all-in-one tablets or ebook readers that can combine digitized 
text, audio and video) and one gets Carrier Type = "multimedia player" and 
Media Type = computer. In RDA, Media Type=computer can be used for online or 
direct electronic access.





Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library
 

> -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: March-15-13 2:48 PM
> 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] Typos in Titles

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

>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

We serve users of all ages and all walks of life. Probably many who are not 
good spellers to begin with.

In the example of "Inglourious basterds," I checked our record. There is indeed 
a 246 for the corrected title, so nothing would change with RDA.


A better solution would be to utilize the flexibility in online displays and 
assign annotations on other elements a special place next to the affected 
element.

RDA has three elements that can be brought to bear in the case of a clear 
mistake in the title proper:

Title proper: Heirarchy in organizations
Variant title: Hierarchy in organizations
Note on title: Title should read: Hierarchy in organizations

If "Note on title" was linked directly to the title element it annotates one 
could have a record display like:

Title proper: Heirarchy in organizations *
* (Title should read: Hierarchy in organizations)
...
Variant title: Hierarchy in organizations


The idea being that the original values in the RDA elements would be kept pure 
and this information would be brought together by virtue of the encoding used 
and style sheet applied (it's important to point out that this would be an 
encoding solution, not an RDA content standard solution). I think this would be 
very useful if automated and made consistent, because in looking at the list of 
examples in RDA it seems quite appropriate to flag similar title transcription 
issues in this way such as "title varies slightly."

 
Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

In the rare cases when I've seen a [sic] in a display it's been a disservice 
especially when it's close to the beginning of a title, as it throws off the 
sort order, and in fact most users are none the wiser and so assume [sic] is 
part of the title.

I have seen titles with unusual spelling that some have interpreted as typos. 
("Inglourious basterds" for lack of a better example). No, I would never put 
[sic] into the display for this title or the other examples I've seen.

RDA's focus is "take what you see, accept what you get". That is indeed simpler 
for both catalogers and endusers, in terms of clarifying expectations when 
confronted with the data of a transcribed element.

Utilizing notes, or annotations on other elements, is something that can and 
should be fixed in the display. Adding corrected titles satisfies keyword 
searching needs, as well as title browse lists. What's left is a rather narrow 
gap of meeting a workflow requirement in spotting problems in the catalog, but 
surely there are other ways of doing this.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Gueph Public Library

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: March-08-13 3:31 PM
To: 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 author does." Which is sometimes true (in the case 
of typos) and sometimes not (in the case of rap artists' names, neologisms, 
puns, etc.)

--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: Friday, March 08, 2013 3:11 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles

First, I would respectfully disagree with Joan Wang's statement below.  I do 
not find RDA to be more explicit when it comes to mistakes in title (or in any 
other transcribed field), but rather less explicit.

First of all, I thank for your disagreement. I could not understand [sic] until 
I became a cataloger. I am not sure if it is because my first language is 
Chinese. A word explanation seems to be explicit for users.

Thanks,
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Michael Borries 
mailto:michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu>> wrote:
I wish to comment on several aspects of this thread.

First, I would respectfully disagree with Joan Wang's statement below.  I do 
not find RDA to be more explicit when it comes to mistakes in title (or in any 
other transcribed field), but rather less explicit.

There are two or three sources of typos: what appears on the item in hand, or 
the cataloger transcribing the information, or orthographic differences (these, 
of course, are not typos, but odd spellings that need to be verified).  If a 
"[sic]"  appears next to a typo, I immediately know that the cataloger found it 
on the item being cataloged; without the "[sic]" I must look for a 246 and 
perhaps also a note.  If I am in the process of correcting errors in the 
catalog of which this is one of many, then it is not very helpful to have to 
hunt through the record to see what the situation is.  I wonder how many 
incorrect "corrections" will be made because of the lack of "[sic]."

In terms of adding a 240:  While most dissertations are not published, many 
are.  According to RDA, the publication is merely a manifestation of the work, 
not a new work.  If the dissertation had a typo in the title proper, and no 
240, what would then be the preferred 

Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

>Really? There is a part 2 to AACR2? I never got that far into the book! ;-)

>In my opinion, laziness has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Catalogers were 
>always supposed to check to see if there were other editions of the work and 
>relate those editions using a >uniform title when appropriate. If it is not 
>appropriate, such as when there is only a single edition, they can stop and go 
>on to the next item.

