Re: [RDA-L] Illustration terms in 7.15.1.3
I thought that if we decided something was a still image rather than text, that we were required to use the list of still image carriers for the extent at RDA 3.4.4.2. In that case, neither pages nor volume are in that list, so i think you are stuck with 300 photographs. Which seems rather confusing for a coffee-table book. Not to mention that unless there is only 1 photograph per page, i can't imagine us counting the photos. Greta de Groat Stanford University Libraries On 8/15/2013 8:03 AM, Lapka, Francis wrote: Heidrun, I think you raise excellent questions. Your message highlights areas of RDA that are (to my mind at least) a bit muddy. I believe RDA could be altered to make a clearer distinction between extent of carrier and extent of content. The proposal for an Extent of Expression element is one of the key components of a discussion paper (on machine-actionable data) to be brought before JSC later this year: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ALA-Discussion-1.pdf One might argue that some of the terms we currently use to record Extent of Still Images (3.4.4.2) more accurately describe extent of content. The same might be said of some of the other format-specific subelements. In your example of the coffee-table book, we could say that the Extent of Expression (content) is 300 photographs, while the Extent of Carrier is 350 pages. The manner in which we record illustrative material also depends on how we perceive these resources as aggregate works. Here again, there is an interesting discussion paper to be put forward to JSC in November: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-EURIG-Discussion-2.pdf Francis -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 9:55 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustration terms in 7.15.1.3 Francis, If a resource consists wholly or predominantly of image content, then this content is no longer illustrative. That is, the images *are the primary content* in such a resource, so they no longer fulfill RDA's definition of illustrative content: Content designed to illustrate the primary content of a resource. I hadn't looked at it this way before, but now that I do, I cannot but agree. So, if my resource is mainly pictures, it follows that I should not record the element illustrative content at all. And this is probably the reason why the former AACR2 rule about chiefly ill. and only ill. was abandoned. But then: How do we tell users of our catalog that a book is mainly pictures? If we think of a typical coffee-table book, where the pictures are the main content, and the text is only of secondary importance, we can certainly bring it out by the content type (we use still image, perhaps even as the only one if we apply the alternative in 6.9.1.3). For the extent element, I believe I still have to use 3.4.5 Extent of text, so here we will only record the number of pages. It's different in 3.4.6 Extent of image, where we give extent as something like 1 drawing - but as far as I can see, this element is not used for my coffee-table book. So, the information that the book is mainly pictures can neither be recorded in the extent element nor in the element 7.15 Illustrative content (as the illustrations aren't supplementary). It will only be visible in the content type. Phew. Does that really work in practice?? Let's compare two resources: A: mainly illustrations, but also some text (coffee-table book) B: mainly text, some illustrations For A, we record: still image text 386 pages For B, we record: text still image 125 pages : illustrations I don't think there is a way of marking one content type as the most important one. I've given the more important one first here, but I'm not even sure whether there is such a practice in MARC (is there?). Now, looking at this, how could anybody arrive at the conclusion that A has more illustrations than B? I admit that it would work better if only the predominant carrier type was recorded. But still: I'm not convinced this is a good solution, although it seems to be in accordance with RDA (unless I've overlooked something - I'd be glad if I had, actually). Now I wonder: How *are* these materials treated in practice under RDA, at the moment? In the BL Monograph WEMI Workflow in the Toolkit, I've found the following examples (in the Expression Index): Under Record illustrative content (7.15): 300 ##:$ball photographs (black and white, and colour) Under Record content type (6.9): 300 ## $a12 unnumbered pages :$bchiefly illustrations (colour) ;$c26 cm 336 ## $atext $2rdacontent 336 ## $astill image $2rdacontent 336 ## $athree-dimensional form $2rdacontent (Resource is a children's pop-up book) So at the British Librariy, they obviously use illustrative content in these cases, and also continue
Re: [RDA-L] Publication Date
Since the example you give is given with an edition statement, note also this: LC-PCC-PS for 2.20.7 says: LC practice/PCC practice: If a date of release or transmittal is found on the resource and it is considered important for identification, record it in a note if it has not been recorded elsewhere in the bibliographic description (e.g., in the edition statement). Include the month and day, if present. EXAMPLE 250 ## $a Version 1.0, Release Aug. '96. 500 ## $a May 1979 500 ## $a May 1, 1979 500 ## $a Issued May 1979 Which makes it sound like if the date is next to an edition statement, it would be recorded as part of the edition. Mark, you and i talked a little bit on the PCC list on June 13 about how to tell the difference between a transmittal date and publication date, with no practical conclusion that i could see. Did your GODORT contact ever get any guidance? Looking at RDA 2.8.6.3, the definition of published at 2.8.6.1, and the LC-PCC-PS 2.20.7, i do not see reasonable guidance. Those of us who remember the old LCPS and oral tradition about the presence of transmittal dates on documents may continue treating those as notes, but i don't see any reason why a cataloger coming to RDA without that background would come to that conclusion. Greta de Groat Stanford University Libraries - Original Message - From: M. E. m.k.e.m...@gmail.com To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 9:21:15 AM Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication Date DeSio, Sandra sde...@indiantrailslibrary.org wrote: RDA 2.8.1.4 says to record dates of publication as they appear on the source of information. And further states that any words that are part of the date get transcribed (that reference to 1.7). RDA gives 3 options for the number half of the date (reference to 1.8, detailed under 1.8.2): do it your way; transcribe it in the form found; transcribe it and also give a preferred form if the transcribed form doesn't float your boat (e.g., roman numerals). LC follows option #2 and most folks follow their lead, so let's go with that for now. RDA 2.8.6.3 specifically gives May 2000 as an example of a pub date. A lot of the bestsellers I get (both fiction and nonfiction, all monographs) say something like First Edition May 2013. As near as I can tell, RDA is telling me to record the pub date as May 2013 Yup, that my take-away too. ...yet I've never seen an RDA bib record with the date recorded that way. It's difficult to find examples due to indexing. Here are a few that I've encountered in WorldCat, with LCCNs for any in LC's catalog: #851870526 #818818841 (LCCN 2012587690) #849318175 #837883777 #851642189 (LCCN 2012314825) #825554741 (LCCN 2013361252) Am I missing another rule or policy statement? Or does record instead of transcribe give me leave to use cataloger's judgment to leave off the month? The record there, by my reading, is a broad term that applies to the situation when transcribe words + option #1 to just record numbers are employed. The same broad term applies to the transcribe words + transcribe numbers scenario too. I agree it could be better worded; maybe resurrect AACR2's give in these kinds of situations. To further comment on the expansion of these date forms, the RDA re-wording project clarified the addition of words (e.g., months) to the publication date element. And other date elements too, though the copyright date instructions (2.11) imply that years alone--the reference only to RDA 1.8's posting of numbers--are given for that one. Mistake or design? -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing
- Original Message - From: JOHN C ATTIG jx...@psu.edu To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 8:02:42 AM Subject: Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing Example 1: It depends on how you interpret First printing, August 2012. While this might be the date of manufacture, it might also be the date of publication of the first printing -- and I was taught that an edition was described from a copy of the first printing of that edition. So I would probably give 2012 without brackets as the date of publication. ... John - Original Message - If you interpret it as the date of publication, wouldn't you put: August 2012 ? I only got a couple of replies to my previous question about when to interpret fuller dates as publication dates and when to interpret them as dates of transmittal, which only indicated that the two are sometimes different but not when to know that a date is one or the other without additional evidence like a different copyright date or a later date recorded in a GPO number or bibliography or something. RDA seems to want us to record the date as given, though, and i'm assuming that that was the JSC's intent when they included the May 2000 example at 2.8.6.3. It's understandable that we are reluctant to record full dates given that under AACR2 we were just to record the year, and that made it easier to deal with questions like this one about the manufacture date. But given our inhibition as well as the mysterious LC-PCC-PS that i cited in my earlier question, it seems like we're not really settled on when we record full dates as dates of publication. To rephrase my question, if i've got August 21, 2012 on my title page and no other date on the piece and no reason to assume that that date is inaccurate (or a date of an HTML document saying Posted June 3, 2013), why would i assume that that date is *not* the publication date? Any more than i would assume that First printing, August 2012 is not a publication date? Greta de Groat Stanford University Libraries
Re: [RDA-L] RE : [RDA-L] a rather than t for ETD
Why would this be an exception to the P-N practice? I don't see it addressed there as an exception. It seems to me that we have here two BIBCO instructions that are in conflict (if you're not doing PCC cataloging, then its not an issue). Greta de Groat Stanford University Libraries - Original Message - From: Paradis Daniel daniel.para...@banq.qc.ca To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2013 8:15:10 AM Subject: [RDA-L] RE : [RDA-L] a rather than t for ETD With the latest update to the RDA Toolkit, instruction 2.8.1.1 now includes the sentence: Consider all online resources to be published. Daniel Paradis Bibliothécaire Direction du traitement documentaire des collections patrimoniales Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec 2275, rue Holt Montréal (Québec) H2G 3H1 Téléphone : 514 873-1101, poste 3721 Télécopieur : 514 873-7296 daniel.para...@banq.qc.camailto:daniel.para...@banq.qc.ca http://www.banq.qc.cahttp://www.banq.qc.ca/ _ De: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access de la part de J. McRee Elrod Date: ven. 2013-05-17 23:12 À: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Objet : Re: [RDA-L] a rather than t for ETD Greta asked: So, if we are supposed to be cataloging online monographs according to Prov= ider-neutral guidelines, wouldn't that mean that they would still be catalo= ged as unpublished? If it is electronic, it is considered published. J. McRee (Mac) Elrod 4493 Lindholm Road Victoria BC V9C 3Y1 Canada (250) 474-3361 m...@elrod.ca
