Re: [RDA-L] What we are telling our clients about RDA
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 16:41:12 -0800, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote: Dear SLC Client,9 March 2012 Executive summary: SLC will switch to the new cataloguing rules Resource Description and Access (RDA) when a majority of derived records are RDA, but will export them for you as AACR2 compatible until you tell us you wish RDA records. - We apologize for the length and complexity of this letter, but the situation is complex. As anticipated, The Library of Congress (LC), and Library and Archives Canada (LAC) have announced their intention to implement the new cataloguing rules Resource Description and Access (RDA) March 31st 2013. Each client will be charged a $100 set up fee for RDA implementation. We deeply regret this, but we have no option to doing the programming required to deal with RDA records from the national cataloguing agencies, whether you receive them in that form or not. (Many of us opposed the adoption of RDA, but to no avail.) Please let us know if/when you wish records in RDA. (You would still receive some AACR2 records for older titles mixed in.) We do not wish to ask our cataloguers to follow two sets o rules simultaneously, so we will implement RDA when a majority of derived records are in RDA.. We will export RDA records to be compatible with AACR2 records, as long as you wish it. Please let us know if/when you wish the export changes given below to cease. In RDA records, there will be a difference in form of entry for the books of the Bible, the Qur'an, and treaties.* These headings should be changed in your catalogue. There will be a difference in the choice of main entry (always first author regardless of number). Most abbreviations will be spelled out. The most noticeable difference will be the absence of General Material Designations (GMD) in 245$h. Instead there are three new media MARC fields, 336-338. If you opt for AACR2 compatible, the 245$h will be inserted, and terms normally abbreviated will be abbreviated. If you opt to accept unchanged RDA records, changes to your Integrated Library System (ILS) will be required to deal with the absence of GMD. We suggest displaying two of the new MARC fields [338 : 336] at end of 245$a title proper, or at head of all data, and changing AACR2's 245$h GMD mapping to also display there, e.g., RDA's [online resource : text] with AACR2's [electronic resource]. A fuller list of RDA/AACR2 differences can be sent if you wish. See footnote* for major retrospective changes needed. = SLC Exceptions to RDA Practices 1) RDA directs that International Standard Bibliographic (ISBD) Latin abbreviation inclusions be replaced by long phrases in the language of the catalogue. SLC, when the publisher is not known, rather than inserting 260$b[publisher not identified], [editeur non identified], [Verlag nicht identifiziert], or [chuban shang meiyou queding] (depending on the language of your catalogue) as directed by RDA, will continue to use ISBD's [s.n]. We will make every effort to determine the publisher. With several languages of the catalogue among our clients, we feel we can not adopt that RDA practice. 2) RDA allows omission of jurisdiction from the imprint if not on the item. We will continue to supply it, e.g., 260$aLondon [Ontario]. 3) RDA allows one or multiple authors to be transcribed and traced, with no required correlation between transcription and tracing. SLC will transcribe and trace a minimum of three if present. 4) RDA uses the term computer to describe electronic resources. SLC will use ISBD's electronic.* === Export of RDA Records to be AACR2 Compatible For records being uploaded to bibliographic utilities or Library and Archives Canada by us, no changes to RDA records will be made. For records going to clients, changes may be made in export as long as you wish them. Please let us know if/when you wish unchanged RDA records. 1) RDA directs that there be a relationship designator for traced persons or corporate bodies, e.g., 100 or 700 1 $aJones, Tom, $d1932-2010.$eauthor. These $e would be removed. 2) As mentioned, RDA substitutes three new media fields for GMD. SLC would introduce AACR2 245$h[gmd] terms as appropriate, e.g., 245$h[electronic resource] when 338 is online resource. Fields 336-338 would be removed. 3) RDA directs that added entries (entries for part of an item, or a related work), begin with qualifying information, e.g., $iContains (Expression). These $i would be removed. 4) RDA directs that abbreviations, e.g., ed., Ont., p.., v., ill., col., be spelled out. They would be abbreviated on export. ==
Re: [RDA-L] MARC records in a bilingual catalogue
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:54:22 +0100, Bernhard Eversberg e...@biblio.tu-bs.de wrote: But then, Jim Weinheimer wrote, although for another reason: I am just saying that a simple belief that going to linked data will be the solution, could actually lead to nightmares. This, I think, deserves consideration. We need to come to terms about how we are actually going to encode our data in our real-world environments. Indeed. But maybe a consensus, even a preliminary one, about what to encode matters, and can't be postponed too long; otherwise we risk not just putting the cart before the horse but getting the features of the cart wrong; (yes, it needs wheels, then the horse can push it; a wheel-less cart, i.e. a sled, can't very well be pushed). The current parallel discussion of recording/displaying dates with names in MARC21 is going on in a context where the range of practically available subfields in 1XX tags is full, so birth, death and activity dates can't be distinguished by coding. (I say practically because in theory upper-case letters could be used as additional subfield identifiers, but the MARC community rejects that idea; they also reject using more than one character.) Hal Cain Melbourne, Australia hegc...@gmail.com
Re: [RDA-L] Showing birth and death dates
This is true, of course. I find I consult French authority records (which
indicate gender), directly or shown in VIAF, more often than others; it applies
also to Latin and Greek, though the instances when Latin, or pre-modern Greek,
would call for masculine/feminine distinctions in cataloguing are probably few!