But they haven't "stopped." The choice of main entry (just choosing the main 
author responsible) is still part of the choice for identifying the work. The 
uniform title choice (or lack of a decision about it) doesn't change the fact 
that a work exists in a manifestation, and it doesn't change the other 
decisions that revolve around that fact. There is still a specific choice being 
made about authorship for the main intellectual or creative content. Even if no 
other editions exist, it still might be ambiguous as what the work in an item 
actually is, and who is primarily responsible for it. AACR2 (and mostly copied 
in RDA) has may situations when catalogers are called upon to tease out the 
relationships among entities that exist in an item, as well as to do things in 
a consistent way that is cognizant of relationships between entities in 
resources in a collection.

In other words, works don't just suddenly appear when a cataloger makes a 
decision about a uniform title. The entities, and the data specific to those 
entities, will always exist.

This fact is always made evident whenever works become subjects of other works, 
or works are found to be part of a series (the series being a work in its own 
right), or when works are adapted into other works. When one adds subject 
headings to a record, one generally says it's the "work" that has the subject 
heading. There are a huge number of relationships that can exist in 
bibliographic records, and there are myriad conventions for indicating those 
relationships, with an overreliance on free text descriptions of relationships 
(i.e., which cannot be easily turned into facets or adapted to easy 
navigation). It's not just about a narrow set of circumstances of editions of a 
work with different titles.


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer 
[weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com]
Sent: March-08-13 10:36 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles

>On 08/03/2013 02:02, Robert Maxwell wrote:
>

>The one core relationship in RDA is to record the relationship between the 
>resource being cataloged and the work manifested in it (see RDA 17.3). There 
>are several ways to do this. One of the ways to do it is by using an 
>authorized access point for the work (see 17.4.2.2). In current practice if 
>there is only one work or expression manifested in the resource being 
>cataloged, the authorized access point for the work is recorded in 
>bibliographic 1XX + 240 (or 130 if there is no principal creator). So in this 
>case, the purpose of 1XX/240 (or 7XX author-title) is to record the 
>relationship of the resource being cataloged with the work contained in it, 
>not to unite manifestations/works/expressions with different titles. In this 
>case the title proper of the manifestation is evidently not the preferred 
>title for the work, so the 1XX/240 is necessary to record the relationship 
>between the resource and the work that is in it.


>/snip>

>This shows the difference between RDA/FRBR and cataloging rules that came 
>before. RDA/FRBR are philosophical, academic >statements while AACR2 and 
>previous rules are pragmatic and based on practical issues. RDA/FRBR posits 
>that every manifestation >contains a work, and a specific version of that 
>work, the expression. Therefore, every manifestation must contain the 
>requisite work >and expression information, even if there is only one 
>manifestation.

>Previous rules did not make such a philosophical statement. They began by 
>creating a record for the item, then *if and only if* it turned >out that your 
>item were related to records of other items, you would make those relations in 
>various ways.

You don't seem to be aware that AACR2 has two parts.
Part 1: describe the resource (which could include data about any FRBR entity 
in the resource-- work, expression, manifestation, item)

Part 2: provide access to the *WORK*. Catalogers have never had a choice about 
deciding what the work is in a manifestation because that's what determines the 
main entry heading. RDA takes the existing practice and labels it more 
concisely as a process of identifying the work in the manifestation rather than 
as something that creates a file order for a catalog. RDA also makes it a CORE 
element for the same reason that AACR2 doesn't let catalogers be lazy and not 
make a decision about main entry (aka identifying the work in a manifestation). 
In addition, RDA takes the  pragmatic  step of acknowledging other data 
scenarios in which authorized access points may not be the only method used to 
identify entities.

Or, as AACR2 20.1 puts it (and I hope this issue is laid to rest once and for 
all):

"The rules in part II apply to works and not to physical manifestations of 
those works, though the characteristics of an individual item are taken into 
account in some instances."

