Re: [RDA-L] 347 for digital files

[Harden, Jean]

I realize that the question is about PDFs. My unit doesn't handle those, but 
for audio materials we stick to 347 $a and $b. Sometimes a disc will have two 
applicable $b values (such as a hybrid CD/SACD), in which case we will repeat 
$b. This is in accordance with the freely available document "Best Practices 
for Music Cataloging."

We use Connexion Client and have constant data records that insert that field 
plus a number of others, all prepopulated with their most common values. If 
some other value is needed, the cataloger adds to or changes the prepopulated 
fields as appropriate.

Jean Harden
Coordinator of Music Technical Services
University of North Texas
Denton, TX  76203
jean.har...@unt.edu
(940) 369-7178

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Michael Chopey
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 3:16 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 347 for digital files

> This could easily be created by a macro.   It seems pretty basic though.   Is 
> this enough to be helpful?   I wonder about adding |c file size but hesitate 
> to add data that is either not used & can be time consuming to determine/add.


I agree.  Also, note that the PCC provider-neutral e-resource guidelines say 
not to give file size in a PN record as it may vary from provider to provider.  
I suspect that encoding format (e.g., "PDF file" might also sometimes vary from 
provider to provider (if not now, in the future ... 
and most likely without any notice)  So I am not using this field at all for 
any remote-access textual e-resources.


--
Michael A. Chopey
Cataloging Dept.
Hamilton 008
University of Hawaii at Manoa Libraries
Honolulu, HI  96822

phone (808) 956-2753
fax (808) 956-5968





On 11/12/2013 10:14 AM, FOGLER, PATRICIA A GS-11 USAF AETC AUL/LTSC wrote:
> We are noticing that GPO is now coding 347 in records describing PDF 
> files.  We are not seeing these in other RDA records for PDF files. 
> [of course we may not be looking at the records that ARE using it]
>
> Right now we are leaving the data in the records.  We haven't been adding 
> them to the RDA records we are creating as it seemed redundant.   But I have 
> been thinking about this & having just gotten back from a very basic RDA 
> workshop, this is weighing on me.  I get the fact that the field allows 
> computers to identify formats and that will be probably a Good Thing, someday.
>
> The 347 has a large variety of subfields at its disposal.  I'm trying to 
> decide if we start to use these, how many of the subfields we should be 
> coding.  The records we are seeing are brief, with only:
> 347## |a text file |b PDF file |2 rda
>
> This could easily be created by a macro.   It seems pretty basic though.   Is 
> this enough to be helpful?   I wonder about adding |c file size but hesitate 
> to add data that is either not used & can be time consuming to determine/add.
>
> It is always a balancing act between adding more data & slowing our staff 
> down.   Are others using the 347 in records for online PDF files?  And if so, 
> how many of the fields do you code?
>
> //SIGNED//
> Patricia Fogler
> Chief, Cataloging Section  (AUL/LTSC)
> Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center
> DSN 493-2135   Comm (334) 953-2135
>
>
>

--
Michael A. Chopey
Cataloging Dept.
Hamilton 008
University of Hawaii at Manoa Libraries
Honolulu, HI  96822

phone (808) 956-2753
fax (808) 956-5968

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

[Harden, Jean]

Sheet? That's what we use for music of this sort.


Jean Harden
Coordinator of Music Technical Services
University of North Texas
Denton, TX  76203
jean.har...@unt.edu



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Rieger, Leslie
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 4:30 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] 338 field for a "volume" of art prints

Hello all!

I am cataloging a collection of art prints which are packaged in a sort of 
portfolio (basically it's a book cover, but the prints are not bound or 
attached to the spine in any way).   I am struggling with whether to use 
"volume" or "other" in the 338.  According the RDA glossary, a volume is "one 
or more sheets bound or fastened together to form a single unit."  Since my 
item is not bound, this would seem to indicate I should choose "other."

Thoughts?  Is there another term I should be considering instead?  Thanks for 
any assistance!

Leslie Y. Rieger
Music Cataloging Technician
The University of Montana
Mansfield Library
(406) 243-6733
leslie.rie...@umontana.edu

Re: [RDA-L] Question about preferred title for a compilation

[Harden, Jean]

I'm not Kevin, but yes, definitely it is fine to use the same name in 100 and 
700 (or 110 and 710). As Kevin said, the 1xx field has no necessary relation to 
any title other than that in the 240 or 245. A 730 or 740 does not inherently 
have anything to do with the 1xx.

Jean

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joan Wang
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 3:36 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about preferred title for a compilation

Hi, Kevin
Do you mean if a person appears in 100 field, his/her name is still allowed to 
appear in 700 field for his/her another work? I thought that we would use 
730/740 field (with the second indicator 2) for his/her another work in the 
same compilation. Or both are optional.
Thanks for your help.
Joan Wang

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Kevin M Randall 
mailto:k...@northwestern.edu>> wrote:
The 1XX field relates only to the title in the 240 or 245.  Fields 730 and 740 
should be used for titles that do not have a personal, family, or corporate 
body name as part of the authorized access point.  There is no inherent 
relationship between a title given in 7XX (or 8XX) and a name given in 1XX.