Hal Cain
Melbourne, Australia
hegc...@gmail.com
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:14:28 -0500, Adger Williams awilli...@colgate.edu
wrote:
Note that this is not peculiar to French. (Spanish, German, Russian,
Italian,... all share this feature)
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 7:51 PM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
Friend Hal from down under has pointed out yet another problem with
RDA words rather than hyphens, when only one of birth or death date is
known. The words in French would differ with gender:
... the need to distinguish gender in French: né masc., née fem. for
'born', mort/morte for 'died'.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Adger Williams
Colgate University Library
315-228-7310
awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] The bibliographic universe
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 04:33:51 +, Cossham, Amanda amanda.coss...@openpolytechnic.ac.nz wrote: We know that FRBR is a conceptual model of the bibliographic universe. However, there is no generally accepted definition of 'bibliographic universe' nor does the original IFLA report define it. Some definitions are hugely broad, some exclude maps and music, others imply any textual material but in practice mean what is held by libraries. So, I'm collecting definitions to see how broad or narrow this universe is, and what FRBR might or might not be useful for. You're welcome to comment on any of the definitions I've collected so far, or add others. http://bibliographicuniverse.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/welcome/ Regards Amanda Nice collection. I wonder which term came first, bibliographic universe or universal bibliographic control? I suspect probably it was the latter. In that light, I might start framing a definition of bibliographic universe with something like: the totality of documents liable to be acquired or offered by libraries, and recorded and organized by them for discovery and retrieval by users and for preservation. Regarding Wilson's remarks, I doubt any good distinction can be made, for contemporary purposes, between linguistic/textual and non-textual materials. They may differ in nature, but the demand to manage them, and the problems they present for bibliographic control, are very much the same, if not quite identical; recording and discovering non-text material depend principally on textual data (metadata, I suppose), provided or supplied by a cataloguer or someone else, or possibly created automatically by a computer program analysing a resource). I went back my principal guru in bibliographic theory, Elaine Svenonius. Besides the mentions you have noted, in her _The Intellectual Foundation of Information Organization_ she seems not to offer a definition (the term isn't indexed, [but I've found other terms in the text but missing from the index]); but she uses the term with explanation: ... reference is made to a set-theoretic model--a model that regards the bibliographic universe as consisting of documents, sets of these (formed by attributes such as work, edition, author and subject), and relationships among them. (p. 32) Further: The smallest or basic entities in the bibliographic universe are _documents_. Documents, which have been defined as information-bearing messages in recorded form, are individuals or singular entities. (p. 34) As my attempt at a definition implies, I think documents are central to the whole idea of a bibliographic universe. Peter Morville (_Ambient Findability. O'Reilly, 2005) says: Documents are talking objects (p. 47) i.e. they convey information; and later: Like most objects of consequence, the document resists definition but he refers to the centrality of intentionality. (p. 144) In the light of this and other discussions, I regard _documents_ (not restricted to language/textual resources) as the primary entities populating the bibliographic universe, and the other entities codified by FRBR as ancillary or maybe derivative. Svenonius defines document as a particular space-time embodiment of information. (p. 107) Svenonius also says: The techne or practical skill of information organization is a function of changing technology, whereas its intellectual foundation, which encompasses theory, is relatively impervious to change. (p. [ix]) I recalled also that Svenonius talks (p. 32-33) of the difference between *conceptual* and *operational* definitions. A _conceptual definition_ is one that is intentional or connotative: it characterizes what is to be defined in terms of its properties An _operational definition_, on the other hand, is constructive. It specifies rather than characterizes. What it specifies is a set of operations or steps to be followed to identify what is being defined. A chocolate cake, for instance, is identified, or operationally defined, by its recipe. I think what we need chiefly is an operational definition of the bibliographic universe: what we have to do to organize all documents regarded (by virtue of their being collected or sought) as significant. Significant provides for not choosing to collect and organize objects such as street signs which are a different kind of information-bearing entity. Hal Cain Melbourne, Australia hegc...@gmail.com
Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Rules by Martha M. Yee
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 16:19:22 -0500, Brenndorfer, Thomas tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca wrote: I find some of the material nice and simple, with short summaries and descriptions, accompanied by lists. Other parts appear muddled and confused. Many attributes for a manifestation are shoved up to the expression level, such as title and extent. That leaves the bizarre 2.2.12 Extent of expression, which is for the extent as applied to all manifestations of the expression, but when extent differs for manifestations, then 4.3.1 applies, which only describes variant titles for serials (?!?). How a new entity, title-manifestation fits into all this unclear, as this gets into the question of whether a new entity, a new attribute, or a new relationship is the right tool to use from the entity-relationship modeling toolkit. That question is ongoing in RDA development, where, for example, Place and Date can be attributes of entities, or entities in their own right with their own cluster of attributes. If one doesn't proceed from an understanding of these commonly used E-R principles, then the result is not going to be principled. Or maybe the principles are differently applied? It's a good while since I looked at an earlier stage of Martha Yee's rules, so I should spend some time with them if I'm going to criticize. But several documents I've read at various times have pointed out that in different contexts, the boundaries between work / expression / manifestation will be drawn differently. Much of Martha Yee's work has been with moving image materials, where (as I understand it) essentially the same content is issued by different agencies over the years. That experience affects where one usefully distinguishes versions of a film or TV program distributed by different publishers. I've had occasion from time to time to wish for sub-expression and sub-manifestation categories of resource -- e.g. where a published book is later reissued unchanged (even using the original type image unchanged) by another publisher -- no change of medium or format involved. Therefore I'm sympathetic to different applications of the principles. What's important is that the principles and their applications should be rationally based, not arbitrary. My impression was that Martha Yee's approach was just that, in the context in which her primary work has been done, and her decisions and application may give the rest of us new light and justify different decisions. Hal Cain Melbourne, Australia hegc...@gmail.com
Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement
Then you make relator terms (or codes, equally) to be excluded from matching
and sorting, surely?
The MARc mapping systems I'm familiar with (chiefly Horizon) make that not
exactly simple, but straightforward -- so long as the person controlling the
mapping bothers to listen to people who know what's meant!
Hal Cain
Melb ourne, Australia
hegc...@gmail.com
On Tue, 8 Nov 2011 13:48:56 -0800, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
Jonathan asked:
Kind of off topic, but curious why you don't think relator codes are the
right thing to do.
Whatever Jim's objections, I can tell you why our clients wish them
removed:
1) They may create separate hitlists for the same person.
2) If one hitlist, the relation of the person to the first title
listed may differ from other titles in the hitlist.
3) Although a greater problem with $i before $a, they may complicate
searching.
4) They create problems (see 1 2) for print products such as
acquisitions lists and subject bibliographies.
5) They do not include all the complexities expressed in 245/$c.
6) Some of the terms in the RDA list are long and cumbersome, taking
up too much display space.