Cataloging has always posited the "philosophical" idea that every manifestation 
has a work, and every record has that decision embedded within it. It's only a 
question about being implicit or explicit about it in terms of encoding and 
processing of bibliographic information.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] (OCoLC)829311087

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

>From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
>[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Deborah Fritz
>Sent: March-07-13 6:03 PM
>To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
>Subject: Re: [RDA-L] (OCoLC)829311087

>Thomas said: "The basic problem is then thrown back to MARC where one has an 
>undifferentiated 710 field (corporate body could be a creator, other 
>associated with the work, >contributor, publisher, etc. - none of these 
>top-level relationship elements are in the list of designators)."

>"Creator", "Contributor", "Publisher", and other top-level elements are 
>actually in the list at http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html


I think the RDA categories for the top level relationships are an evolution of 
past methods of categorizing agents and determining more specific roles. In 
looking at the past JSC meeting minutes (http://rda-jsc.org/working2.html#min), 
there appears to have been a long path taken to the point where creator and 
"other ... associated" are defined exclusively as Work relationship elements, 
and contributor as an expression relationship element. The relationship 
designators are only used when further specificity in roles under each 
relationship element is desired. 

By comparison, Dublin Core has a broad agent element "contributor," and 
refinements to it are pulled from the MARC relator term list:

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/diglib/loc.terms/relators/dc-contributor.html

This leads to an odd result. "Contributor" [ctb], from the MARC relator term 
list and with its narrower meaning, is listed as a refinement of the broader 
Dublin Core role "contributor" with its broader definition of "An entity 
responsible for making contributions to the resource."

Because of RDA 19.1.2 (two or more works with different people or bodies 
responsible for each work), a writer of a piece in a compilation would fall 
under RDA's "creator" element.

There are parallel instructions for aggregates of two or more expressions, 
manifestations, and items (RDA 20.1.2, 21.1.2, 22.1.2), but this would mean 
that each person or body would, at a minimum, fall under a top level 
relationship element such as "creator," "other ... associated with a work," 
"contributor," "publisher," etc.

I would take that to mean that a writer of a piece in a compilation is a 
"creator," but a translator of that piece is a "contributor." Using $e in a 700 
field (such as $e author or $e translator) would help in distinguishing creator 
from contributor, but there are cases when there is no relationship designator 
in the RDA elements (ignoring the MARC relator term list), or situations when 
agencies opt out of using relationship designators. In those scenarios, the 700 
field becomes undifferentiated, and the authorized access point cannot be 
easily mapped into an RDA relationship element like "creator" or "contributor." 
If one were to create new MARC relator terms for these top-level relationship 
elements, then a distinction should be made between RDA's "contributor" and the 
current "contributor" [ctb] relator term.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] (OCoLC)829311087

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

In looking at the examples in RDA 19.3.1.3 for "Other Person, Family or 
Corporate Body Associated with a Work" there are several instances where a 
specific relationship designator is not in the initial phrasing for the example.

So when one sees "Authorized access point representing the dedicatee for" one 
can take that mean that the relationship designator "dedicatee" is used.

When one sees "Authorized access point representing the corporate body 
associated with the work for" then no relationship designator is used.

The top-level elements for Work relationships are:

Creator
Other Person, Family or Corporate Body Associated with a Work

So if one can't see a match in the list of relationship designators in RDA 
Appendix I.2.2 (for Others associated with a Work) then no relationship 
designator is assigned. The basic problem is then thrown back to MARC where one 
has an undifferentiated 710 field (corporate body could be a creator, other 
associated with the work, contributor, publisher, etc. - none of these 
top-level relationship elements are in the list of designators).

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 Kevin M Randall
Sent: March-07-13 5:17 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] (OCoLC)829311087

I don't believe there is any relationship designator yet defined in RDA 
appropriate for this particular relationship (and lots of others).  The place 
this relationship fits into is I.2.2 (Relationship Designators for Other 
Persons, Families, or Corporate Bodies Associated with a Work).  Not much there 
that fits this!  The closest seem to be "host institution", "Issuing body", and 
"sponsoring body", but none of them is really appropriate.  I would just omit 
subfield $e, since it is not a required element.

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 Michael Borries
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 3:57 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] (OCoLC)829311087

I come to the collective wisdom looking for guidance.

