[RDA-L] RDA rule equivalence AACR rule 21.23C1
If I understand correctly there is no RDA rule that is equivalent to AACR's 21.23C1 "If a sound recording containing works by different persons or bodies has a collective title, enter it under the heading for the person or body represented as principal performer" So if I had a recording by a pop singer (place your favorite singer here) singing various jazz songs by different composers that singer would be regarded as a "performer" contributing to an expression and coded in MARC tag 700. Correct? If this is correct, this will create a lot of problems for libraries who shelve their material by either "main entry" or via some means of cuttering. Don Charuk Cataloguer/DBM Trainer Cataloguing Dept. Toronto Public Library Email : dcha...@torontopubliclibrary.ca Phone : 416 393-7760
[RDA-L] Content notes
We are trying to find the specific rule that provides instruction on how to record chapter headings as part of a 505 note. (Cataloguers want/demand specific rule numbers) We are certain it does not fall under Chapters 25, 26 and 27. We are to presume it comes under rule 7.10. but, this rule seems to address notes code in the 520 tag. Thank you Don Charuk Cataloguer Toronto Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors
We are trying to come to grips with this issue as staff adjust to some of the peculiarities of RDA. I would agree that a creator of an illustrated book sans text should be regarded as the "creator" and given the designator "artist". Yet, if you read LC-PCC PS for rule 18.5.1.3 it suggests that illustrators/artists of juvenile material will be coded in the MARC 700 tag with the designator "illustrator" This is exampled in http://lccn.loc.gov/2012944944. This suggests LC would never regard an illustrated children's book as being created by an artist. I may be wrong in this interpretation and I hope I am. I believe this relegates some artists to a "second class" status.
Re: [RDA-L] SOR from copyright statement
I thank you all for the clarification. We were unsure on the interpretation of the rules regarding order and rigidity of the preferred sources.
Re: [RDA-L] SOR from copyright statement
This raises another question. If the author is provided on the title page and the illustrator is provide on the title page verso can they both be transcribe in the statement of the responsibility? Does not the rule 2.4.2.2 state the SOR should come from the same source as the title proper. If so interpreted, would/could you not make a note for the illustrator according to rule 2.20.3?
[RDA-L] Syntax for relationship designators
Could someone please explain the rational of either including or not including the comma before the relationship designator. We have found names with either no dates or with closed dates using the comma. While names with open dates are not using the comma. Our Web team dislikes the inconsistency. I would like to have some authoritative reasoning if such exists. Thank you.
Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points
Gene Please do not get me started on fixed fields. (most are a waste of time in my opinion, and a classic MARC example of information redundancy) And as to what our public wants/needes in information is an exercise of how many angels dance on the head of a pin. Don Charuk Cataloguer/DBM Trainer Cataloguing Dept. Toronto Public Library Email : dcha...@torontopubliclibrary.ca Phone : 416 393-7760 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg [gf...@cst.edu] Sent: June 7, 2013 12:11 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points And not only justify entries, but also justify fixed fields. For instance, in hand right now, the fixed field for Index has value of one, but there is no note to that effect. Justifying it gives information to the patron, in plain English. What is our goal here? Down and dirty? Or cataloging and classification that is informative the patron? It is not enough to say, "Look at all that I have catalogued and now the books are on the shelves." Will the cataloging be fully informative to the patron as to what the book/item is??? That is the question. It is all about communication. On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:40 AM, Don Charuk mailto:dcha...@torontopubliclibrary.ca>> wrote: Thank you for your responses. We are of split opinion of the non-requirement of justification. some feel the relationship designators are sufficient while others still see the need for notes. Our opinion is also split on how to deal with compilations. Do we go with structured notes and make use of the subfields in 505 tag to allow searching or use authorized access points? We are leaning towards structured notes since it involves no authority work. -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu<mailto:gf...@cst.edu> Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points
Thank you for your responses. We are of split opinion of the non-requirement of justification. some feel the relationship designators are sufficient while others still see the need for notes. Our opinion is also split on how to deal with compilations. Do we go with structured notes and make use of the subfields in 505 tag to allow searching or use authorized access points? We are leaning towards structured notes since it involves no authority work.
[RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points
From my readings and the reading other's comments it has been said that RDA no longer requires you to justify your additional access points. Is this a valid interpretation of people's comments? If, so is there a specific rule that states this or is it implied? Thank you.
Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.
We have been just debating this point recently and have reached in impasse on interpreting the omission options. For example if I possess a resource with five authors, two illustrators, and two editors RDA instructs me to transcribe all information according to rules 2.4.1.4-2.4.1.6. Therefore, I would include all the above mentioned persons in my statement of responsibility related to my title proper. However, we view this as increasing the workload for our cataloguers and situation that we wish to avoid. Hence we are looking at the what RDA core requires. My follow cataloguers and I disagree on what is considered core and the application of the omission options. Without going into a long list of scenarios could the list members provide a definitive interpretation on what RDA core requires in the above example. Don Charuk Cataloguer Toronto Public Library