7) They represent a departure from legacy records; patrons will not
understand why some entries have them and some don't.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement
On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 11:05:14 +0100, Bernhard Eversberg e...@biblio.tu-bs.de wrote: 07.11.2011 10:55, Jim Weinheimer: What then will be the purpose of ISO2709 except one: to transfer a catalog record from one library catalog to another? I know of no other purpose. But be that as it may, my point is that even for this function, it is no longer technically necessary. For all intents and purposes, MARC may live on forever without the need to deal with ISO2709. It is technically obsolete, but we need not care. Can anyone please prove me fundamentally wrong, or confirm what I say? According to my small experiences in the years before I used modern library systems, when I was trying to extract data from MARC files (e.g. to carry out authority control in systems that didn't have authority modules, before proceeding to print catalogue cards), raw MARC data in communications format was a beast, and I wasn't nearly programmer enough to write routines to deconstruct it! However, once I began to see how competent systems handled MARC, it became plain that what they were doing was basically to create a matrix and populate it with the tag values, the indicator values, and the subfield data prefixed by the subfield code. Then the indexing routines read the matrix (not the raw MARC ISO2709 data) and distributed the data into the appropriate areas of the system's internal table structure. From those tables, I was able, when required, to obtain what I wanted by direct query on the appropriate part of the database. When it was necessary to export a single MARC record, a group of them, or indeed the whole database, the system had routines which reversed the process (and, last of all, counted the number of characters in order to fill in the record length element of the MARC leader). This was extremely burdensome to programmers who came to the game in the 1990s and had no background in early data processing, chiefly of text rather than numbers, but in its time it was pure genius. Nowadays it's a very special niche, and the foreignness to programmers and designers of the processes involved probably plays a part in keeping us from having really good cataloguing modules and public catalogues; and I can understand the frustration entailed for those who expect to interrogate a database directly. Bear in mind, though, that using a modern cataloguing module (Horizon is the one I'm most familiar with), I can search for a record on a remote system, e.g. the LC catalog, through Z39.50, and have the record on my screen, in editable form, in a second or two, indistinguishable from a record in the local database. The system's internal routines download the record in MARC format (ISO 2709, hated by Jim) and build the matrix which feeds the screen display. The success of these operations depends on the consistency of the records available. The complexities arise from the complexities in the data we work with, the consistency of our markup (recorded in MARC tags and subfields, a number of which are very specific and don't occur very often, but are applied to specific purposes when they occur, e.g. 254) and sometimes the inconsistency, as when we don't distinguish parallel tiles or alternative titles from other title elements. Those inconsistencies are not so much caused by MARC, certainly not by MARC in ISO2709 format; they result from the belief that specific codes for those elements cannot be created because the coding structure is already full; which is only half true. Now, if what you want is a data storage which can be queried and reprocessed directly, without going through conversions to and from ISO2709, that's something to discuss in its own right; but the tools to translate data between ISO2709 and tabular form do exist, and they operate on the fly within their own systems. For working outside a library system, MarcEdit is one commonly used; for querying specific bibliographic elements it's far from simple. But even Voyager, the ILS providing LC's catalog, supports searches within specific MARC fields and subfields of the LC bibliographic database. Maybe the problem is that there's no universal bibliographic database that isn't MARC-based? And therefore one has to deal with MARC with its inconsistencies and idiosyncracies? I have no solution to that problem; the weight of our history is a considerable obstacle when it comes to trying to do something different. Hal Cain, who acknowledges his knowledge is incomplete and liable to correction Melbourne, Australia hegc...@gmail.com
Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement
[It appears that my recent message was empty when sent. I apoligize. What I attempted to send follows] On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 11:05:14 +0100, Bernhard Eversberg e...@biblio.tu-bs.de wrote: 07.11.2011 10:55, Jim Weinheimer: What then will be the purpose of ISO2709 except one: to transfer a catalog record from one library catalog to another? I know of no other purpose. But be that as it may, my point is that even for this function, it is no longer technically necessary. For all intents and purposes, MARC may live on forever without the need to deal with ISO2709. It is technically obsolete, but we need not care. Can anyone please prove me fundamentally wrong, or confirm what I say? According to my small experiences in the years before I used modern library systems, when I was trying to extract data from MARC files (e.g. to carry out authority control in systems that didn't have authority modules, before proceeding to print catalogue cards), raw MARC data in communications format was a beast, and I wasn't nearly programmer enough to write routines to deconstruct it! However, once I began to see how competent systems handled MARC, it became plain that what they were doing was basically to create a matrix and populate it with the tag values, the indicator values, and the subfield data prefixed by the subfield code. Then the indexing routines read the matrix (not the raw MARC ISO2709 data) and distributed the data into the appropriate areas of the system's internal table structure. From those tables, I was able, when required, to obtain what I wanted by direct query on the appropriate part of the database. When it was necessary to export a single MARC record, a group of them, or indeed the whole database, the system had routines which reversed the process (and, last of all, counted the number of characters in order to fill in the record length element of the MARC leader). This was extremely burdensome to programmers who came to the game in the 1990s and had no background in early data processing, chiefly of text rather than numbers, but in its time it was pure genius. Nowadays it's a very special niche, and the foreignness to programmers and designers of the processes involved probably plays a part in keeping us from having really good cataloguing modules and public catalogues; and I can understand the frustration entailed for those who expect to interrogate a database directly. Bear in mind, though, that using a modern cataloguing module (Horizon is the one I'm most familiar with), I can search for a record on a remote system, e.g. the LC catalog, through Z39.50, and have the record on my screen, in editable form, in a second or two, indistinguishable from a record in the local database. The system's internal routines download the record in MARC format (ISO 2709, hated by Jim) and build the matrix which feeds the screen display. The success of these operations depends on the consistency of the records available. The complexities arise from the complexities in the data we work with, the consistency of our markup (recorded in MARC tags and subfields, a number of which are very specific and don't occur very often, but are applied to specific purposes when they occur, e.g. 254) and sometimes the inconsistency, as when we don't distinguish parallel tiles or alternative titles from other title elements. Those inconsistencies are not so much caused by MARC, certainly not by MARC in ISO2709 format; they result from the belief that specific codes for those elements cannot be created because the coding structure is already full; which is only half true. Now, if what you want is a data storage which can be queried and reprocessed directly, without going through conversions to and from ISO2709, that's something to discuss in its own right; but the tools to translate data between ISO2709 and tabular form do exist, and they operate on the fly within their own systems. For working outside a library system, MarcEdit is one commonly used; for querying specific bibliographic elements it's far from simple. But even Voyager, the ILS providing LC's catalog, supports searches within specific MARC fields and subfields of the LC bibliographic database. Maybe the problem is that there's no universal bibliographic database that isn't MARC-based? And therefore one has to deal with MARC with its inconsistencies and idiosyncracies? I have no solution to that problem; the weight of our history is a considerable obstacle when it comes to trying to do something different. Hal Cain, who acknowledges his knowledge is incomplete and liable to correction Melbourne, Australia hegc...@gmail.com
Re: [RDA-L] Contents of Manifestations as Entities