I have cataloged this record according to RDA standards (I hope!).  What 
troubles me is the 710 for Polaroid Collections.  I have no idea what to use 
for the subfield $e except perhaps "contributor," and that doesn't seem 
correct.  The term "author" would seem to suggest that the Polaroid Collections 
should be the preferred entry, but this book does not seem to fall into any of 
the categories for corporate authorship.  I did use the subdivision "Catalogs" 
in one of the 610 fields, but this doesn't seem to be an "official" catalog, 
although all the illustrations are of photographs held by the Polaroid 
Collections, and Barbara Hitchcock is the director of the Collections.

Thoughts?  Any and all corrections also gratefully received, especially for the 
300 field.

Michael S. Borries
Cataloger, City University of New York
151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY  10010
Phone: (646) 312-1687
Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu

Re: [RDA-L] Multiple identities named on same manifestation

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Santos Muñoz,
> Ricardo
> Sent: February-28-13 6:56 AM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Multiple identities named on same manifestation
> 
> Yesterday I discussed with a fellow reference librarian, who couldn't
> understand the logic behind separating different bibliographic identities for 
> a
> single person. She couldn't see how disgregating the work of an author might
> help the user in any way.
> 
> As a matter of fact, I don't see it either. I never did. I know the principle 
> of
> respecting the way an author presents him/herself, but cross-references
> between pseudonyms and/or real name are hidden in dark authority records
> rarely seen or showed to the patrons in our current OPACs. Our national
> cataloging rules or AACR2 provided some cases in which only one name (the
> real one or most known pseudonym) were chosen as preferred. RDA,
> furthermore, as I understand it, always separate identities. That would be
> nice if our retrieval systems handled this references properly.
> 
> In the Anne Rice example we are discussing, only one AAP for the work
> would exist but both real name and pseudonym would have separate
> records.
> 
> Ricardo Santos Muñoz
> Technical Process Department
> Standardization Service
> Biblioteca Nacional de España / National Library of Spain
> 


There is a problem indeed with many retrieval systems, in that relevant data is 
not always exposed.

While RDA can work in the current scenarios (one can even still produce catalog 
cards-- I've seen them!), RDA is also tailored to work in a scenario where the 
bibliographic record/authority record split is replaced by an entity-based 
model where each record supports data only for that entity. For retrieval and 
display this could mean cutting across the data in better ways, as there is an 
intentional linking that is occurring that doesn't assume the constraints of a 
flat-file organization.

RDA also expands identities to include fictitious names. To be fair, many users 
want to search for books under the fictitious name of "Jessica Fletcher" as 
that is the name presented as author. AACR2 didn't allow this, so this a 
welcome change in RDA.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Relators for contributors and consultants

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

I believe this is related to the removal of the limitation on the number of 
added entries in AACR2 21.7B for collections of works by different persons or 
bodies (from list of changes in RDA - http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/5sec7rev.pdf 
).


In the examples in AACR2 21.7B, there are added entries made for persons and 
bodies instead of name-title headings when the number of works exceed three 
(although a name-title heading could still be slipped in if the total number of 
added entries for either names or name-titles doesn't exceed three), and when 
the number of persons pass three then only the first named creator of a work in 
the collection is recorded.

That's all gone in RDA.

There is no limit on the number of name-title headings (authorized access 
points for works) or headings for persons or bodies responsible for any one 
work in a collection. The continuing convention seems to be that if the work is 
identified with a name-title heading, then a corresponding access point for 
just the creator doesn't need to be made.

But outside of that, there doesn't appear to be a limit on recording names 
related to works or expressions within a compilation.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library




From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Bernadette Mary O'Reilly 
[bernadette.orei...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk]
Sent: February-27-13 5:10 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relators for contributors and consultants

Interesting point, but I’m not sure about the reading of 19.1.2.  Does it 
really mean that creators of components may be treated as co-creators of the 
aggregate (which would presumably mean that they could have creator-level 
relators), or just that they are to be treated as creators with respect to the 
relevant components?  Most of the previous responses seem to support the latter.

I‘m not clear about how to apply your other points to cases where there are too 
many components for contents notes or name-titles but only a small number of 
creators for those components, who therefore seem to merit AAPs and ideally 
would have relators for those AAPs.

I would be interested to read anything further on this thread, but apologise in 
advance if I drop out of it – several weeks of intensive training coming up.