Re: [RDA-L] Abridging statement of responsibility
For a further wrinkle, I would also suggest to all that the next time you watch a movie, look at the credits and try to ascertain what the first statement is. And for extra credit, you can then figure out which of those are identifying creators of the intellectual or artistic content Greta de Groat Stanford University Libraries Sent from my iPad On May 12, 2013, at 10:16 PM, James Agenbroad jjagenbr...@aol.com wrote: Dear Judy, Since retiring in 2003 I have not been closely following discussions of RDA. It seems to me that in some cases first statement of responsibility will be difficult or impossible to ascertain. I do not think it is far-fetched it imagine: 1. A bilingual text with one right-to-left language (e.g. Hebrew, Arabic, Persian or Yiddish (sometimes called HAPI though several languages such as Urdu and Pushtu also use Arabic script)) and one left-to-right language (e.g. English, French, Russian, Greek, etc. 2. There is a title page at each end of the book. 3. Each contains a statement of responsibility, the author's name, in each language on the same line. How can one determine which is the first statement of responsibility? One might try to determine if one language is a translation of the other but some authors can write in several languages or it may not say. In such cases it might be best to say something along the lines of record the first statement of responsibility when it can be easily determined but give several when priority can not be easily determined. To me, recording the extra text would seem preferable to making catalogers search for a way to decide which is first. Regards, Jim Agenbroad ( jjagenb...@aol.com ) On May 10, 2013, at 11:21 AM, JSC Secretary wrote Tom, One of the changes in the May 14 release of the RDA Toolkit will be a revision of the core statement at 2.4 to add information there that is now at 2.4.2: Statement of responsibility relating to title proper is a core element (if more than one, only the first recorded is required). Other statements of responsibility are optional. The core statement at 2.4.2 for the element Statement of responsibility relating to title proper says: If more than one statement of responsibility relating to title proper appears on the source of information, only the first recorded is required. The last paragraph of 2.4.2.3 says: If not all statements of responsibility appearing on the source or sources of information are being recorded, give preference to those identifying creators of the intellectual or artistic content. In case of doubt, record the first statement. Regards, Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Meehan, Thomas t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk wrote: Dear all, This is a fairly novice question but one where I would welcome some clarification, especially as far as the RDA text goes. Apologies if this has been raised before (I’m sure it must have been). I am looking at a couple of contentious aspects of the statement of responsibility relating to the title proper where I think there are three areas that require some decision on policy: 1. Which (or how many) statements of responsibility are to be regarded as core. 2. Statements of responsibility naming more than three persons (2.4.1.5). 3. Abridging statements of responsibility (2.4.1.4). It is the third one which confuses me most. The rule states “Transcribe a statement of responsibility in the form in which it appears on the source of information.” The examples that follow contain no titles (Mr, Dr, Earl) except those that would have been retained under AACR2 and no affiliations (…professor of History at the University of Biggleswade) at all. However, the Optional Omission beneath which says “Abridge a statement of responsibility only if it can be abridged without loss of essential information” has examples with all of this information in, e.g. “by Harry Smith // Source of information reads: by Dr. Harry Smith”. The option seems curiously vague about what can/should be omitted if the option is followed, and why. Is this basically a case of the examples of the main rule not catching up and so being illustrative of AACR2 rules rather than RDA? I notice, looking at the really helpful LC training materials and BL workflow, that the point is made more explicitly there so I think I am happy with what is intended, but I am uncomfortable having to interpret the meaning of a rule based on third party training and policy documentation, if that makes sense. Many thanks, Tom --- Thomas Meehan Head of Current Cataloguing Library Services University College London Gower Street London WC1E 6BT t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk
Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for a conference
Early on in the RDA process we consulted with the Library of Congress on this issue and determined that there is no appropriate relationship designation to describe the relationship between a conference and its proceedings. Host institution and Sponsoring body are in the list but are usually not appropriate. One can propose new designations, but we have not been able to think of a brief term in common usage that describes that relationship. So for proceedings, we are generally not using a $e. Greta de Groat Stanford University Libraries On 5/3/2013 10:15 AM, Robert Maxwell wrote: A meeting or event is a type of corporate body according to both AACR2 and RDA. If the publication is the proceedings of the meeting/event the conference is considered the creator. I've been using author as the relationship designator in those cases. Corporate bodies (including events) can have other relationships to resources as well (such as issuing body) which might be appropriate depending on the resource. Robert L. Maxwell Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept. 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Lee, Deborah [deborah@courtauld.ac.uk] *Sent:* Friday, May 03, 2013 11:01 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* [RDA-L] Relationship designator for a conference Hello, I am struggling to think of the appropriate relationship designator to describe the relationship that the conference has to the book based on that conference. I wondered if anyone had any ideas? (I have considered issuing body, as this is what we have used for works which have emanated from a (non-event-based) corporate body. However, I cannot reconcile how an event can issue something!) I am probably missing something extremely obvious, so if anyone had any suggestions or thoughts I would be extremely grateful. Best wishes, Debbie Deborah Lee Senior cataloguer Book Library Courtauld Institute of Art Somerset House Strand London WC2R 0RN Telephone: 020 7848 2905 Email: deborah@courtauld.ac.uk mailto:deborah@courtauld.ac.uk Now on at The Courtauld Gallery: __ _Becoming Picasso: Paris 1901_ 14 February -- 27 May 2013 The Courtauld Institute of Art is a company limited by guarantee (registered in England and Wales, number 04464432) and an exempt charity. SCT Enterprises Limited is a limited company (registered in England and Wales, number 3137515). Their registered offices are at Somerset House, Strand, London WC2R 0RN. The sale of items related to The Courtauld Gallery and its collections is managed by SCT Enterprises Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of The Courtauld Institute of Art. This e-mail, including any attachments, is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. Any unauthorised dissemination or copying of this e-mail or its attachments and any reliance on or use or disclosure of any information contained in them is strictly prohibited and may be illegal. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify us by return of e-mail [or by telephone +44 (0) 20 7848 1273] and then delete it from your system. This email message has been delivered safely and archived online by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com
Re: [RDA-L] dimension of discs and end punctuations of 264 field
I've been using 13 mm, but it would be very helpful to have an example. Greta de Groat Stanford University Libraries On 4/9/2013 1:34 PM, Kelley McGrath wrote: Actually if you look at videocassettes under 3.5.1.4.3, it says to use mm. I missed this at first, too, but I guess you would use 127 mm. It would probably be helpful if there were a VHS example in RDA as that is the one that the average cataloger is most likely to encounter. Kelley The LC-PCC PS says: - LC practice for Alternative: Use inches for discs (RDA 3.5.1.4.4) and for all audio carriers; otherwise, follow the RDA instruction as written. - The examples in the RDA Toolkit naturally follow the primary instructions in RDA, but many (most?) libraries will probably follow the Library of Congress recommendation and use inches for discs and audio carriers, continuing the practice from AACR2. But cm for videotape, then? Is a VHS tape 2 cm (because 1/2 in = 1.27 cm)? Seems odd...
Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date
Agreed, they are different elements so it is not redundant. In addition, I am mostly cataloging materials where there is no formal publication statement, just a copyright statement. I think it will be less confusing to users and to copy catalogers if i actually have a date on the piece, to indicate that someplace on the record, whether in the 264 as a copyright date or in a note. Just a bracketed date of publication is quite ambiguous--it can mean that you inferred the date from a stated copyright date, that you inferred the date from somewhere else in the item, or that you just guessed. So a copy cataloger coming upon the record doesn't know whether the piece actually has a date on it or not, making it more challenging to decide if they have the right record. Greta de Groat Stanford University Libraries On 3/28/2013 11:15 AM, Snow, Karen wrote: Steven Arakawa wrote: I'm aware that the copyright date might be considered important by rare book/special collections cataloging, but I don't think the rare book perspective should drive general cataloging practices. I don't mean to sound belligerent, but isn't this a bit short-sighted? I realize that we can't put *everything* into bibliographic records and we can't always predict what will be useful in the future, but copyright information will likely be important for many years to come. Why not include the copyright date now so that future generations can use this information for retrieval? Let's be honest, how much additional time is needed to add a copyright date if it's right there on the item? I am genuinelyconfused why this is considered extraneous information. Warm regards, Karen Snow, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Graduate School of Library Information Science Dominican University 7900 West Division Street River Forest, IL 60305 ks...@dom.edu 708-524-6077 (office) 708-524-6657 (fax)
Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.