Jonathan Rochkind wrote: Hal Cain wrote: But then I've been proceeding from headings in sequential lists to works and back again, as a means of exploring resources, for more years than I care to recite. Is the contemporary frame of reference really so different? I believe/suspect it is, yeah. (and you were really proceeding from headings in a sequential list to MANIFESTATIONS, weren't you? :) ). Well, not necessarily. Often enough I was pursuing WORKS, and often works in particular MANIFESTATIONS (e.g. speeches of Demosthenes with Sandys's notes -- setting aside, for the moment, whether Sandys's notes constitute an additional, contained work; I simply wanted text + Sandys's commentary) rather than any particular publication in any particular publisher's edition. FRBR provides a framework for developing ways of working with different levels of data; these are abstractions and may complicate the process of identification, selection and obtaining the best match to the searcher's inquiry. You'll note that there I'm speaking as a user, rather than as a cataloguer. The cataloguing is important but the user's search is the determining characteristic for assessing usefulness. And if 79% of works in WorldCat exist in only a single manifestation and expression (as I seem to recollect) it may be we're constructing problems where none exist. If you think I'm doubtful of the value to users of a lot of what's being discussed, you may be right. Chris Beer commented: Any good system (not just OPACS, legacy or not) will provide multiple means of use and access - usability is about addressing user needs, and as long as some users feel the need to browse, it should be provided as a function.) That's a most useful observation. There is no one single path for a search. Maybe Jonathan dislikes having to decide at the outset whether to start a search for title, for author/editor/other creator, or by subject (topical, geographical, chronoogical, other)? I think following Google down the undifferentiated-search path is a disservice to searchers. I understand that there are things you can do with our data in a legacy-style browse list that you can't do in a legacy-style keyword search. And that's all our legacy-style OPACs provided. But I do not think that contemporary users are happy with the browse search. It's an odd sort of display for people who actually are used to software search interfaces, at least for the contexts we expect them to use it in. I absolutely fail to understand what's so different about those contexts -- beyond looking for information through a search engine as compared with using an encyclopedia (or a whole library reference collection) -- for sure, the search engines find things the encyclopedias probably won't, without a whole lot of digging and cross-checking; but then it often happens that one needs to cross-check web sources too, and establish their authority and reliability. Beyond launching a whole lot of fragmented pieces of bibliographic data on the internet (mostly bereft of context which is what enables us to assess their significance at a glance), what will RDA make possible that can't be done by disintegrating (maybe repurposing) the finely-categorized elements of data now contained in MARC records? I think we're going to start seeing more better interfaces that try different ways, and that in general, I suspect (evidence would be good) our users are NOT happy with a browse search, and would be happier by alternative interfaces filling the same purpose. I am at a loss to understand what you are suggesting. Examples, please? To get back to the list topic, the point of RDA's vocabulary explication and formalization aspect (what I actually think is the most important part of the RDA effort, although the part that's had the LEAST resources dedicated to it) -- ought to be modelling our data in a robust enough way that is _interface independent_. I'm already on record as saying I think that library system vendors and their offerings are the weak link in the chain of bibliographic control. I'll also admit I don't bother any more with using what I think is the all-time greated browse toll for information retrieval: the white pages telephone directory. The online search is far more convenient! However, occasionally it do need the alphabetical listing, typically when I don't have the complete, accurate information (is it Smith, J P or Smith, P J?). Part of the way forward must be to construct interfaces that encourage users to use what they already know in searching. Of course, the process of entering chunks of data -- maybe not precise data -- in half a dozen boxes in a search screen is itself forbidding and encourages indiscriminate entry of generalized terms; and personally I hate long drop-down lists of terms (MARC 21 geographic codes; language codes; chronological codes -- a complete turn-off
Re: [RDA-L] expressions and manifestations
Karen Coyle wrote: 1) there are only 36 possible subfields in every field. In many fields, there are none or at most one left to use Isn't it possible (at least in theory) to use upper-case letters also to designate subfields? That would mean another 26 possible subfields. Needs must when the devil drives, maybe? Hal Cain Dalton McCaughey Library Parkville, Victoria, Australia hec...@dml.vic.edu.au
Re: [RDA-L] expressions and manifestations
Jonathan Rochkind wrote: In AACR2, and in RDA too I believe, a related work can be related just about any way the cataloger's discretion desires. In AACR2 (I think) and marc-as-it-is-today (I am confident), there is no way to record the nature of that relationship. Except by making a note (500, or more specific tag if available) -- which of course separates the information from the access point (or whatever) where the citation or ID is given. I have encountered one or two specialised catalogues where $e was used to convey such information. In theory terms in $e are supposed to be from the AACR2 list (21.0D1) but that list does not suit specialized purposes even now. Hal Cain hec...@dml.vic.edu.au
Re: [RDA-L] (Online) qualifier for series
J. McRee Elrod wrote: Adam L. Schiff said: ...and whether future revisions of RDA sanction the description of multiple manifestations on one record. The same electronic item from different providers are not different manifestations, any more than different pritings of the same edition are different manifestations. An electronic provider is not a publisher. I absolutely agree with Greta that the policy should be uniformly applied, and that includes retrospective change. Just what is the uniform title intended to do here? To serve as a one-line identifier for what's being catalogued; to provide a linking point for the work content; or to provide a linking point for the expression embodied? Until we have that clear (and RDA discussions have failed to make that clear to me -- perhaps on account of my inattention, but I can usually follow clear exposition) we'll go on making ad-hoc and conflicting decisions. FWIW I don't think the application of FRBR categories provides us with the tools to make the distinctions people are talking about here -- they're not subtle enough, at least not within the framework of the MARC21 bibliographic format. And the success will depend on the display created, a matter which RDA chose not to address, but crucial to the outcome. Hal Cain Dalton McCaughey Library Parkville, Victoria, Australia h...@dml.vic.edu.au
Re: [RDA-L] Testing RDA
Ed Jones wrote: http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/rda/test-partners.html The list of selected test partners follows: snip Earlier, I seem to recall, a joint national libraries project to test implementation of RDA was announced (LC, British Library, LAC [Canada}, NLA [Australia]). Is that project still alive? Hal Cain Dalton McCaughey Library Parkville, Victoria, Australia h...@dml.vic.edu.au
Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA
Dan Matei wrote: -Original Message- From: Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:31:32 -0400 Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA Yes, it's an arbitrary judgement. They are ALL arbitrary judgements, either way. I would prefer to call them cultural conventions. IMHO, they are not completely arbitrary: they are based on the evaluation of the amount of added creativity. Certainly not completely arbitrary. The notion that there's an intrinsic link between an author and her/his work is deeply embedded in bibliographic conventions; consider, for instance, what the standard academic style guides demand in composing citations for bibliographies and lists of sources consulted in the course of preparing a paper or a thesis. And popular discussion makes a firm connection between writer and work -- for some popular fiction, at least, one remembers the author rather than the title! The fact that this connection is diluted (by multiple authorship, corporate authorship, creating a composite work under editorial direction) does not invalidate it. The name of a work more often than not embraces both author and title. Jay Smith wrote: Although RDA may presuppose that an audiobook version of a book is an expression, is not doing so an arbitrary judgment? Not only is the format different, but it involves the participation of one or more readers or actors to interpret the text. To take it one step further, how should we describe the relationship of a play (text) and a performance of the play? A film based on a boom adds so many levels of creation and contribution to the final product that normally responsibility is simply too diverse for this kind of assignment. However, for an audiobook, the reader's contribution is entirely subsidiary. It's possible to have a computer read an electronic text; or perform a piece of music held in an electronic file. The essential content is the author's or composers, if they can be identified as the principal creator, alone or in a combination. A performance of a play is stretching the authorship convention a bit further -- likewise performance by a group of a piece of music. But thus far (maybe not so intuitively) the naming of the work performed, by its author and title, seems to remain the best way of naming the performance. Of course, if we manage to build comprehensible ways of naming expressions, it would become possible to make the performers, venue and date of performance part of the extended name. Whether the systems that present this information use the natural names, or employ tokens through which the names are pulled from a connected resource file, matters in practice only to those whose business it is to play around under the hood! Hal Cain Dalton McCaughey Library Parkville, Victoria, Australia h...@dml.vic.edu.au