Best wishes,
Bernadette
***
Bernadette O'Reilly
Catalogue Support Librarian
01865 2-77134
Bodleian Libraries,
Osney One Building
Osney Mead
Oxford OX2 0EW.
***

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Brenndorfer, Thomas
Sent: 26 February 2013 15:56
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relators for contributors and consultants

Multiple creators and aggregate works are covered in RDA 19.1.2:

“If the resource being described contains two or more works associated with 
different persons, families, or corporate bodies, record the persons, families, 
and corporate bodies associated with each of the works in the aggregate 
resource as instructed under 19.2-19.3.”

Essentially, they can be treated as co-creators of the aggregate work. 
Potentially they could be linked to each respective work, if entity records are 
created for each work. The closest to this is to use MARC authority records for 
authorized and variant access points for works and expressions (which entangle 
the names of persons in the access points, but that’s not quite the same as 
declaring a relationship between a person and a work). Works can be identified 
just through structured and unstructured descriptions as well, and so the act 
of “recording” the names can mean just connecting those names to the record for 
the aggregate resource, and then one uses a content note to list the works, 
perhaps with embedded statements of responsibility. The relationship 
designators would then describe a role played, but would not be linked to a 
specific work in the aggregate.

A contributor is someone who helps realize a work, through roles such as 
editing, translating, or illustrating, and as such is an expression-level 
relationship. All expression-level relationship designators fall under one top 
level relationship element— “contributor” whether it’s a single work or an 
aggregate work.

In RDA 20.1.2, the provision for multiple contributors for an aggregate work 
with multiple expressions is that all the contributors can be linked to the 
aggregate resource, and not necessarily to each specific expression. I would 
take that to mean that there would be no distinction between a translator for 
just one work in the aggregate, and an editor for the whole compilation when 
recording all the relevant access points.

Here’s an example that shows this for contributors of different expressions in 
an aggregate work from RDA 20.2.1.3:

Shoemaker, Alan H.

Re: [RDA-L] Media type for streaming video

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

> -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: February-26-13 1:29 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Media type for streaming video
> 
> Jack Wu said:
> 
> >  Two dimensional moving image which leaves out sound ...
> 
> Jack, I empathize with your reaction to RDA media terms, and share your
> frustration.  But one does not have to leave out sound.  Media terms are
> repeating, either in repeating $a or repeating fields.
> (Most prefer repeating fields.)
> 
> You could add 336 $aspoken word$2rdacontent, in addition to 336  $atwo
> dimensional moving image$2rdacontent.  


So, in MARC terms, one would have LDR/06=g for "projected media" and 006/00=i 
for "nonmusical sound recording" to capture the essential content types of a 
movie-- "two dimensional moving image" and "spoken word"

That's rather absurd when one steps back and looks at what is being proposed, 
and what is not even suggested by RDA, which reflects a lot of current 
categorization decisions for content types derived from AACR2 and MARC.

I watch movies and read subtitles. I plan to watch the (nearly) silent movie 
"The Artist." Spoken Word is not a relevant content distinction that needs to 
be added for users to identify movies as movies. It's only at that very broad 
"identify" user task requirement that decisions about Content Type need to be 
made. The other details can be added as supplementary elements, useful for 
further selections (films with closed captioning, films dubbed or subtitled in 
a particular language, form/genre category for "silent films", etc.).

In MARC, the equivalent to Content Types are captured by one predominant type 
in the LDR field, and other content types in 006 fields. MARC forces the choice 
of one predominant Content Type, whereas the default in RDA doesn't require 
this forced decision, but recognizes it as an alternative.

Rhetorical question:
How consistently  have libraries added all relevant additional content types to 
006 fields?

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Media type for streaming video

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

The scope note for "two dimensional moving image" includes sound.
>From RDA 6.9.1.3 for two dimensional moving image:
"Moving images may or may not be accompanied by sound ..."
Details about sound are covered in the Sound Content element (RDA 7.18).
"'Sound content' is the presence of sound in a resource other than one that 
consists primarily of recorded sound."
I think the same basic logic applies to other resources in determining primary 
content from supplementary content.

I would think a graphic novel would get a "still image" content type in 
addition to "text." Books with accompanying illustrations would only get a 
value for "illustrative content" (RDA 7.15).
In RDA 7.15, the reference is to illustrating the "primary content" of the 
resource, which means one doesn't use the Illustrative Content element if one 
of the content types is "still image." For RDA 6.9 on Content Types, one 
records all, the most predominant, or the most substantial content types.