The first statement of responsibility is not always easy to determine--for many books there is something standing at the head of title position and something else physically following the title. Which of those is first? Cataloger judgement? What if the one at the head of the title is a logo or graphic of some sort? The statement of responsibility for videos is particularly problematic, since as Heidrun points out in 2.4.2.3, not all statements are recorded and it's not really clear from that rule which statements one should record. According to Appendix I, the only creators of moving image works are screenwriters. Producers, directors, production companies, and directors of photography are contributors. The first name on the credits is almost never the screenwriter. And it depends on whether first may precede the title or whether it has to follow it. The typical pattern for a commercial feature is: Distribution company Production company A, B, C, D in association with company E, F, G, John Doe, with support from company H, I, presents Actor 1, Actor 2, Actor 3, Actor 4, Actor 5 actor 6 in Title A bunch more actor names A bunch of technical crew Editor Director of photography and a bunch of other folks Producer John Doe, Jane Smith, James Jones Executive producer bunches of associate producers screenwriter director So, is my first statement the distribution company? Production company A,B,C,D? That statement plusc the in association statement? How about the support statement? Or do i just jump to what's after the title? In which case is the first statement the director of photography because that role is the first named after the title that's associated with the work? Or do i just jump to screenwriter because he's the first creator? And remember that there's a rule that a presents statement preceding the title is title information that is introductory in nature so you don't transcribe it as part of the title, but if you feel you want to record it you do so as a variant title (2.3.1.6). That implies to me that it is not considered a statement of responsibility. However, practically speaking, if there are too many names interposed between the presents and the title, it's impractical to record as a variant title and feels more like a statement of responsibility to me, but perhaps i'm just stretching the rules here. Most video catalogers i know try to include everything, which is extremely burdensome and, frankly i think a poor use of one's time. Personally, i try to do the first and put the rest in the 508. I'll usually go with the production company, though when the title is followed by a by or a film by statement i usually go with that. I suspect that every cataloger's reading of the rules will be different. Anybody else working on videos want to comment on your reading of the rules? Video games are problematic as well, as the disc label and container usually contain no formal statement of responsibility, just a plethora of logos of various companies whose functions are not given. You may need to go to a third party resource like allgame.com or mobygames.com to figure out who did what. Or you can look in the booklet and it might have a big bunch of programmer credits at the end, but nothing that looks like an overall statement naming a creator whatever that is in the context of a video game. Greta de Groat Stanford University Libraries - Original Message - From: Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 9:02:29 AM Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc. I agree with Ben, but would like to point out that the rule about which statement of responsibility is core can get more complicated than just saying it's always the first one. RDA 2.4.2.3 says: If not all statements of responsibility appearing on the source or sources of information are being recorded, give preference to those identifying creators of the intellectual or artistic content. In case of doubt, record the first statement. In the case mentioned, if the five authors are the creators of the work (i.e. if the work is a collaboration), then obviously the statement of responsibility naming those five is the core one, because it identyfies the creators of the intellectual content. But if you have a compilation, and the five persons are e.g. authors of essays in a collection (which brings us back to my example of a festschrift), it gets tricky. In this case, I'd argue that there is no statement identifying the creators of the work as a whole (as the compilation itself doesn't have creators), but only one naming the creators of the works contained (the individual essays). Personally, I would then think of the statement naming the editors as the core one here, and not the one listing the authors of the essays. But you might
[RDA-L] [Pollupostage\SPAM] Re: [RDA-L] Extent terms (was Carrier type Flipchart)
On 2/4/2013 5:51 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: Greta de Groat wrote: In addition, these (plus CD-ROMs and Blu-rays) had the problem of being applicable to multiple content types--they could be video or data or electronic text or a video game. So 1 Blu-ray might be a video but it might be a game, and one CD-ROM might be just about anything. I'm not sure I see the problem here. I'd have thought that in the extent element it simply doesn't matter what the content type of the work is. The content type element should take care of this aspect. So if you had 1 CD-ROM as extent, you could have the content types text, dataset, data program, cartographic dataset and some more, depending on the type of work. Heidrun Well, you certainly can do that. It's just that from my experience people seem to have the expectation that 1 DVD or 1 Blu-Ray is essentially equivalent (though more specific) than 1 videodisc but that's clearly not the case. You could say that DVD-ROM essentially means data other than DVD-video, though that's not explicitly stated anywhere that i know of. But 1 DVD-R might be video or data, and there isn't any word i've seen like Blu-ray-ROM or something like that. In past, the SMD usually also implied the type of material--sound disc, videodisc, etc. so having it merely be the physical carrier without regard to the content would be a change--not that that doesn't seem logical to me but there was a strong pull in the RDA process to make data backward-compatable, and in RDA the carriers in 3.3.1.3 are identified by their content and none of the terms overlap so presumably there was a desire to keep that field somehow tied to content, except for computer and microform carriers. It was always explained to us that audio disc (formerly AACR2 sound disc) and videodisc had to be distinguished from computer carriers, because they required audio or video equipment respectively to play. But that's now an artificial distinction since they are often the same physical kind of disc, they play in computers, and many audio and video players will play some computer discs. Media type audio even specifies that audio can cover something which plays in an MP3 player, yet it is not clear whether a CD-R or CD-ROM encoded with MP3 audio files is an audio disc or a computer disc. I've been waiting for a ruling on that from the music community. I've never seen an mp3 player that plays a CD-ROM. In addition, why do you use volume only when you have a volume of text (though most of the time you would, rather illogically, use just the pagination and not state volume'), but if you have a volume of music, wouldn't you call it a score and if you have a volume of maps it would be an atlas? Greta de Groat Stanford University Libraries
Re: [RDA-L] thanks -- RE: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
Oh, no offense taken--i just noticed that it was a Stanford University Press book so i figured it was one of our CIP contributions. And it was probably done under the original test policy. And, i should point out, that not everyone at Stanford is necessarily following the same policy--our local policy is that going beyond the LC-PCC-PS and providing extra information is cataloger's judgement. So different catalogers may make different judgements. Since i catalog mostly videos and video games, which almost never have publication dates it's my judgement to use the copyright date as well (ok, i'll acknowledge that there is a copyright date controversy regarding video copyright dates, but that is applicable only in a minority of the cases that i see--i don't do that many mainstream commercial videos). greta - Original Message - From: PATRICIA A GS-11 USAF AETC AUL FOGLER/LTSC patricia.fog...@us.af.mil To: Greta de Groat gdegr...@stanford.edu, Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:53:13 AM Subject: thanks -- RE: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question I very much appreciate your detailed reply. I want to hasten to clarify that I wasn’t trying to point out any institution as doing anything wrong or nonstandard. Merely citing an example (of a record that looked to be done by the rules but rules that were confusing me). Getting the blow-by-blow as it were of the decisions how they evolved, helps enormously for those of us who are coming to this later, with smaller departments trying to make sense out of the variously clearly well-cataloged but different, RDA records. //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Greta de Groat Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:41 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question Since i see that a Stanford record is being cited in this discussion, i would like to offer a little in the way of explanation.
Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
Good point, Nancy, i didn't remember that the phonogram date was also in that field, which you wouldn't be able to distinguish from a copyright date without the symbol or words to that effect. greta - Original Message - From: Nancy Lorimer nlori...@stanford.edu To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Cc: Greta de Groat gdegr...@stanford.edu Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:50:06 AM Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question I will add one thing to Greta's very clear explanation. While the field explicitly states that this is a copyright date, it does not state what type of copyright date is being recorded. There are two types of copyright date--copyright for text (the (c) date) and the phonogram copyright date (the (p) date), which is the copyright for recorded sound. Again, these are two different things, and both may appear on the same item (and be different). I remember vaguely that when the field was first being created, there was some talk of separating the symbol and the date, but in the end they were left together in one field. Nancy On 1/30/2013 9:40 AM, Greta de Groat wrote: Since i see that a Stanford record is being cited in this discussion, i would like to offer a little in the way of explanation. Steven is right, the initial RDA test instructions for pieces which lacked a date of publication were to record the copyright date if it appeared on the piece, and to use it to infer the date of publication. Therefore, you would get the date of publication bracketed and also the copyright date recorded, even if they were the same. We contacted LC and were told that the Date Type coding for this would indeed be t, and the same date would be recorded in Dates 1 and 2 The LC-PCC-PS was recently updated to indicate that the requirement was to infer the date of publication from the copyright date and bracket it, but it no longer says to record the copyright date. Therefore, following this practice, one would have a bracketed date in the 264 1, but not record a 264 3 with the copyright date. In this case, Date Type would be s and there would be no date recorded in Date 2. However, some of us are continuing the original practice because we believe it to be clearer and more useful. It is also not incorrect, it's just that LC is not mandating it any more. One reason is that a bracketed date in the 264 1 is ambiguous. It can mean i have a copyright date that i'm not recording but i'm inferring the pub date from it or it can mean i don't have a date anywhere on this and i'm just guessing based on internal or external evidence or the fact that it just came in the door and looks new. We think recording the copyright date is much more useful for copy cataloging, as one can confirm that the copyright date actually appears on the piece, rather than looking at the record and not knowing whether to look for a date or not. It seems logical and helpful to record a date that actually appears. The other reason is that the copyright date is an explicit legal statement. In these digital days when copyright questions are coming up all of the time, i would think that an explicit copyright date would be something that we'd want to record (even if things are technically copyrighted without it. I was very surprised at the LC-PCC-PS change, as i had thought the original policy quite sensible. It is not redundant, as publication date and copyright date are two different things. We're not needing to save space on cards any more. And i have no insight into why we continue to use the copyright symbol since, as has been pointed out, the field tagging makes the fact that it's a copyright date explicit. I don't remember that ever being discussed, but it is a good point (though programmers should be able to take the date out of the Date2 field if it has been correctly coded). Greta de Groat Stanford University Libraries - Original Message - From: SEVIM MCCUTCHEONlmccu...@kent.edu To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 8:29:20 AM Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question I think perhaps despite the discussion, a question remains on coding in OCLC: If you're using 264s, and the date of publication and the date of copyright are the same, which is the proper code in the Date Type, s or t? Sevim McCutcheon Catalog Librarian, Asst. Prof. Kent State University Libraries 330-672-1703 lmccu...@kent.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of FOGLER, PATRICIA A GS-11 USAF AETC AUL/LTSC Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 1:12 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question I'll apologize
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