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR, RDA ... and transcendental idealism
But not all the works we consider are text/language, or musical. There are also works of art: paintings, sculptures, buildings, and more. And these too may no longer exist; indeed, especially for things such as buildings, may never have been constructed -- yet the drawings etc. may exist; and when we talk about a projected-but-never-constructed building, bridge, railway it would be seldom, if ever, that we're talking about the drawings as such, rather we're talking about the entity designed but never fixed in a concrete (pun unintentional!) structure. This suggests to me that we still haven't defined adequately what a work really is. Since that's one of the cardinal concepts underlying FRBR and informing RDA, that's a worry! Or maybe, bibliographically, near enough is good enough? But not, I suspect, for those who look at RDA as a set of definitions for elements designed to be apt for information processing? I rather think that creating tight definitions while we're short of agreement about what we're talking about is an unproductive activity. At this point I'm very aware that I've swum far out of my depth, and will retreat again to lurk on the banks while the stream of discussion swirls onward. Hal Cain Dalton McCaughey Library Parkville, Victoria, Australia h...@dml.vic.edu.au Marjorie Bloss wrote: Or another possibility of a work is if I ask you Have you read Voltaire's /Candide/? My question doesn't really ask if you've read it in French, English, German, etc. or even more specifically, one particular translator's translation of it. I simply want to know if you have read it. In this case, the two things and one implication that would hold true for the work: there's a specific author, there's a specific title, and the implication (reading) as to how you became familiar with the content. Which of course, could take place in print, online, or (heaven help us) in microfiche, etc. - Original Message - *From:* Greta de Groat mailto:gdegr...@stanford.edu *To:* RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA mailto:RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA *Sent:* Monday, December 22, 2008 11:53 AM *Subject:* 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. This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: [RDA-L] RDA comments
Kevin M. Randall wrote: Not only does access point construction fall squarely within the scope of RDA, it is actually a fundamental part of it. In a world of shared bibliographic information, I totally fail to see how we can facilitate access apart from having standards for the construction of access points. Besides, the IFLA international principles (still in draft status, but nearing finalization) http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/icc/imeicc-statement_of_principles-2008.pdf cover provision and construction of access points and authority control in sections 5 and 6; and RDA is explicitly aligned with these principles. Further, this is the point of having RDA aligned with FRAD (Functional Requirements for Authority Data), as it is with FRBR. Hal Cain Dalton McCaughey Library Parkville, Victoria, Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Resources ... entities
Quoting Flack, Irvin [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I'm unclear about the relationship between the words 'resources' and 'entities' in RDA. The RDA Scope and Structure document http://www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/docs/5rda-scope.pdf defines a resource as an identifiable information object, either tangible or intangible in nature but later uses the term entity without defining it to refer to the FRBR entities, eg work, expression, person, corporate body. Are all these not also resources? Or only the FRBR Group 1 entities? In RDA the term resources includes only the Group 1 entities: work, expression, manifestation, item -- resources to be searched, selected and consulted by users (only the last, of course, represents a reality that the user can see: manifestation is a construct which is concrete only to the extent that it's a set of items judged to be identical in the terms of the cataloguing rules being applied). In the Dublin Core Abstract model a resource (following RDF) is anything that might be identified and certainly includes all the above entities. I think it would make sense to adopt a similar definition for RDA, or at least make clear which entities are not resources. Hal Cain Dalton McCaughey Library Parkville, Victoria, Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED] This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: linking word element needed
Quoting James Agenbroad [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Is there a reason I don't see why we need to distinguish between alternative titles and parallel titles? A parallel title is of equivalent weight to the title proper, but distinct from it. Generally it's provided when the document is addressed equally to different language communities. An alternative title is a second way of naming the document. The trouble (to my eye) is that there are no clear conventions for its use; and tools such as comprehensive bibliographies (e.g. Cambridge bibliography of English literature) generally ignore it in formulating headings under which they list their citations. At least in modern times, alternative titles seem to be just author's or publisher's wimsy (The hobbit, or, There and back again; Eric, or, Little by little); sometimes, the alternative title portion provided an explanation of the main title, just as a subtitle usually does. Hal Cain Dalton McCaughey Library Parkville, Victoria, Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED] This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: linking word element needed
Quoting Robert Maxwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Yes, there is a difference. Alternative titles and parallel titles aren't worded the same way. There remains the problem of what to do with that pesky little or. And equivalents in other languages; in some languages, more than one (Latin has vel or seu, the latter perhaps more likely). In all cases, the conjunction may appear within the first part of the title proper and not mean that the following is to be considered an alternative title. There remain quite a number of us who still believe in the principles of transcription and authorial/publisher's intent and aren't interested in a solution that dumps or, miniscule as the word may be. Just so. We need to be able to match record to document, document to record, and even match or distinguish between one record and another. Otherwise the notion of controlling duplication of records, while retaining records that are genuinely for different manifestations, is fatally undermined. Hal Cain Dalton McCaughey Library Parkville, Victoria, Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED] This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: Alternate titles, an example of description broken into bits