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 Jack Wu
Sent: February-26-13 10:26 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Media type for streaming video

Forgive the rant and ignorance of one stuck in the one dimensional 300 field. 
I've not clearly understood the concept of the three part construct of content, 
media, carrier let alone its finer delineations and declensions.  Two 
dimensional moving image which leaves out sound is perhaps no worse than print 
text leaving out graphic

Re: [RDA-L] Relators for contributors and consultants

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

Multiple creators and aggregate works are covered in RDA 19.1.2:

"If the resource being described contains two or more works associated with 
different persons, families, or corporate bodies, record the persons, families, 
and corporate bodies associated with each of the works in the aggregate 
resource as instructed under 19.2-19.3."

Essentially, they can be treated as co-creators of the aggregate work. 
Potentially they could be linked to each respective work, if entity records are 
created for each work. The closest to this is to use MARC authority records for 
authorized and variant access points for works and expressions (which entangle 
the names of persons in the access points, but that's not quite the same as 
declaring a relationship between a person and a work). Works can be identified 
just through structured and unstructured descriptions as well, and so the act 
of "recording" the names can mean just connecting those names to the record for 
the aggregate resource, and then one uses a content note to list the works, 
perhaps with embedded statements of responsibility. The relationship 
designators would then describe a role played, but would not be linked to a 
specific work in the aggregate.

A contributor is someone who helps realize a work, through roles such as 
editing, translating, or illustrating, and as such is an expression-level 
relationship. All expression-level relationship designators fall under one top 
level relationship element- "contributor" whether it's a single work or an 
aggregate work.

In RDA 20.1.2, the provision for multiple contributors for an aggregate work 
with multiple expressions is that all the contributors can be linked to the 
aggregate resource, and not necessarily to each specific expression. I would 
take that to mean that there would be no distinction between a translator for 
just one work in the aggregate, and an editor for the whole compilation when 
recording all the relevant access points.

Here's an example that shows this for contributors of different expressions in 
an aggregate work from RDA 20.2.1.3:

Shoemaker, Alan H.
Vehrs, Kristin L.

Authorized access points representing the editors of compilation for: AAZPA 
manual of federal wildlife regulations. - Contents: v. 1. Protected species / 
compiled by Alan H. Shoemaker - v. 2. Laws and regulations / compiled by 
Kristin L. Vehrs


For an aggregate resource, any one person could have responsibility for a part 
of a work or expression, just one work or expression, several of the works or 
expressions, or some role in all the works and expressions, and potentially 
different roles.

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 Bernadette Mary O'Reilly
Sent: February-26-13 4:23 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Relators for contributors and consultants

Thanks, Sean.  That tends to confirm my suggestion yesterday that the reason 
why list I.3 lacks relators for contributors to a compilation is that it is 
assumed that if they merit anything they can have a name-title.

However, the fact remains that a lot of resources either list contributors 
without specifying who did which bit or have far too many bits for name-titles 
or even contents notes, and yet some or all of the contributors are worth AAPs; 
and it would be good for the AAPs to have suitable relators.

How about a compilation of 500 photos by Francis Frith and Henry Taunt?  In 
principle one could make one name-title entry for each photographer, but it 
does seem odd to privilege 2 photos out of 500, and the name-titles would do 
nothing to convey that they are photographers.  And if the photos were not 
individually attributed one could not even do that much.

In the dictionary of biography which was the starting point for this discussion 
there are probably about 2.5k separate articles, but a relatively small number 
of contributors, for whom there is a statement of responsibility just after 
that for the editors.

I have concluded for the moment that there just are not suitable relators 
available for these situations, so I will advise my colleagues to make AAPs 
without relators for contributors to compilations if they are important enough 
and it is impractical to create analytical entries.

So far no one has offered suggestions about my consultant editor.  This 
particular consultant is not worth agonising over, but I think it could be 
useful to have an I.3 relator such as 'adviser' for people who are presented as 
having major, deliberate intellectual input into a resource before and during 
its creation without actually writing/drawing/etc. any of it.