I've been creating constant data forms for my most commonly used formats, with the 33x fields already filled in--that's even faster. I really like the 33x fields for many of the materials that i catalog, but there are some gaping holes. There isn't a content type that's appropriate for video/computer games or other interactive materials--we've been using Computer program combined with Two-dimensional moving image, which might be technically appropriate but is also misleading and doesn't really get at the nature of the material. Three-dimensional moving image is somewhat misleading in that it appears to be intended for films, but is apparently not appropriate for 3-dimensional games, which uses the term in a somewhat different fashion (the ability to move in 3 dimensions in the game space). In the media types, Computer appears to be only for the data and programs (...designed for use with a computer...), but not for the computer itself (i.e. if you are cataloging an iPad). We've concluded that it's Other, but that's not very useful. Similarly, the computer carriers in the carrier type appear to be the storage media but not the computer itself. It's not even clear to me from RDA whether hard drives or flash drives can be considered carrier types since they aren't on the list and it doesn't say that you are permitted to consider anything but the listed carriers under the listed type--it does say in 3.1.4.5 that you can use another term in the Extent element but it's not clear how that relates to 3.3. We also ran into problems with a book that consisted almost entirely of stereographic images, but volume isn't listed under stereographic carriers so we weren't sure we could use 337 stereographic with 338 volume. Greta de Groat Stanford University Libraries On 10/24/2012 12:54 PM, Joan Wang wrote: Very cool! Thanks for letting us know. Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.edu mailto:asch...@u.washington.edu wrote: Another aspect I have not seen mentioned, is that AACR2 style GMDs only had to be assigned to nonbook materials. RDA 33X must be assigned to all library resources, a major increase in effort. Not only it is three terms for one, but they must be assigned to many more records. For users of OCLC Connexion, there is a macro that makes adding these terms, along with their coded values, take about 3 seconds. This is not huge increase of effort. The macro pulls up a pulldown menu and you just select the terms you need and click add. ** * Adam L. Schiff * * Principal Cataloger * * University of Washington Libraries * * Box 352900 * * Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * * (206) 543-8409 tel:%28206%29%20543-8409 * * (206) 685-8782 tel:%28206%29%20685-8782 fax * * asch...@u.washington.edu mailto:asch...@u.washington.edu * ** -- Joan Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
Re: [RDA-L] 336-338 for Kindle e-books
Adam, when we cataloged kindles, nooks, we didn't find it at all obvious that the media type should be computer. The definition says media used to store electronic files designed for use with a computer which seemed ambiguous to us. Especially since a similar dedicated device like an mp3 player apparently isn't considered a computer. However, we did consider an iPad to be a computer (it has apps in addition to texts) which just confused our users since they were using it as a reader so couldn't see why it would be different than a kindle. It would probably be better if computer were computerized device or something like that, though if i remember the history of these names, the music and video communities were wedded to maintaining a separation between audio and video devices and media and computers, which seems to me to be an increasingly untenable distinction. Anyway, we used media type other which isn't very useful. We also used carrier type other. Are there other ways of getting a file onto a kindle than downloading it from online? Could it be downloaded from a computer? or downloaded from a CD-ROM to a computer to a kindle? What about something like a playaway, that comes from the factory with the content already loaded? Again it seems that we are being forced to make distinctions between electronic files based on how we acquired them, which in the case of a kindle seems kind of misleading given what we usually mean by online, i.e. you go to the URL and retrieve the thing yourself rather than going to get a piece of equipment that the online thing has already been downloaded on. Greta -- Greta de Groat Stanford University Libraries On 5/14/2012 11:03 AM, Adam L. Schiff wrote: I was asked this question: When cataloging an e-book which is downloaded into Kindle from Amazon.com (for example, a library circulates a Kindle with lots of e-books loaded), what should I put into the 336, 337, 338 fields? How about the e-books which are accessible through other no-computer device, such as smart phone, iPad, etc.? What terms should go into the 33x fields? It clear that the content type is text and the media type is computer but should the carrier type be other or online resource? I think one could argue either way. The definition in RDA of online resource is A digital resource accessed by means of hardware and software connections to a communications network so perhaps a Kindle download would still fall under this definition? --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 * **
Re: [RDA-L] 336-338 for Kindle e-books
Just a little clarification--we catalog the contents of the kindles, rather than cataloging the Kindle itself as a piece of equipment, so we do do it as text with essentially the Kindle as the carrier. However, we did do the iPad as a piece of equipment. greta On 5/14/2012 2:47 PM, Greta de Groat wrote: Adam, when we cataloged kindles, nooks, we didn't find it at all obvious that the media type should be computer. The definition says media used to store electronic files designed for use with a computer which seemed ambiguous to us. Especially since a similar dedicated device like an mp3 player apparently isn't considered a computer. However, we did consider an iPad to be a computer (it has apps in addition to texts) which just confused our users since they were using it as a reader so couldn't see why it would be different than a kindle. It would probably be better if computer were computerized device or something like that, though if i remember the history of these names, the music and video communities were wedded to maintaining a separation between audio and video devices and media and computers, which seems to me to be an increasingly untenable distinction. Anyway, we used media type other which isn't very useful. We also used carrier type other. Are there other ways of getting a file onto a kindle than downloading it from online? Could it be downloaded from a computer? or downloaded from a CD-ROM to a computer to a kindle? What about something like a playaway, that comes from the factory with the content already loaded? Again it seems that we are being forced to make distinctions between electronic files based on how we acquired them, which in the case of a kindle seems kind of misleading given what we usually mean by online, i.e. you go to the URL and retrieve the thing yourself rather than going to get a piece of equipment that the online thing has already been downloaded on. Greta -- Greta de Groat Stanford University Libraries On 5/14/2012 11:03 AM, Adam L. Schiff wrote: I was asked this question: When cataloging an e-book which is downloaded into Kindle from Amazon.com (for example, a library circulates a Kindle with lots of e-books loaded), what should I put into the 336, 337, 338 fields? How about the e-books which are accessible through other no-computer device, such as smart phone, iPad, etc.? What terms should go into the 33x fields? It clear that the content type is text and the media type is computer but should the carrier type be other or online resource? I think one could argue either way. The definition in RDA of online resource is A digital resource accessed by means of hardware and software connections to a communications network so perhaps a Kindle download would still fall under this definition? --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 * **
Re: [RDA-L] Form
But in Appendix I listing the relationship designators, I.4.2 is Relationship Designators for Publishers, but the only term under it is broadcaster. Can we use publisher as a relationship designator? If so, why isn't it on the list? Greta de Groat Stanford University Libraries - Original Message - From: Karen Coyle li...@kcoyle.net To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 8:18:15 AM Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Form Quoting John Attig jx...@psu.edu: Not necessarily true -- just not the Publisher's Name element. It is possible to include a authorized access point for the publisher as a corporate body (RDA 11.13.1) with the relationship publisher (RDA 21.3). In RDA -- as in previous cataloging rules -- we try not to mix transcribed data and controlled data in the same element -- but that does not mean that the rules do not make provision for both types of data. But I've never seen this included in a record other than an occasional rare book record. So the fact is that we are NOT including the publisher entity in our data, except under rare circumstances. And we do not have identifiers for most publisher names, if I am not mistaken. I agree about not mixing transcribed and controlled data, although there are many fields that do included controlled data mixed with text (such as extent). I would like it to be more clear in our records which elements are controlled and which are not. In MARC we have controlled elements in the fixed fields, but we also have controlled elements in the variable fields. To process MARC data you have to know how to pick out the controlled data, and it isn't always clear. The advantage of using identifiers for controlled data is that you know immediately which elements are controlled. Having that be clearer would greatly aid use and re-use of library data. kc -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [RDA-L] Roles/relationships (was Form)
So, it's newly proposed and not yet in the text of RDA Appendix 11? Is there a way of searching this list of relationships? I'm wondering if there is a term relating the name of a conference with the proceedings. That's still an important enough relationship to be represented in the preferred access point, but we haven't been able to discover in the text of RDA nor in the MARC relator terms/codese a relationship designator that is appropriate for this relationship. Sponsoring body in RDA doesn't sound right, and Originator in the MARC terms is ambiguous and very clunky. Greta de Groat Stanford University Libraries - Original Message - From: Diane I. Hillmann d...@cornell.edu To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 10:31:37 AM Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Form All: 'Publisher (Manifestation)' appears in the RDA Vocabs as one of the Role properties: http://metadataregistry.org/schemaprop/show/id/1561.html Diane On 12/15/10 1:23 PM, John Attig wrote: Publisher is not on the list in Appendix I because it is a relationship element (RDA 21.3); the element-level relationships were not included in the Appendix. My interpretation is that it would be legitimate to use Publisher as a relationship designator; in fact, when you are encoding in MARC, you would have to because the appropriate MARC tag (710) is not limited to publishers. I should note that not everyone agrees with this interpretation. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu On 12/15/2010 12:39 PM, Greta de Groat wrote: But in Appendix I listing the relationship designators, I.4.2 is Relationship Designators for Publishers, but the only term under it is broadcaster. Can we use publisher as a relationship designator? If so, why isn't it on the list? Greta de Groat Stanford University Libraries - Original Message - From: Karen Coyleli...@kcoyle.net To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 8:18:15 AM Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Form Quoting John Attigjx...@psu.edu: Not necessarily true -- just not the Publisher's Name element. It is possible to include a authorized access point for the publisher as a corporate body (RDA 11.13.1) with the relationship publisher (RDA 21.3). In RDA -- as in previous cataloging rules -- we try not to mix transcribed data and controlled data in the same element -- but that does not mean that the rules do not make provision for both types of data.
Re: [RDA-L] First RDA records
... If 337 is $aunmedicated, with no other $amedia type term. delete 336-338. hmmm, are RDA records on something? --- greta de groat Stanford University Libraries
Re: [RDA-L] Understanding RDA
I agree, i found 2.4 incomprehensible when applied to moving images.
What i could piece together of the rules did not agree with the
examples. My suspicion is that the intent is to separate the creators
from the contributors and somehow end up with a statement of
responsibility exactly like we had in AACR2. How do you decide what is
a creator and what is a contributor? My guess here (though nothing
explicitly stated this) is that perhaps the roles that the JSC
arbitrarily decided belonged to the work were creators and those roles
they decided were at the expression or manifestation level were
contributors. However logical this may have seemed to them, to moving
image catalogers this seems entirely illogical and has little relation
to the nature of moving image works. There may be major and minor
creators/contributors ow whatever you want to call them, but we perceive
almost all of them as associated with the work.
I did report this in the comment period since it clearly met the
criteria for inconsistency. I have no idea whether it has been
addressed in the tweaks that have been done since the comment period
closed. I will be anxiously awaiting the release to see if this is any
clearer.
Greta de Groat
Stanford University Libraries
Former OLAC Liaison to CC:DA
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Just as a knowledge of yee olde unit card helps one understand AACR2,
a knowledge of AACR2 helps one understand RDA. How library school
students coming to RDA without background will understand it, I've no
idea.
For example, you know how I feel about dividing non cast credits
between 245$c and 508 for video recordings.
RDA says at 2.4.1 (which I assume applies to 245$c):
2,4,1 A statement of responsibility is a statement relating to the
identification and/or function of any persons, families, or corporate
bodies responsible for the creation of, or contributing to the
realization of, the intellectual or artistic content of a resource.
But RDA says at 2.4.1.1:
For statements identifying persons who have contributed to the
artistic and/or technical production of a motion picture or video
recording, see the instructions given under 7.21.
The above would seem to me to instruct that all responsible persons
for a video be in a note. Shouldn't there be other in front of
persons if some were to be given in the statement of responsibility?