Quoting John Attig [EMAIL PROTECTED]: An alternative title does actually use the word OR or its linguistic equivalent to connect parts of the title. For example, the title of Shakespeare's play in the earliest editions (and many modern ones) is Twelfth night, or What you will; the title of Voltaire's story is Candide, ou L'optimisme. According to provisions of the ISBD, AACR and (until recently) RDA, that entire string is the title proper. Since few people actually are aware of these facts, it seemed strange to include the alternative title (the part following the or) in the title proper. Hence the decision. Besides, practice (which I think is enshrined somewhere in the LCRIs -- maybe for UTs of pre-1501 works?) enjoins cataloguers to drop an alternative title from the title proper when formulating a UT -- a rule much honoured in the breach, I may say; which reminds me of my view which I've stated elsewhere, that a rule which is habitually disregarded is probably a bad rule, or at least badly formulated). I doubt an workable algorithm could be devised for this, anyway. Eric, or Little by little seems clear enough. But in the LC catalog I find: This or that [sound recording] / Sway King Tech. The title proper is This or that. And in some languages there isn't even a single word: in early Christian writings, there are title + alternative title formulations using vel for or, but others using seu, and even IIRC a few with no conjunction explicit -- Latin can do that! The fact that there is no place in RDA for the or is (it seems to me) an example of the same effort that results in the 246 field doing double duty as both transcription of what appears on the source and the access point for the variant title. RDA also makes no distinction between the use of a data element for recording information from the source and for providing access. I suspect that the answer to this particular problem is that the actual transcription of the source (the entire source, I would think) will end up in an annotation, when that actual transcription is needed (as it is for rare materials). If the structure that's been assumed doesn't accomodate what we've decided we need to do, then something has to be changed -- structure or rule. And Martha is right -- if the or is to be part of the display supplied from the encoding of the data elements, then we will need to record the language of each element (or at least of any elements that are not accurately reflected in the record-level language coding). And if we don't have the whole title and statement of responsibility area transcribed, two routine functions will be irreparably compromised: Control of duplicate records in aggregated databases (such as OCLC or Libraries Australia) -- which matters for efficient copycataloguing, but also for efficient management of ILL/document delivery business; and reliable matching between document in hand (or on screen, etc.) and a bibliographic record -- or data set, if records are passi -- will become quite impossible, and it will be impossible for students, researchers, copyeditors and writers to verify citations in footnotes and reference lists. The highest principle for the construction of cataloguing codes should be the convenience of the users of the catalogue.--IFLA IME-ICC Principles, latest state http://www.nl.go.kr/icc/down/070412_2.pdf That is to say, we are not justified in expecting users to suffer because it's convenient to adopt structures and rules which don't support what they reasonably require. And library staff are users too. Hal Cain Dalton McCaughey Library Parkville, Victoria, Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED] This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
RDA, Coyle, Hillmann, Calhoun, Tennant, and all that -- I've had enough.
These threads and the embedded topics are highly fascinating. Unfortunately I think the ratio of smoke to light has passed far beyond the useful. I started some notes for a response, but I don't feel it would serve any good. With some reluctance, I've decided to cease any routine engagement in public discussion of cataloguing principles -- objectives, rules, changes, catalogue-vs.-seachengine, bibliographic control and kindred topics (with an exception noted below) -- and confine myself to discussion of practical cataloguing. I do this because, after ten years' engagement in these discussions, I've reached the point where I can't bear any longer to go round in the same circles, confronting over and over again the same attitudes. The levels of anger and frustration I'm feeling would very likely lead me to intemperate statement (which, among other bad effects, would very likely alienate friends and acquaintances whom I value), and probably without bringing even any slight compensating benefit. Whether I say what I think or not, RDA will (or won't) come about, will (and won't) be welcomed with glad cries, and will (or won't) be accepted and implemented, and the recording of resources conveying the intellectual and artistic creativity of human beings will go on -- to my satisfaction or dissatisfaction. (If you get the impression I'm disillusioned and pessimistic, you're not entirely wrong.) The remainder of my cataloguing career will be spent chiefly in trying to do well the same kinds of things I've been doing. Nothing I've read and discussed in the last ten years has made me think that any part of good AACR2/ISBD/MARC/LCSH practice is a waste of time, effort and resources; so I'll stick to that (and try to get on with deploying the NACO training I had last year). Time and energy are looking increasingly precious these days (I'll be 65 on Sunday)! My cynical tinge leads me to think that enterprises like the LC working group will probably, at best, bring little more than small mitigation of what LC management probably already intends to do by way of reducing and simplifying LC cataloguing and, very likely, reducing its contribution to and support for the shared cataloguing endeavours that we all depend on so heavily. I shall certainly go on observing the process; friends and acquaintances will probably receive comments from time to time (and are free to quote me, so long as I'm being polite). And, the exception I mentioned: I'm still eager to see the draft of FRAD, when it finally emerges into the light, and plan to comment. (I'm also committed to commenting on the RDA drafts for the ACOC focus group.) Otherwise, I just hope the outcomes will be better than I expect. Hal Cain, Senior Cataloguer, Dalton McCaughey Library (formerly Joint Theological Library) Parkville, Victoria, Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bibliographic control
Quoting Roy Tennant [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Peggy, Please be more specific. What, exactly, are you talking about? What aspects of bibliographic description do you think are essential to achieve the goals you describe? What do you think are the specific elements of what we do that researchers and academics cannot do without? This is the information that will advance this discussion beyond a purely philosophical and emotional debate into something we can all learn from. Thanks, Roy Are the traditional objects of the catalogue, such as expressed by Cutter and elaborated and restated in FRBR, and in the maturing IME-ICC IFLA Principles statement, no longer relevant? They boil down to: Finding and obtaining works; finding and obtaining manifestations (I would rather say documents -- anyway, what libraries provide and users consult); finding what works and documents are associated with persons, corporate bodies, or have other significant defined, sought characteristics in common. I've always thought bibliographic control was an unfortunate piece of jargon (as is authority) which we shouldn't have let loose. But that horse has long departed the stable; so we need to try again to make it clear that we're trying to record all significant documents so they can be found, identified and presented to users -- also as a cultural record of the products of the human mind. I don't see anyone else trying to do precisely that. Hal Cain Dalton McCaughey Library (formerly Joint Theological Library) Parkville, Victoria, Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED] This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: Those long English RDA inclusions
J. McRee Elrod wrote: Would RDA have us substitute approximately for ca. in collation? (I just finished cataloguing some DVDs with approximate running times.) Cheez. The whole word circa is five keystrokes, compared with three for the abbreviation ca. and it's in all three of the standard English dictionaries I just checked (Shorter Oxford, Websters and Macquarie). The abbreviation ca. is one of those that I've been asked to explain, and by people whom I would have expected to know. As I've said before, I think the time for abbreviations in bibliographic information has passed. Hal Cain Joint Theological Library Parkville, Victoria, Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft of RDA part A, chapters 6-7
John Hostage wrote: Our rules for omitting initial articles are based on the limitations of our 20th-century systems. I don't think RDA is or should be concerned with such MARC implementation issues. We librarians have gotten used to it, but there are many titles that look odd without the initial article, and there are cases in German where omitting the article changes the meaning or just looks stupid. Even in MARC we have the yet to be utilized sort/nonsort characters. Someday we'll have to abandon MARC for an XML-based system like MODS, which uses nonSort /nonSort tags. Absolutely true. Besides, *how* the information is constructed for a controlled access point, and how it is to be displayed, are to be covered not in chapters 6 7 but in Part 2 (controlled forms) and a promised appendix (display guidelines), if I recall correctly. As for capitalization, do the rules have to address this beyond saying to follow the usage of the language in question? In English, everyone outside of libraries capitalizes every significant word of a title. In a future of more and more sharing of metadata from various sources, it's going to be harder and harder to enforce our eccentric rules. I agree completely about rules of capitalization; the standard usage (as evidenced by the ordinary guides -- among which the Chicago Manual of Style is pre-eminent in the U.S., but not unchallenged, and not elsewhere) should prevail. I'm not convinced, though, that systematic bibliographic description should follow the initial caps style of citation practice; in cataloguing, we're working in text, whereas in writing and editing of text for publicatipon or presentation, citations have to be distinguished from other text. Hal Cain Joint Theological Library Parkville, Victoria, Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.3/395 - Release Date: 21/07/2006
Re: FRBR and prime entry: what about relationships?