Best wishes,
Bernadette

P.S. What would be a good relator for a cook who created the recipes in a book 
but did not put them into words?
***
Bernadette O'Reilly
Catalogue Support Librarian
01865 2-77134
Bodleian Libraries

Re: [RDA-L] Scope of Core Element for 17.8

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

When applying RDA 17.8 to compilations, and having only the first or 
predominant work be a core element, I think that situation points back to RDA 
6.27.1.5 when there is a compilation but no collective title (and therefore no 
authorized access point for an aggregate work).

In the example at RDA 6.27.15, three authorized access points for three 
separate works in a compilation are to be created in the situation of no 
collective title:


Baden, Conrad. Symphonies, no. 6
First work in a compilation without a collective title also containing Symphony 
no. 3 by Hallvard Johnsen and Symphony no. 2 by Bjarne Brustad

Johnsen, Hallvard. Symphonies, no. 3, op. 26
Second work in the same compilation

Brustad, Bjarne. Symphonies, no. 2
Third work in the same compilation


... and what RDA 17.8 is getting at is that only the first authorized access 
point for a work is a core element.

But according to the LC-PCC PS that authorized access point for the work is a 
core element but for a different reason.

The LC-PCC PS for RDA 17.8 points to the policy statement for 25.1 (related 
work, specifically covering compilations of works).

That policy statement at 25.1 seems to do three distinct things:

1. Recast the 17.8 core element when there is no collective title for a 
compilation. Here the authorized access point for the first analytical work is 
a Related Work element, not a Work Manifested element, but it becomes a core 
element nonetheless. It is also called an "analytical authorized access point." 
Also a core element: a 505 contents note unless the titles are listed in 245$a.

2. In other situations when there are compilations of works with a collective 
title, then the authorized access point for the first work should still be 
considered a core element if it's also "a substantial part of the resource."  
It is also called an "analytical authorized access point." Also a core element: 
a 505 contents note.

3. No authorized access point for a work becomes a core element if a) there is 
no collective title, and b) the compilation is an anthology of the types listed 
in the LC-PCC PS at 25.1. For the special types of anthologies not even the 505 
contents note is a core element.

If there is a collective title for the compilation, then RDA 17.8 is observed 
only indirectly in MARC, as one has to infer the work manifested from the 
100+240 or 100+245 title proper combinations (or 130 or 245 title proper, etc.).


The LC-PCC PS for 17.8 doesn't say to ignore the idea of the work manifested 
altogether-it refers back to RDA chapter 6 for all the decisions that go into 
choosing the elements for the authorized access point for the work manifested 
(compilation or no compilation), and it points to RDA 25.1 for the unique 
situation of compilations, where there is a shift to a Related Work element 
becoming a core element, which in one case of compilations without collective 
title replaces the idea in RDA 17.8 of the "first" work manifested being the 
core element with the "first" analytical related work being a core element.

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 Damian Iseminger
Sent: February-20-13 4:39 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Scope of Core Element for 17.8

At 17.8, Work Manifested, the scope for the Core Element says:

"If more than one work is embodied in the manifestation, only the predominant 
or first-named work manifested is required."

But because RDA defines a work as being an aggregate work, or an individual 
work, or qw part of an individual work, how should one interpret this sentence 
when you have a compilation, say a CD of a few works by Beethoven or a CD of 
various composer's works?  The compilation is one of the works, along with each 
of the individual works. So could that work compilation be the "first-named 
work" or the "predominant work," fulfilling the conditions in the scope note?

To me this makes a whole lot more sense, rather than selecting the first 
individual work within a compilation as the work manifested to fulfill the Core 
Objective.

Anyone else have an opinion on this?

Damian Iseminger
Head of Cataloging and Electronic Resource Management

New England Conservatory
Spaulding Library
33 Gainsborough St.
Boston, MA 02472
Phone: (617) 585-1254
FAX: (617) 585-1245
Email: damian.isemin...@necmusic.edu

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

> RDA treats each "function" as a separate statement (see 2.4.1.6).

Unless the statement uses grammatical links between names performing different 
functions.


RDA 2.4.1.5 gives the example of this situation of a single statement of 
responsibility:

prepared for the Ethical Union by Mass-Observation


Therefore if one is confronted with

written by Joe Smith and edited by Bob Turner

one would have to treat that as the first statement of responsibility according 
to RDA 2.4.1.5, even though there are two functions being performed.



But if one is confronted with

written by Joe Smith
edited by Bob Turner

then those are two separate statements of responsibility and only the first 
statement is a core element in RDA.