RDA says at 7.24.1.1 (which I assume applies to 508):
Artistic and/or technical credits are listings of persons, families,
or corporate bodies (other than the cast) who have *contributed* to
the artistic and/or technical production of a motion picture or video
recording ...
*Emphasis mine.
This says nothing about putting some contributors in a statement of
responsibility. But appendix examples show a 245$c for a video,
Unless one knows the distinctions made in AACR2 between statement of
responsibility and credits note, the RDA instructions are too vague
to follow. The general instruction, the reference to 7.24.1.1, and
7.24.1.1 all speak of contributors with no distinction made.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] (Online) qualifier for series
Hmmm. Doesn't the provider-neutral e-monograph report say that All e-monographic resources cataloged on OCLC should follow the Prover-Neutral model from Day One, even if the resource is available from only one provider at the time of ctatloging.? And that basically OCLC will neutralize any provider-specific records? So if not qualifying the series by (online) is part of the provider-neutral policy, why would you have any motivation for not following the policy since OCLC will change your record anyway, whether or not you are a PCC library? greta de groat Stanford University Libraries Adam L. Schiff wrote: Earlier LAC was very responsive in answering questions about standards, but I've received no response to twice asking whether LAC will follow the PCC decision to stop qualifying remote electronic series as (online), but use the print form of the series. (Since we provide MARC records to several electroninc publishers, some of whom also do print versions, we need to know.) This is not quite an accurate statement of PCC policy as I understand it from discussions at various meetings. The PCC decision applies only to bibliographic records for remote electronic resources being authenticated according to the provider-neutral policy. Non-BIBCO libraries who are trained and authorized to create series authority records are still free to create series authorities for e-series and qualify them with (Online) if there is also a print manifestation of the series. There are many more NACO participants than BIBCO participants. Existing series authority records with (Online) qualifiers will not be cancelled either. --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 * **
[RDA-L] RDA workflows question
I have a question about the Workflows documents that came with the RDA draft. These looked like useful means for interpreting and navigating the RDA text, and the Simple Books workflow mentioned several other workflows that still needed to be drafted. My question is, who is tasked with creating these workflows? The JSC? LC? the PCC? other communities of interest? It seems like these workflows need to be in place before implementation can happen, perhaps even before testing and training. Aren't they supposed to be incorporated into the online product? Is there a timeline for them to be ready? I've heard nothing on this list or Autocat or any of the PCC lists about anyone working on these workflows. And how are these similar to/different than the application profiles that during RDA development we heard were going to be created by communities of interest. Would this be where the decisions would be documented that are referred to in the Simple Books workflow in passages such as /: /Know the methods your agency prefers ... and Know whether your agency uses etc.? Those decisions will need to be made before the workflows themselves can be used. Are any communities are actively working on or preparing to work on this? thanks greta de groat Stanford University Libraries
Re: [RDA-L] Slave to the title page?
I also think it's perfectly reasonable to transcribe a title of a printed resource. I even think it is reasonable to transcribe the title as it appears on the title frames of a film or video. These things tend to be stable and citable and i think we need to have that encoded in the bibliographic record. What i object to is being required to transcribe everything on the title page or title frames. I am aghast that RDA is continuing to require this in this day and age (particularly as CONSER has already walked away from this). If it's because we need to know exactly how a title page looks and how names appear, we don't even transcribe it completely anyway (leaving off honorifics, affiliations, etc., people peforming minor roles) There is even the matter of determining what order to transcribe things in many cases such as conference proceedings with logos, sponsor names, conference names (spelled out and abbreviated) and special titles in a jumble all over the page. We! encounter these frequently when trying to copy catalog electronic conferences and finding that the scanned page of the electronic version we are looking at doesn't exactly match the 245 of the catalog record, which was allegedly the print version. Is it a different thing? Did someone interpret the order of titles differently? Are there typos or other mistakes? (we find a lot of these). If the purpose is identification, a scan of the title page would have served this purpose much more efficiently and accurately than transcription. THe technology exists to get frame grabs for video credits, but they would be numerous and somewhat cumbersome to get at this point (or we could record the credits as an mpeg file but there might be legal issues involved). So this one isn't as easy as for text. But the transcription issue is way more difficult and time consuming for text as well, so it still might be a gain in time an accuracy (the folks on the JSC have obviously never tried to transcribe film credits!) greta de groat Stanford University Libraries - Original Message - From: Weinheimer Jim j.weinhei...@aur.edu To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 2:50:12 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Slave to the title page? J. McRee (Mac) Elrod wrote: Accurate transcription of the title as on the item, even if titles as found on containers are substituted for DVDs and CD-ROMs, seems to me to remain the basis of patron helpful cataloguing. Variant forms of the title as found in CIP or publisher produced metadata are helpful (in MARC terms) as 246s, but not 245s. Your humble member of the cult of the title page, And I guess I'll play my normal role of the wild, anarcho-syndicalist. ;-) Cutter and his comrades were dealing with other technologies and assumed that a particular resource would not change. Therefore, a title page was forever, just as the extent, the place of publication and so on. That is as true today as it was then. But with virtual resources (I hesitate even to use the term electronic resources) all of this must be reconsidered. Even in printed materials, the weird publications (loose-leaf) didn't fit into the classical norms all that well, since updates could change a publication completely. Everything previous was thrown into the transfer box more or less randomly for the user to figure out. With online materials, the older versions often completely disappear (unfortunately) and the record made so carefully by transcribing the title page may end up describing nothing at all. This does not mean that we should reconsider cataloging printed materials--our rules work very well as they are now--but the problem arises when we try to insist that the same rules must operate in the virtual world. They don't make sense. This is why I feel it would be more productive to leave the tried-and-true methods alone and simply consider virtual materials to be fundamentally different--which is true. We do this now with manuscripts in many ways, where the rule of transcription of the title of a draft of a speech or letter that was dashed off in a couple of seconds and full of typos is not necessarily transcribed exactly. How should virtual materials be handled? That is a huge question whose answers must evolve with time, but does it mean that we should reconsider the tried and true methods of describing physical materials because of some theoretical belief that all materials must be handled in the same ways? To me, it doesn't make sense that it is so important to transcribe faithfully the chief source of information for a title of a virtual resource when it may change in a week or within the next 5 minutes. It doesn't serve the purpose of the cataloger or the user and can lead only to confusion for all. What is the solution? Again, that can come only with trial and error. I have some ideas of my own but I admit they may not work
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR, RDA ... and transcendental idealism
I don't have FRBRoo in front of me right now, but i remember that it had some sort of category for what i would dub a thought work, that is, the point at which a work is conceived but not yet manifested in any real world way. THough i think as a theoretical entity it belongs in the scheme, i have a hard time imagining its practical value, at least in bibliographical terms. greta de groat Stanford University Libraries - Original Message - From: Weinheimer Jim j.weinhei...@aur.edu To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 12:20:50 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR, RDA ... and transcendental idealism Irvin Flack wrote: I was thinking about this in relation to Mozart the other day. Assume, according to the legend, he worked out his musical compositions in his head completely before writing them down. For cataloguing purposes the work doesn't exist until it's in a form that can be perceived by someone else, even if he had the rest of the Requiem 'written' in his head. (Cf the old 'sound of falling tree in a forest' riddle.) A excellent point. In RDF terms, there must be a some kind of shared agreement and understanding for the concept URI to exist in the first place. This is more difficult than you might think and I can offer an example. I remember at one organization I worked at when we had people from China to work on a multi-lingual thesaurus and the difficulties they encountered. One was the term obesity, a concept that does not exist in Chinese, and apparently is culturally-based. On the other hand, it turns out that the concept of obesity is politically charged in some countries and can cause a lot of anger. I am sure others would have their own examples as well. Jim Weinheimer
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR, RDA ... and transcendental idealism
There are also more recent lost works, including a significant amount of film and television. And they are occasionally needed as subjects or related work entries, as in the picture book and later video reconstruction (created from production stills and script--no actual film) of the 1927 film London after Midnight, or the reconstruction of the destroyed and never released 1937 film Bezhin lug. I believe there is also either a book or video reconstruction in the works for the 1917 Theda Bara film Cleopatra, of which only a few seconds of film survive. greta de groat Stanford University Libraries - Original Message - From: Hal Cain hec...@dml.vic.edu.au To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 3:32:35 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR, RDA ... and transcendental idealism Quoting Bernhard Eversberg e...@biblio.tu-bs.de: There are more works, esp. from antiquity, of which only fragments have survived. And there are others which haven't survived at all, at least not in recognizable form -- regrettably, writing from home, I can't call to mind a specific example -- but which are known by the accounts, sometimes the opposition, of other writers. In the meantime people write about them, or produce editions of works created to express opposition, and we have to formulate headings (citations, whatever) to deal with them in providing access. (Off the direct topic there is also the matter of works which exist and have been attributed to known, named persons who, however, are shown not to be their authors. Thus we reach headings in name-title form, in which the name element is, in effect, defined by the name of the person we know not to be the true author: (e.g.) Pseudo-Callisthenes. Historia Alexandri Magni [I leave aside the question of the propriety of the language of the title, Latin for a work composed in Greek]. Some, like Aristotle's treatise on the comedy, vanished entirely. OTOH, this was a part of his larger Poetics, so what in fact is the work here? Leading directly to the question what is the work in the case of multipart publications. AACR has always focused on the larger whole if there is a comprehensive title, whereas we have given the parts equal weight in regarding each volume as a work if it has a title of its own. RDA has not resolved the part - whole relationship any better than AACR, so there's still room for conflict and confusion. AACR/RDA might, however, claim support from St. Paul who, in 1 Cor. 13,10, wrote ... when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. I am rather suspicious of expectation of supernatural solutions to natural problems! Part or whole? RDA seems to follow the implied reliance of AACR2 on usage: how is the work, part or separate, primarily known? That, of course, is relative to the context the cataloguer has to take into consideration -- with the reminder that the convenience of the user (whoever...) ranks higher than that of the cataloguer (and, by implication, of the system builder). I suppose that, in the Judaeo-Christian context, the principal example of whole-or-part is the Bible and its sections and books. RDA proposes to eliminate the intermediate O.T. and N.T. for books and sections -- I suggested that individual books be entered directly under their own titles, but that suggestion met with little agreement if any. With a perfect system one would achieve seamless, uninterrupted access no matter which form one used to enter the system. Seeing as I believe library system designers and vendors to be the weakest link in the chain of bibliographical control, this too may not be achieved till St. Paul's scenario comes about. Hal Cain Dalton McCaughey Library (formerly Joint Theological Library) Parkville, Victoria, Australia h...@dml.vic.edu.au This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: [RDA-L] RDA and reproductions
Not only the title of the original, but we also need to know other stuff
about the original. And are we talking about the original platonic work
or the original manifestation? For a book that's a reproduction we
need to know the publisher and date of the manifestation that's being
reproduced (which may or may not be the same as for the work), for a
videorecording of a motion picture or television program (which is
essentially a reproduction though it usually hasn't been defined that
way), we need to know the place of production and the year of production
(and apparently these are the only motion picture characteristics that
hough the RDA/FRBR folks think that motion picture works have). As far
as i can tell in RDA, all of the work stuff is supposed to be in the
work record. So it's not even clear to me whether we can use the 534
for work information, which also doesn't have specific subfields for all
that information anyway, so it won't map out to any future work record
and can't be properly searched or limited on now (which is probably why
nobody is using it for reproductions now) or in the future (unless this
is one of the MARBI fast-track things that's supposed to happen)
Given that authority records are sort of our de-facto work records under
the present MARC regime, there isn't any place to put that information
there, either. Is it supposed to be part of the constructed heading?