Ed Glazier wrote: The push and pull as to the need for a prime entry reinforces the FRBR requirement to indicate along with the group 2 entities (Person, Corporate Body) their relationships with the group 1 entities (Work, Expression, Manifestation, and Item). The 1998 edition of FRBR recognizes only 4 relationships: created by, realized by, produced by, and owned by. Catalog users would benefit from a more specific set of relationships, expressed with relator codes or function terms that are displayed along with a particular group 2 entity and the group 1 entity to which it is related. Yes. Such are the relator terms conventionally attached to many access terms, especially in older cataloguing -- in MARC21, $e (natural language terms) or $4 (codes) -- which facilitated recognition of relationships by catalogue users. It helps if we remember that the FRBR analysis is essentially reductionist (it is satisfied with fruit rather than distinguishing between apple and orange, let alone tomato). It is all well and good to say that all works associated with a name should be grouped together, but not indicating the relationship will not help the FRBR user tasks of find, identify, select, and obtain. It has certainly not been past cataloging practice to indicate the relationship for main entries - 1XX, regardless of whether that relationship is author, artist, composer, performer, etc. Even the nature of the relationship of a person shown as an added entry has seldom been labeled as to the nature of the relationship, except for some editors and artists and, more recently, performers. The type of relationship is one way of grouping the items within a large result set. While I agree with the notion that inverse date order is usually a good default order, the availability of other options, at the user's choice, is also useful. Furthermore, I need to know not just who conducted the work but who composed it. I don't think anyone would say that the nature of the relationship between Beethoven and his symphony no. 3 is on an parallel level with that of Bernstein when he conducted it. Bernstein was also a piano soloist and accompanist, a writer, and lecturer. He is the subject of at least one book, and probably wrote the introduction to at least one book.. Any of those relationships should be indicated when his name is associated with any manifestation of any work. Agreed. And that means the cataloguer should specify the relationship, of course. All this discussion brings back to my mind a point made elsewhere by Martha Yee when the FRAR draft document was issued, almost a year ago: FRAR (at least in that draft) and FRBR have nothing to say about how *works* (or expressions, or manifestations) are to be NAMED; but that depends on what relationships are recognized as primary by the particular cataloguing code. Since the traditional strength of the catalogue lies in collocation and specificity, and title alone is manifestly inadequate as a specific name for the majority of works, and (despite almost 30 years of AACR2) scholars and others persist in citing works and documents in terms of responsible name + title, isn't it high time that we asked ourselves whether to let ourselves be ruled by abstract principles of authorial responsibility (as found in the Paris Principles and implemented in AACR2), or by something closer to the way the vast majority of catalogue users use and construct citations -- i.e. most often personal name + title? And that even if the person named doesn't satisfy AACR2/Paris Principles criteria of authorship; but then, for that matter, neither does Catholic Church as (quasi-)author of the Missale Romanum; nor the Commonwealth of Australia as author of the Commonwealth of Australia constitution act (which began its formal life as an act of the British Parliament). Yet it seems absolutely irresistible that the corporate/jurisdiction name is properly part of the citation form of the name of the work. Simple authorship is not the whole story. Hal Cain Joint Theological Library Parkville, Victoria, Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.9.10/387 - Release Date: 12/07/2006
Re: Author, author! Re: [RDA-L] Fictitious characters as authors
Kelly Ann Green offered: We could follow the practice of lawyers and use entity Diane I. Hillmann wrote: Gosh, I think lawyers use lots more terms than that. In my experience, it's the computer scientists who use entity. And the followers of FRBR -- I suppose there's some overlap between those groups! Is there something wrong with contributor? To be serious (even though it's Friday here, and it's been a heavy week for me) we're trying to name a category. All the descriptive terms (author, contributor, compiler, editor, performer, composer, artist, creator) come with fairly specific connotations; if not to us who are involved in the cataloguing arts, to the users who will try to make use of what we give them as, hopefully, useful information, without misleading them. To refer to MARC21 for a moment (and revert to oldfashioned nomenclature), I would be reasonably happy to move into a mode where name headings (including work headings) were *always* categorized with the appropriate code in $4, and getting our system vendors to derive the caption (in a labelled display) from those codes. Entity is, in a sense, a non-term; it simply means something that can be defined and occupies a space in a particular frame of reference. The frame of reference of the information specialist is not exactly the same as that of the user of the catalogue. Now, we still need a term to denote persons and formal groups of persons with some kind of responsibility for the document in hand, and/or its content, particularly when not treated as subject. A shared vocabulary does wonders for discussion, clarification, and formulation of a code. Hal Cain Joint Theological Library Parkville, Victoria, Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Author, author!