It should be noted that the optional omission (the old rule of three) refers to 
a single statement where more than three names are doing the same function.

That would mean that something like:

L.H. Booth, P. Fisher, V. Heppelthwaite, C.T. Eason and edited by Laurie Fenster

could become

L.H. Booth [and three others] and edited by Laurie Fenster


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Goldfarb, Kathie
> Sent: February-11-13 10:07 AM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three
> persons etc.
> 
> I would interpret " first named person as part of the authorized access points
> for the work " as referring to the existence of a 1xx OR 7xx for that person,
> but not necessarily as main entry.  In fact, other than for classification
> purposes, I do not believe the Main entry really has that much significance in
> the library's OPAC or our patron's searching needs.
> 
> Kathie

The authorized access point for the work is covered beginning in RDA 6.27, and 
the construction of the authorized access point for the work for a 
collaborative work (i.e., more than one creator) does indeed refer to the 
"first named"-- the first name to appear in a statement of a responsibility.

An example of an authorized access point for a work is: Hemingway, Ernest, 
1899–1961. Sun also rises

The first part of the authorized access point for the work is the equivalent to 
what arises with the main entry rule in AACR2 (i.e. what goes into the 1XX 
field but continued with a 240 or 245 title proper).


The relationship of one or more creators to a work is covered in RDA 19. In 
MARC, multiple creators would be entered into 7XX fields, with one chosen for 
the 1XX spot.


There are two distinct meanings of the data in the 1XX field.

100 is for the authorized access point of a person who has a relationship with 
the work.

100 is for the first part of the authorized access point of the work. The form 
"Hemingway, Ernest, 1899–1961. Sun also rises" refers to the entity Work not 
Person.

Both situations can depend on the name that appears first in the statement of 
responsbility

When RDA 18.3 mentions the following is a Core element: "Other person, family, 
or corporate body associated with a work (if the access point representing that 
person, family, or corporate body is used to construct the authorized access 
point representing the work)", this means the core relationship of a one person 
to the work is contingent on the decision that went into constructing the 
authorized access point for a work.

And in turn, that decision can be contingent on the name listed first in the 
statement of responsibility.



Here is an example in RDA that illustrates these contingencies (and also shows 
the elimination of the rule of three) is:


Beyard, Michael D. Developing retail entertainment destinations 

Resource described: Developing retail entertainment destinations / principal 
authors, Michael D. Beyard, Raymond E. Braun, Herbert McLaughlin, Patrick L. 
Phillips, Michael S. Rubin ; contributing authors, Andre Bald, Steven Fader, 
Oliver Jerschow, Terry Lassar, David Mulvihill, David Takesuye



In RDA one would construct a relationship something like this:

Beyard, Michael D.  Beyard, Michael D. Developing retail 
entertainment destinations

But the Manifestation elements are separate from this:

Title proper: Developing retail entertainment destinations
Statement of responsibility relating to title proper [first statement is core 
element]: principal authors, Michael D. Beyard, Raymond E. Braun, Herbert 
McLaughlin, Patrick L. Phillips, Michael S. Rubin
Statement of responsibility relating to title proper: contributing authors, 
Andre Bald, Steven Fader, Oliver Jerschow, Terry Lassar, David Mulvihill, David 
Takesuye


What makes "Michael D. Beyard" a core relationship element is the connection 
between that name (the "first named") and the authorized access point for the 
work: "Beyard, Michael D. Developing retail entertainment destinations".

Beyond his role in the authorized access point for the work Michael D. Beyard 
is no more important a creator then Raymond E. Braun, Herbert McLaughlin, 
Patrick L. Phillips, or Michael S. Rubin. RDA 19 focuses only on the 
relationships between all creators and the work, but when RDA specifies one 
creator as a core element, the reference is back to RDA 6.27 when the 
authorized access point for the work (in name-title form) is being constructed, 
and the choice for that often falls back to the "first named" within the 
statement of responsibility.


Encoded in MARC (core elements only):

100 $a Beyard, Michael D.
245 $a Developing retail entertainment destinations /
245 $c principal authors, Michael D. Beyard, Raymond E. Braun, Herbert 
McLaughlin, Patrick L. Phillips, Michael S. Rubin



Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library