If so, it sounds like you can only add this info in the case of a
conflict to the heading, and though you may add it to an appropriate
field in the work record, there isnt' any work record yet so you can't
add it there either. The mappings in Appendix D .3.1map the date of
work and date of expression to the 1xx $f, which as far as i've ever
seen has aways been the date of the manifestation (as in Works and
Selections in books anyway, not about how music uses this subfield).
Anyway, that mapping won't correspond with present practice. 534
(misnumbered as a second iteration of 533) is mapped to related
manifestation, so apparently they don't think the work information
belongs there either, just the manifestation that's being reproduced.
I know we're not supposed to be thinking about data structure in RDA,
but since we have to still do our work in the meantime while we wait for
whatever new format with theoretically be developed, there's no way that
RDA is compatable with the present MARC structure. Has anybody heard
what fields MARBI is looking at adding to be RDA compatable? I haven't
heard anything about this for months. I thought it was supposed to be
happening at Annual but apparently it got tabled until Midwinter.
greta de groat
Stanford University Libraries
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Carolyn said:
Are some MARC tags being eliminated in RDA? I tried the MARC index
mentioned below just to experiment with it. I put in 534 in the box
...
RDA, like AACR2 and LAC (unlike LCRI) call for cataloguing the
reproduction at hand, which means the 534 would be needed to describe
the original.
RDA 2.3.1.3
Facsimiles and Reproductions
When describing a facsimile or reproduction that has a title or
titles relating to the original manifestation as well as to the
facsimile or reproduction, record the title or titles relating to the
facsimile or reproduction. Record any title relating to the original
manifestation as a title pertaining to a related manifestation (see
27.1).
But it doesn't tell you *where*, e.g., in a note, to record the
title of the original. Presumably in MARC21 that would be 534.
However, contrary to the rules, the only example of a reproduction at
27.1 (to which 2.3.1.3 referes us) is for an Electronic reproduction
added to the record for the print original, which would be a 530 or
533.
Examples don't follow the rules.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] RDA full draft
Large institutions may be able to afford such a cataloging interface. How long will it take our local systems to program such a thing? Or maybe it will be OCLC that does it and we'll all catalog in OCLC. Will the subscription price for RDA be added to either of those products on top of what we pay already? Ok, us large institutions will do whatever we're told (which will be whatever practice LC/PCC/OCLC tells us). But i'm really worried about small institutions. If they aren't going to be able to afford the subscription fee for the basic RDA product, how do we think they are going to be able to afford some fancy integrated cataloging interface? And forget about bringing in other constituencies. It's become obvious that the printed text is unusuable. If RDA were open source, maybe some enterprising programmers could whip up some X-Forms templates and incorporate the text behind the scenes to be called up in context, as Bernhard envisions. But it seems like an awful lot of text! And i'm not sure you could make MARC records with X-Forms--maybe create XML records and translate them back into MARC! That's crazy. We still need to look forward to the successor to MARC, probably XML based, and certainly something that's actually able to implement RDA (if we decide that RDA is worth implementing). If we stick with MARC, or at least dont' make significant tweaks to it, the RDA exercise will have been pointless. And if we stick with MARC the wider world outside won't be able to easily read our data and we'll be left out. Greta de Groat Stanford University Libraries Robert Maxwell wrote: -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bernhard Eversberg Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 2:36 AM To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA full draft The complete full draft reveals how big and how long a step this new code actually is. There may be any number of smaller points that can be made against this or that rule or part or phrase, and the PDFs _are_ a pain in the neck and a colossal waste of time and paper, but then when has an effort of this size and this enormous extension of what cataloging codes have comprised up to this time ever been made? It is impossible to get anything right at once on a scale like this, so lets for once be appreciative of the achievement. RLM: Appreciative we may be, at least of the gargantuan amount of work that has obviously gone into this (though hard work does not necessarily equal achievement), but HOW did a code, which was originally intended to simplify matters, become such a colossal and complex beast that we will now need a frontend for every cataloging system that assists the cataloger or metadata creator in all formal aspects of record creation? Is this really progress? Robert L. Maxwell Head, Special Collections and Metadata Catalog Dept. 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568
Re: [RDA-L] RDA full draft - access to site
I was able to print a few more chapters today before getting blocked again. Is it a problem with traffic or is something else going on here? greta Nathalie Schulz wrote: ALA Publishing have confirmed that there are no blocks on the rdaonline.org site. They are investigating the problem experienced by people at the University of Southern California. Regards, Nathalie Nathalie Schulz RDA-L co-listowner At 11:28 20/11/2008, Keith R. Trimmer wrote: Is it possible to post the full draft anywhere other than on www.rdaonline.org? (And/or to convince the owners of that domain that it is critical that they allow full access to all comers?) Specifically (and I can't believe that we're the only ones affected here)... It is impossible for anyone from the University of Southern California to even connect to this server, if attempting to do so from the machines on campus. At the same time, I can easily connect from home and download files, via my TimeWarner (presumably RoadRunner) connection. However, if I use remote desktop, from my machine at work, at the same hour, I still (four days later) can't even connect from my machine at work, let alone download and review any files. As a listowner intimately familiar with the problem, I suspect that USC is on a blacklist rdaonline.org is using. With such a product, this approach is inappropriate. According to our IT unit, some 95% or more of all mail sent to addresses in the usc.edu domain is actually spam. They're now deleting same without even passing it along. Unfortunately, some of it leaks out, and we end up on blacklists. Seemingly, since we're on some blacklist, somewhere, we're being prevented from even being able to access the home page for rdaonline, let alone any other pages hosted there. To whom do I write to rectify this problem? Later, kt - Greta de Groat Stanford University Libraries
Re: [RDA-L] Comments from Martha M. Yee on the April 10, 2008 version of the STATEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL CATALOGUING PRINCIPLES
Hi Martha, Thanks for posting your comments. Since i wasn't on the task force and wasn't going to ALA (as well as being overwhelmed by work stuff) this has been flying under my radar, so i appreciate your alerting us all to what sound like major problems with this. Since you're going to be representing OLAC at the discussion, do you need some official input from either me or Kelley or CAPC? I'm comfortable with your analysis and with just letting you represent our interests, but if you need anything official from me, let me know (and i'll put it in my pile of bus reading material!) thanks greta Martha Yee wrote: I have several major concerns about the current draft of the Statement of International Cataloguing Principles. First, these replace a set of principles that were elegant in their simplicity and conciseness and therefore easy for laymen to grasp, even though the designers of current online catalogs never bothered to read them so we never managed to implement them completely in existing catalogs. The proposed new principles are wordy, prolix, vague, ambiguous, and difficult to understand. As a result, I suspect they will have the effect of making any catalog that attempts to follow them less functional than it is now. Examples of vagueness include the use of the phrase belonging to (in 3.1.2), without providing any sort of explanation of what that means, and the use of authorized access points, juxtaposed with a practice according to which every variant name is an entity (see below), thereby rendering the concept of authorized meaningless. Secondly, 4.2 carves into stone the approach to the multiple versions problem that has created so much havoc in existing catalogs. 4.2 is completely contrary to the general objective of the convenience of the user. Thirdly, the existing principles are also preferable to the proposed new principles because they are not nearly as tied down to existing catalog technology as the proposed new principles are. The new principles make explict reference to concepts such as authority records which may not even exist any more in a FRBR-ized catalog designed to exist on the semantic web in which each entity is represented by a URI. Fourth, I deeply regret the loss of the word efficient, as in the catalog shall be an efficient instrument... The worst designed piece of catalog software in the world can claim that eventually a determined and persistent user will be able to locate all resources belonging to the same work. The thing that differentiates a good catalog from a bad catalog is the degree of efficiency with which this can be carried out. How efficiently can one assemble all of the expressions of the same work, all of the works about that work, and all of the works related to that work, so as to make choices as to the item or items desired? Efficiency is at the heart of the convenience of the user. Fifth, I find it disturbing that in 2.2 works are not mentioned as entities that require the documenting of controlled forms of name. If this is an intentional omission, it represents a giant step backwards from current practice, and a major betrayal of the promise of FRBR. It also represents a confusing inconsistency with 5.2.1, which refers to controlled titles of works and expressions, and 6, which does list works as being eligible for representation by authority records. Sixth, I find it inconceivable that we would ever be able to provide controlled forms of name in authority records for manifestations and items (as opposed to the works and expressions contained in them), as is implied by 6. Finally, 6.1.1 is a recipe for the end of cataloging. If every variant name is considered to be a separate and distinct entity, collocation is dead and Google lives. There is no point in wasting space in this document in order to define the concept of authorized or preferred access point. Google keyword indexing, being much cheaper than cataloging, is sure to prevail. Clearly the convenience of the user is not an objective of these principles at all. %% Martha M. Yee Cataloging Supervisor UCLA Film Television Archive 1015 N. Cahuenga Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90038-2616 323-462-4921 x27 323-469-9055 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Email at work) Campus mail: 302 E. Melnitz 132306 http://myee.bol.ucla.edu (Web page) %% You have a dollar. I have a dollar. We swap. Now you have my dollar and I have your dollar. We are not better off. You have an idea. I have an idea. We swap. Now you have two ideas and I have two ideas. Both are richer. When you gave, you have. What I got, you did not lose. That’s cooperation—Jimmy Durante quoted in Schnozzola, by Gene Fowler, 1951, p. 207-208.