David Pimentel wrote: personality ... entity ... contributor ... perpetrator ... I know -- how about main entry?! Yebbut... added entries are to be included there too. It's Friday (here, at least); yes, I know. Hal Cain Joint Theological Library Parkville, Victoria, Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Author, author! Re: [RDA-L] Fictitious characters as authors
Martha Yee wrote: It would be nice if RDA could find a better word than 'author' to encompass actors, entertainers, musicians, sculptors, composers, photographers, painters, etc., but perhaps there is no such word. The imprecise term creator is used in some contexts. But I find it hard to extend it to editors, compilers, translators -- all of whom may be genuinely involved in creation of intellectual/artistic content, of course -- let alone relationship types such as festschrift honoree. I wish we could find some acceptable collective term for the FRBR Group Two entities Person, Corporate Body, and (to be added, as adumbrated in the FRAR draft and elsewhere) Family. I've used agent on occasion, meaning an entity that does something to create a work or expression or to prepare/issue a manifestation or to modify an item; but in a broader context (such as intellectual rights, interaction with which is supposed to be facilitated by RDA) that too could be misleading. What a tangled web we weave, when we practice to deceive (or at least fictionalize)! I agree with Hal Cain that Part II is going to be interesting... I suspect we'll have a great deal to discuss! I'm not altogether sure that the urge to abandon technical vocabulary of cataloguing, built up over more than a century, is altogether a good thing. Other disciplines maintain their technical vocabulary, and (if they're smart) take care to show that it has technical meaning. To my mind, fuzzy use of vocabulary leads to fuzzy thinking. Hal Cain Joint Theological Library Parkville, Victoria, Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fictitious characters as authors
On Sat, March 11, 2006 3:46 am, J. McRee Elrod wrote: AACR2 makes a distinction between pseudonyms (which may as literary identities be used as prime entry AACR2 22.B2), and fictitious characters which may not be so used. It seems to me that if one does not know the name of the human author, the name of the fictitious character is as much a pseudonym as any other, and is needed to bring together the works of a single bibliographic identity, whether that identity is presented as a mouse or not. I see entry under the entity *represented* as the author a simple application of the principles of representation and of common usage. Now that we've digested the notion (added to AACR2 a while ago) of entry under pseudonym (bibliographic identity), what's the difference with any other name represented as responsible for a work and for the document it's presented in? A lot of the theoretical discussion on this topic that I've read has been just making a simple concept complex. The resources and their content are complex enough: let's cut down on complexities generated by rules! Part II is going to be interesting! Hal Cain Joint Theological Library Parkville, Victoria, Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: latest/successive entry for serials
J. McRee Elrod wrote: Patzer, Karin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Finally our proposal: Use latest entry for minor changes and successive entry for major changes. This accords exactly with the demands of our special library customers, so it's what we do regardless of what AACR2 currently says. Libraries want the record to agree with what the check in clerk has in hand. [snip] In addition, we need to shift the line between minor and major title changes. The presence/omission/presence etc. of a generic word indicating frequency, for example, should be a minor title change. (As mentioned earlier, all the Atlantic monthly/Atlantic/Atlantic monthly etc. records should be combined.) Also as mentioned earlier, when a serial reverts to an earlier title, successive entry should be abandoned and the original record reopened (I would prefer the intervening title included, particularly if the numbering is continuous). We've never been able to successfully justify to a client library having two records under the same title for what the client library perceives as the same serial. [snip] On the practical level, I can only agree that when a resource changes title then reverts, it should be consolidated into a single record; likewise that addition or removal of a simple frequency term in the title sgould be treated as a minor change. In such cases I assume that the variant title will be covered by a note and be searchable as an access point. People come to the catalogue with citations as they find them, or hear them. Serials checking and management have to deal with what people have in hand -- the results of using the cataloguing code have to be *workable*. In a code based on principle (rather than by accumulation and reconciliation of special cases), as RDA is promised to be, we have to get the principles right and the content and the boundaries of defined entities right too -- fudging will not lead to clean and interoperable catalogues! Hence I'm considering two matters, which I'll put as questions. They apply to continuing resources/serials, but also to other kinds of resources too. 1. What are we cataloguing? In FRBR terms, it's normally the manifestation, as defined by reference to a set of items (in the FRBR sense) and it's in dealing with the items that we encounter the variations we're trying to reduce to rational and workable order. If it's not the manifestation, what else is it? 2. AACR2 and FRBR share a principle: new name, new entity. If an entity (resource (FRBR Group One entity) or agent, by which I mean person/corporate body/family responsible in some way for its content and issuance -- FRBR Group Two entities) changes its name, is it necessarily a new entity? In other words, is this principle well founded? This principle is compromised by bibliographic personality (one person, or combination of persons using a distinct personal name), but (perhaps) for good reason. Otherwise, when a work changes its name, it's treated as a new, though related, work; when a corporate body chganges its name, likewise it's treated as a new body. Ed Jones, in his article The FRBR Model as Applied to Continuing Resources (LRTS v.49 no. 4 (Oct. 2005) p. 227-242 -- I heartily recommend it!) addresses questions of changes of title of manifestations and expressions when the underlying work is logically the same work. Similar difficulties arise with change of title of monographic resources, either in course of publication of a multipart resource, or between editions. (And treating alternative titles as part of the title proper is problematic because it treats a subordinate, inessential element of the title as part of the primary label). Diane Hillmann also questions the integrity of the title as a defining element. I confess I'm having some trouble is seeing her approach as being in harmony with the Anglo-American cataloguing tradition; but I'm still reading and considering. On the other hand, Deborah Fritz reminds us that database management requires stable identifiers (formal numbers or strings, or other elements such as title, agents' names, date, extent) in order to make matches between duplicate records (or near-duplicates which, upon review, may be determined to be duplicates or distinct). Surely we need to get the principles, and the definitions of the entities, unambiguously clear, then to test them and refine them in practical application, before the new code is finally published? 2008 (and implementation maybe in 2011?) is beginning to look a bit rushed, to me, at least if there's to be time for testing and revision. What we do *not* need is a spate of amendments after publication! Hal Cain Joint Theological Library Parkville, Victoria, Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 2.9.3.2 copyright date, and production date
Davey ,Mr Paul wrote: In AACR2 c isn't a Latin abbreviation; it's an abbreviation for copyright. I've been asked, by people who've working in a library for quite a few years, what it means. On ca. or the word circa -- I feel it's far better known or understood than s.l. or s.n. I've been asked about that, too, by people I would have expected to know it. Why not just say about? I really think abbreviations (with the exception of one or two standards, like etc.) don't serve our users well. One I thought of as safe, namely i.e. (= that is) has also failed the user test often enough to convince me that it does not convey the meaning I intend; likewise e.g. which isn't usually found in bibliographic records. Hal Cain Joint Theological Library Parkville, Victoria, Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.18/230 - Release Date: 14/01/2006