Re: [RDA-L] Expression and Manifestation
Karen Coyle wrote: All expressions: the Work Which is the only way you can define the work, IMO. It's a sum of the expressions, not really something in itself, since it can't exist without expression. The expressions would be the sum of the manifestations... items add up to? so the top to bottom really becomes bottom to top... As the sum of the expressions are you meaning the attributes that the expressions have in common? Or all the attributes of the expressions added together? In trying to analyze the attributes of work and expression in FRBR i am vastly puzzled. Language is given as an attribute of expression (presumably because it may be translated so may vary between expression--though it's helpful to know what is the original when that can be determined). But then why is musical key an attribute of the work? Can't music be transposed? Is the standard edition of Lucia di Lammermor a different work than the autograph version because of all the key differences? Yet how is it that whether a film is live action or animation is an attribute of expression? How is that not a fundamental characteristic of a particular work? Explain to me how there an be an expression of Casablanca that is not live action. Is it envisioned that someone is going to rotoscope over the actors? Or make a CGI version? How would that not be a different work? I was puzzled at first by the LC Working Group recommendation that work on RDA be suspended until FRBR was tested. You mean it hasn't been tested on real live cataloging? (i'm not meaning attempts to make FRBRized displays). But reading FRBR closely indicates to me that it in fact has not be tested, at least not on non-textual materials. To base cataloging rules on a model that hasn't been tested seems to me to be ... ok, i'm not going to use the terminology i'm actually thinking, but i'll rephrase and say that it seems fundamentally flawed. greta de groat Stanford University Libraries
Re: [RDA-L] Expression and Manifestation
Hi Jenn, Yes, if a work is so abstract that it doesn't have attributes to distinguish it from another work, then ... hmm, i'm not quite sure what to think. That's the problem that the film community is having with this. If mainstream RDA interpretation is that a film has no creators and RDA itself identifies no attributes other than the fact it's a film and the year it apparently emanated from the cosmos (not even whether it's live action or animated), then what's left to identify the work? If it has no characteristics, when how useful is it as a concept? Suppose you have two films the same year, like Harlow (1965) and Harlow (1965). Do you go to other distinguishing characteristics? Which would be--what? Producer, director, writer, stars (which would be what most patrons would most readily identify with the work). And precisely the characteristics that film people think of a essential attributes of the work. Interesting about the key--i hadn't thought of that, but it sounds like the key is in work because it is needed as a naming convention. thanks greta Riley, Jenn wrote: If key is an expression attribute, should it then not be a work attribute? I find it useful to think of a work in a key (it's one of the things we routinely include to differentiate one composer's Symphony #1 from another!) but I think your analogy to language is apt. Is a musical work in a key any more or less than a work is in a language? If the work is so abstract it doesn't have words, then is the musical work so abstract it doesn't have a key? It's too conceptual of a question for me on this lovely afternoon in southern Indiana. Jenn Jenn Riley Metadata Librarian Digital Library Program Indiana University - Bloomington Wells Library W501 (812) 856-5759 www.dlib.indiana.edu Inquiring Librarian blog: www.inquiringlibrarian.blogspot.com
Re: New works and new expressions (was Cataloger scenarios added to wiki)
Ok, as absurd as i find the argument that the actors in a motion picture are expression level, doubtless you find it logical. And that argues for Diane and Karen's points about letting different communities find their own definitions. So moving image people will be able to consider Joseph Losey's film of Don Giovanni a work while music people can consider it an expression of the Mozart opera and you text-based folks can think of it as, i don't know, an expression of El Burlador de Sevilla y convidado de piedra or the Don Juan superwork or whatever. THis is my worry, though. In the past our cataloging rules have shown a strong text bias, which were highly disfunctional for moving image cataloging. Libraries have adhered to LC rule interpretations and OCLC standards as de facto standards and moving image catalogers in libraries had to comply even though the rules didn't meet our needs. If the text-based model is imposed by LC and/or OCLC on libraries, then i fear that the moving image catalogers, who largely work in mainstream libraries, will have this model imposed on them again. Film archives may have enough independence to go their own way, but will libraries? Already OCLC is forcing me to upgrade minimal level LC film records cataloged according to AMIM and change them to AACR2 rather than inputting a separate record cataloged according to different rules. So saying different communities can have their own flavors is all well and good but in practical terms will it be allowed within the library community? greta Quoting Ed Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I hesitate to venture into this discussion, since it's very complex, but two things occur to me: (1) As Barbara Tillett has observed, there is a continuum among bibliographic entities, and the break between expression and work is necessarily somewhat arbitrarily defined within a given cataloging community. Having said that, a play provides a useful object for examining the nastier parts of this continuum, moving first from a manuscript to a printed text, then perhaps a digital text that can be read by a text-to-speech reader; from this to a recording for the hearing impaired, where the text is read aloud by a volunteer, to an audiobook read by a professional reader or actor, to a recording of a radio version of the play, with sound effects and perhaps a bit of narration (maybe several iterations, one with an American cast, another with British, Australian, etc.); from this to a full-blown performance before an audience, with all the complexity that entails, to a videotaping of that performance, and maybe another videotaping of the next night's performance (and of the various regional and traveling productions), to a formal recording of the performance in a studio, to a motion picture version filmed on location (and maybe several versions by different besotted directors). At what point do we cross from an expression to a new work? I'm not sure, but I suspect that as long as the underlying text remains relatively intact, we never do. (2) Another argument for relating performers to the expression rather than the work can be found in the recording of a musical performance. Presumably one wouldn't consider the recording of a performance of a given piece by one orchestra to be a different work from the recording of a different performance of the same piece by another orchestra? If not, then what about the recording of an opera, where we've introduced a degree of acting to the performance (ignoring for the moment our more flamboyant conductors)? Of a Broadway musical (where the acting predominates)? Except in those rare instances where the work is incapable of being performed by anyone other than those who originally performed it, I think performance (including acting) must be considered an expression-level activity. Since RDA is being organized in terms of the FRBR user tasks and entities, I'm not sure these are academic questions. Each bibliographic element in RDA will presumably be related to a given FRBR Group 1 entity? Ed Jones From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martha Yee Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 12:35 PM To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] New works and new expressions (was Cataloger scenarios added to wiki) Creider's asks, One question I have for Martha is why a change in actors results in a different work? I would argue that moving images are essentially visual works, not textual ones; in order to change a textual work into a visual work, adaptation is inherently necessary. The situation is complicated by the fact that it is possible to use moving image as a mere recording medium. I don't mind identifying a stage performance of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet as a work by Shakespeare when the stage performance has been recorded by a stationary video camera. When Shakespeare's play is
Re: FW: [RDA-L] New works and new expressions (was Cataloger scenarios added to wiki)
I think this is illustrative of why it's a mistake to insist that particular roles have to be only at one FRBR level. Yes, there are occasional films where a character is eliminated in the reediting, or when the directors' cut or restored version appears, there is an actor not in the orignal release version. This isn't terribly unusual and i would argue in these cases that those particular actors do end up being at the expression level. You might not even know that until a new expression appears--someone that you thought was at work level turns out to be expression level. But that doesn't change our overall sense that *most* actors are going to be a work level. They're not going to edit out all the actors! greta Quoting Layne, Sara [EMAIL PROTECTED]: With considerable trepidation, I'm going to venture into this discussion ... If all the collaborators belong at the work level, doesn't that mean that a change in *any* of the collaborators would mean that you then have a completely different work? I know this doesn't often happen with films in actual practice, but aren't there edited versions of films from which entire characters have been eliminated? If *all* the actors are attributes of the work, wouldn't this then mean that those edited versions aren't expressions of the original work but rather completely new works? And, I do think that there are examples of collaborative textual works in which later editions of the work don't have exactly the same collaborators (perhaps one has died?), but would still be considered expressions of the same work rather than different works ... Sara Shatford Layne Principal Cataloger UCLA Library Cataloging Metadata Center [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access on behalf of Martha Yee Sent: Wed 3/12/2008 2:24 PM To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] FW: [RDA-L] New works and new expressions (was Cataloger scenarios added to wiki) Sorry about that, Larry; I do agree with Greta that actors (and editors, directors, screenwriters, costume designers, composers of music) all belong at the work level, not the expression level, for moving image works. Moving image works are essentially visual works that are created collaboratively, and all of the collaborators together make up the authors of the work. There are collaborative textual works, as well, and I don't think anyone would argue that those collaborators belong at the expression rather than the work level, would they? Hope that clarifies? Martha -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Laurence Creider Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 1:20 PM To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] New works and new expressions (was Cataloger scenarios added to wiki) Martha, You answered all of my questions except the one at the beginning, and I should have addressed that to Greta de Groat. You did not make the statement about actors being a characteristic of the work rather than the expression. I apologize for the confusion, although I would still like an answer from someone. I certainly agree with what you say about the adaptation in making a visual work from a textual one and about the cases you cite. I wonder, however, if the same arguments could not also be said of a stage production of Shakespeare. Recordings of stage productions are treated by cataloging rules as versions of the play, but the textual component of a play is the very bare bones of the play. Plays, as operas, are frequently performed with cuts of text, but addition of scenery, blocking, inflection, direction, production are analogous to film activities. They don't seem to go over the edge to being a new work, and I am somewhat curious how it is that they do not. The intent of the producers, actors, designers, etc. could be argued to make the difference, but intent might not be as easy to establish as one would think. Is the difference made by the intellectually creative difference made by the cinematographer and director, and editor(s), who shape what we see in perhaps a more fundamental way than the stage director? Or is it the textual adaptation required in moving a text from print or stage to screen? Larry Creider On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Martha Yee wrote: Creider's asks, One question I have for Martha is why a change in actors results in a different work? I would argue that moving images are essentially visual works, not textual ones; in order to change a textual work into a visual work, adaptation is inherently necessary. The situation is complicated by the fact that it is possible to use moving image as a mere recording medium. I don't mind identifying a stage performance of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet as a work by Shakespeare when the stage performance has been recorded by a stationary video camera. When Shakespeare's
Re: Cataloger Scenarios added to wiki
If i understand Martha's scenarios, i think that there is an original aspect ratio (just like there is an original language), and that belongs with the work, while any deviation from that becomes a characteristic of the expression. However, i think its possible that there could be some of these expression characteristics that might be at work level and stay there unless and until a different expression was released (like, say, re-dubbing part of the soundtrack or rerecordining with a different narrator). In other words, we might not know something is an expression until a different expression appears. greta Quoting McGrath, Kelley C. [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Greta wrote... ...Jane can finally gets down to the manifestation: Place of Publication: Beverly Hills, Calif. Publisher: Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment Date: 2007 Media type: DVD; Other technical characteristics: NTSC, all region, full frame, choice of Dolby 5.1 or stereo for the music track (uh oh, Jane wonders if these constitue different expressions, but decides not to think about it abd just lets this pass). Extent: 2 videodiscs : sd., bw, 4 3/4 in. I wonder if, in addition to the music tracks, a couple other pieces of information (aspect ratio, sound, color) ought not to be at the expression level because if they changed it would be a change in content (or at least that's how I'm reading Martha's book chapter at http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6113context=p ostprints) I also tend to think, although I don't know if it makes sense to model it here, that in practice it would be far easier for most moving image situations, especially DVDs, to only created explicit expression-level records for what I think of as named expressions or things like director's cut, theatrical release, or unrated version, although there are many variations that we'll never have the info to track (what cataloger is going to track down the real differences among all the Star Wars video releases, even though we know that what you buy on DVD now is not necessarily the same as what you saw in the theater in 1977). There are just too many dimensions to the typical moving image expression to make it efficient to create and later search for and link to individual expression records for everything. It would seem to me more practical to explicitly code the relevant expression-level characteristics that lend themselves to standardized coding (things like language info, aspect ratio, color, and sound) in the manifestation records and have the computer collocate the expression level display on the fly. Kelley McGrath
Re: Cataloger Scenarios added to wiki
animated films by a variety of people she's never heard of. Next is the second volume with another 60 films. She contemplates the idea of work records for these, then goes home and slits her wrists. cheers Greta de Groat Stanford University Libraries
Cataloger Scenarios added to wiki
Yes, Diane, thanks for posting these! They are very helpful. I do have a couple of questions. On Scenario 2, Jane creates the work description (based on an ONYX record) for the work, creates work records for the individual part, creates expression record for each work, then uses the ONYX record to create a manifestation record for the collection. Is there an expression-level record for the collection? Or would this be skipped. Scenario 3. Jane creates additional work, expression, and manifestation record for the screenplay. WOuld this happen only if the screenplay is published separately from the film? Or are you considering the film to be based on the screenplay the same way the screenplay is based on a book? (so logically one would assume a screenplay to be a prexisting work and always need a work record?) I'm not sure one would routinely want to do this. In this case is Jane creating the work, expression, and manifestation records for the online version? So she's decided to catalog that too? Or am i misunderstanding that? And I hate to be a broken record, but in films Actors would be associated with the work, not the expression. They are not going to reshoot the film with different actors. (ok, in case anybody knows about them, i'm ignoring the early talkie films which were simultaneously shot in different language versions with casts that are sometimes the same, sometimes different--they are borderline cases. I would not consider the shot for shot remake of Psycho a borderline case) thanks, greta
Re: Aesthetics, was: Sentence case vs. Title case
Somehow this reminds me of all the effort that's been put into closing death dates on authority record (though it was irrelevant for our purpose of distinguishing names) because it bothered people seeing the open dates. Greta de Groat Stanford University Libraries Quoting D. Brooking [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Disclaimer: I don't care that much about capitalization. But Robert Maxwell did bring up an interesting point about aesthetics (pretty records and the professional appearance of catalogs). I have thought about this in relation to RDA itself as a product. Concerns have been expressed about its organization, how difficult it may be to use, read and understand it. The concern that the language should be simple and straightforward and the fears that it is not turning out that way. Aesthetics apparently can have an impact on usability. The following is quoted from a book, Ambient Findability by Peter Morville (p. 110). I thought of RDA when I read it. For instance, in Emotional Design, usability guru Don Norman provides solid evidence that attractive things work better, citing the surprising results of research studies in which 'usability and aesthetics were not expected to correlate.' But they did, again and again Morville gives other examples. Morville is talking mainly about web sites and discovery on the web, but I think the success of something like a cataloging code could be affected by the relation between aesthetics and usability as well. Diana Brooking (206) 685-0389 Cataloging Librarian (206) 685-8782 fax Suzzallo Library [EMAIL PROTECTED] University of Washington Box 352900 Seattle WA 98195-2900 On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, Robert Maxwell wrote: Kevin Randall wrote: While I agree that a mix of capitalization practices would be an unsightly jumble, I don't think that making records/indexes pretty was a high priority in the development of FRBR... RLM: I agree that making records and indexes pretty isn't a high priority for FRBR. As a matter of fact, FRBR says nothing about the form of records or indexes. However, silly as it sounds, style *does* matter in a professional product. Professionally published books are carefully proofread by editors not only for content but also for style, including things like capitalization, the issue of the current thread. Why? Because readers think it is important, and they judge the quality of books partly on their appearance, including the appearance of the contents. This may be unconscious and indeed unfair but it is nonetheless a fact of life. The same applies to our own professional products, including catalogs. A cataloging code is in part the stylebook we use to create our catalog and yes, uniformity of appearance in indexes and (perhaps to a lesser extent) in individual records is important to the user's impression of the product. In this day and age when we are told people! are less and less likely to come to our professional product, the catalog, I don't think we can afford to overlook this. Bob Robert L. Maxwell Head, Special Collections and Metadata Catalog Dept. 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568
Re: Sentence case vs. Title case [was: [RDA-L] Measuring quality of cataloguing]
I guess title case would actually be The Road to Perdition (smile) but your point is well taken. Though libraries seem to be in the minority for English language, what are citation practices in other countries? I've been working a lot lately with opera record labels, and i notice that titles in Italian and French seem to actually follow English sentence case (and of course German is just the opposite!). As usual, one size doesn't fit all! I'm wondering, how much do we really need to care about this? Even current rules are difficult to apply if you are not well versed in the language in question (a large percentage of the questions my assistant asks are about capitalization, so it seems something we spend an inordinate amount of time on for little benefit that i see) Greta de Groat Stanford University Libraries Quoting Martha Yee [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Our current methods of title transcription (capitalize only the first word, and any proper name) convey more information than standard citation capitalization does, since in a transcribed title you can tell which words are proper names and which are not. It is not uncommon for this practice to render the meaning of a film title or television title less ambiguous. For example, 'The road to Perdition' indicates that Perdition is the name of an actual town, while 'The road to perdition' would not convey that meaning... Martha %% Martha M. Yee Cataloging Supervisor UCLA Film Television Archive 1015 N. Cahuenga Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90038-2616 323-462-4921 x27 323-469-9055 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Email at work) Campus mail: 302 E. Melnitz 132306 http://myee.bol.ucla.edu (Web page) %% You have a dollar. I have a dollar. We swap. Now you have my dollar and I have your dollar. We are not better off. You have an idea. I have an idea. We swap. Now you have two ideas and I have two ideas. Both are richer. When you gave, you have. What I got, you did not lose. Thats cooperationJimmy Durante quoted in Schnozzola, by Gene Fowler, 1951, p. 207-208.
Re: cover/t.p. images etc.
Seems to me that the Statement of Responsibility is most often used as administrative information for our benefit (identifying the manifestation, checking on form of name, etc.). We would click through extra screens to see scans, we would need to. And it would fulful our function better than transcription (with its errors and different interpretations of the rules) does. Seems to me that the traced names with relator/role information is more useful for most catalog users, as well as more machine manipulable. And it probably will be cheaper to scan than type before long. And if a user needed to see the scan they could click on it, they're used to doing this sort of thing! Of course, this won't work for video credits, but neither does transcription (if you've been following this thread on Autocat you'll see the variety of practices). I still don't see why we try to fit everything into the same mold. For most libraries, transcription (of books anyway) works well, and it works pretty well with the MARC format. On the other hand, i'm also doing volunteer work for a small museum whose cataloging software makes it difficult to deal with a statement of responsibility (it would end up in the title index), but can cope with added entries with roles. If we want RDA to work for non-MARC catalogers, we have to allow for flexibility and simplification. If we want transcription we can have it in our application profile, but we shouldn't force it on institutions for which it doesn't fit. greta de groat Stanford University Libraries. Adam L. Schiff wrote: Tables of contents and cover images may be available for major commercial publishers from North America and western Europe. If we can provide them (at a cost less than it costs to transcribe them in records?), I'm all in favor of it. But who is going to scan the covers and/or title pages of all the books we acquire from India, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, Iran, China, Korea, Thailand, Laos ... as well as the technical reports and small press publications we buy from everywhere? I guess it WOULD be cheaper to pay people to scan than to catalog! And will users even bother to view them, since they will probably have to click through to additional screens to display them? ** * Adam L. Schiff * * Principal Cataloger* * University of Washington Libraries * * Box 352900 * * Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * * (206) 543-8409 * * (206) 685-8782 fax * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * **