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
k...@northwestern.edu<mailto:k...@northwestern.edu>
(847) 491-2939

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>] On 
Behalf Of Joan Wang
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 3:13 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about preferred title for a compilation

For separate works of one person/family/corporate body, I think that we use 
730/740 fields.
Thanks,
Joan Wang

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Harden, Jean 
mailto:jean.har...@unt.edu>> wrote:
Recording each separate work's title is something we do all the time in music 
cataloging. In MARC, you use the field 700 12 . $t . For each work, you do a new 700 field. When you name all the works 
this way, RDA (for instance, in 6.2.2.10.3, Alternative) allows you either to 
stop at that or also to include the conventional collective title, which in 
MARC would go in the 240.

Jean Harden
Music Catalog Librarian
University of North Texas
Denton, TX  76203
jean.har...@unt.edu<mailto:jean.har...@unt.edu>



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>] On 
Behalf Of Arthur Liu
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 1:30 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about preferred title for a compilation

Hi Joan,

Yes, I think that is correct: 6.2.2.10.3 a) covers selected works in a single 
form, and 6.2.2.10.3 b) covers selected works in more than one form (meaning, 
some of the selections are in one form, and some selections are in different 
form(s)).

In the case of selected works in more than one form, I think we use the 
conventional collective title Works. followed by Selections (instead of, for 
example, Novels. Selections).

LC prefers the alternative of using these conventional collective titles 
instead of recording each separate title. What I'm unsure of is, if we do 
record each separate work's title, how does that work in MARC?

Thanks and have a great weekend as well!

-Arthur





On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Joan Wang 
mailto:jw...@illinoisheartland.org>> wrote:
Let me rephrase my question. Thanks to Arthur's help.
Does 6.2.2.10.3 "other compilations" includes selected works in a single form, 
and selected works not in a single form? If it is, the languages of the rule is 
too "grey" :)

For both categories, RDA tells us to record the preferred title for each of the 
works in a compilation. It also has an alternative: identify the parts 
collectively by recording a conventional collective title as applicable, 
followed by Selections. The example is Novels. Selections.
I wonder how effective the alternative can be in the application of selected 
works not in a single form. A simple Selections seems to be more reasonable.
Thanks for your time. I am also tired with the question :)

Have a wonderful weekend!
Joan Wang


On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Joan Wang 
mailto:jw...@illinoisheartland.org>> wrote:
> I think the lack of any subsection in 6.2.2 for compilations by more than one 
> ? person/family/corporate body means there are no special rules for those 
> compilations. In other words, we don't use "conventional collective titles" 
> for those, so we default to whatever title the compilation is known by (maybe 
> the title proper).
I still 

Re: [RDA-L] Question about preferred title for a compilation

[Harden, Jean]

740 is uncontrolled titles (with no reference to a creator, but the creator may 
be known and the cataloger simply does not want to link the title and the 
creator); we may use them for the various titles of popular songs included on a 
recording, for example. 730 is controlled titles (but these titles *are* 
anonymous); this is roughly parallel to the usage of the 130 field (an 
"anonymous" uniform title, to use AACR2 terminology).

The 700 12 is controlled, and you can definitely have a number of them in a 
single record with the same creator. For instance, if you have a recording that 
contains 6 works by J.S. Bach, you can have six 700 12 fields beginning with 
Bach.

The same MARC field can be used for compilations of works by various creators. 
For instance, if you had a recording of 3 works by Bach and 4 by Antonio 
Vivaldi, you would have three 700 12 fields beginning with Bach and four 
beginning with Vivaldi.

Not every library wants or needs to analyze compilations in this detail, and 
not every ILS will make sensible use of such fields, but this is definitely a 
possibility - in fact, the preferred way for large or scholarly collections.

Jean Harden

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joan Wang
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 3:13 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about preferred title for a compilation

For separate works of one person/family/corporate body, I think that we use 
730/740 fields.
Thanks,
Joan Wang

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Harden, Jean 
mailto:jean.har...@unt.edu>> wrote:
Recording each separate work's title is something we do all the time in music 
cataloging. In MARC, you use the field 700 12 . $t . For each work, you do a new 700 field. When you name all the works 
this way, RDA (for instance, in 6.2.2.10.3, Alternative) allows you either to 
stop at that or also to include the conventional collective title, which in 
MARC would go in the 240.

Jean Harden
Music Catalog Librarian
University of North Texas
Denton, TX  76203
jean.har...@unt.edu<mailto:jean.har...@unt.edu>



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>] On 
Behalf Of Arthur Liu
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 1:30 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about preferred title for a compilation

Hi Joan,

Yes, I think that is correct: 6.2.2.10.3 a) covers selected works in a single 
form, and 6.2.2.10.3 b) covers selected works in more than one form (meaning, 
some of the selections are in one form, and some selections are in different 
form(s)).

In the case of selected works in more than one form, I think we use the 
conventional collective title Works. followed by Selections (instead of, for 
example, Novels. Selections).

LC prefers the alternative of using these conventional collective titles 
instead of recording each separate title. What I'm unsure of is, if we do 
record each separate work's title, how does that work in MARC?

Thanks and have a great weekend as well!

-Arthur





On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Joan Wang 
mailto:jw...@illinoisheartland.org>> wrote:
Let me rephrase my question. Thanks to Arthur's help.
Does 6.2.2.10.3 "other compilations" includes selected works in a single form, 
and selected works not in a single form? If it is, the languages of the rule is 
too "grey" :)

For both categories, RDA tells us to record the preferred title for each of the 
works in a compilation. It also has an alternative: identify the parts 
collectively by recording a conventional collective title as applicable, 
followed by Selections. The example is Novels. Selections.
I wonder how effective the alternative can be in the application of selected 
works not in a single form. A simple Selections seems to be more reasonable.
Thanks for your time. I am also tired with the question :)

Have a wonderful weekend!
Joan Wang


On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Joan Wang 
mailto:jw...@illinoisheartland.org>> wrote:
> I think the lack of any subsection in 6.2.2 for compilations by more than one 
> ? person/family/corporate body means there are no special rules for those 
> compilations. In other words, we don't use "conventional collective titles" 
> for those, so we default to whatever title the compilation is known by (maybe 
> the title proper).
I still think that the preferred tile for a work is different from a title 
proper found in a manifestation. So some instructions or references would be 
helpful.
Thanks,
Joan Wang

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Joan Wang 
mailto:jw...@illinoisheartland.org>> wrote:
> "two or more but not all works ... in a particular form" means your phrase
&

Re: [RDA-L] Question about preferred title for a compilation

[Harden, Jean]

Recording each separate work's title is something we do all the time in music 
cataloging. In MARC, you use the field 700 12 . $t . For each work, you do a new 700 field. When you name all the works 
this way, RDA (for instance, in 6.2.2.10.3, Alternative) allows you either to 
stop at that or also to include the conventional collective title, which in 
MARC would go in the 240.

Jean Harden
Music Catalog Librarian
University of North Texas
Denton, TX  76203
jean.har...@unt.edu



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Arthur Liu
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 1:30 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about preferred title for a compilation

Hi Joan,

Yes, I think that is correct: 6.2.2.10.3 a) covers selected works in a single 
form, and 6.2.2.10.3 b) covers selected works in more than one form (meaning, 
some of the selections are in one form, and some selections are in different 
form(s)).

In the case of selected works in more than one form, I think we use the 
conventional collective title Works. followed by Selections (instead of, for 
example, Novels. Selections).

LC prefers the alternative of using these conventional collective titles 
instead of recording each separate title. What I'm unsure of is, if we do 
record each separate work's title, how does that work in MARC?

Thanks and have a great weekend as well!

-Arthur





On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Joan Wang 
mailto:jw...@illinoisheartland.org>> wrote:
Let me rephrase my question. Thanks to Arthur's help.
Does 6.2.2.10.3 "other compilations" includes selected works in a single form, 
and selected works not in a single form? If it is, the languages of the rule is 
too "grey" :)

For both categories, RDA tells us to record the preferred title for each of the 
works in a compilation. It also has an alternative: identify the parts 
collectively by recording a conventional collective title as applicable, 
followed by Selections. The example is Novels. Selections.
I wonder how effective the alternative can be in the application of selected 
works not in a single form. A simple Selections seems to be more reasonable.
Thanks for your time. I am also tired with the question :)

Have a wonderful weekend!
Joan Wang


On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Joan Wang 
mailto:jw...@illinoisheartland.org>> wrote:
> I think the lack of any subsection in 6.2.2 for compilations by more than one 
> ? person/family/corporate body means there are no special rules for those 
> compilations. In other words, we don't use "conventional collective titles" 
> for those, so we default to whatever title the compilation is known by (maybe 
> the title proper).
I still think that the preferred tile for a work is different from a title 
proper found in a manifestation. So some instructions or references would be 
helpful.
Thanks,
Joan Wang

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Joan Wang 
mailto:jw...@illinoisheartland.org>> wrote:
> "two or more but not all works ... in a particular form" means your phrase
> "incomplete works in a single form". (6.2.2.10.3 a)
???
by the way, I feel that a good word would be selected works in single form and 
selected works not in single form.

> I think the lack of any subsection in 6.2.2 for compilations by more than one 
> ? person/family/corporate body means there are no special rules for those 
> compilations. In other words, we don't use "conventional collective titles" 
> for those, so we default to whatever title the compilation is known by (maybe 
> the title proper).
Seems to be reasonable.
Thanks to Arthur,
Joan Wang

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Arthur Liu 
mailto:art@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Joan,

My understanding is:

"Complete works" means all the works by a person, in all forms that the person 
worked in. (6.2.2.10.1)

"Complete works in a single form" means all the works by a person in a 
particular form, e.g. all the plays by a person, but not the novels by that 
person. (6.2.2.10.2)

"Other compilations of two or more works" means incomplete works, or a 
compilation of two or more works by a person which does not constitute all the 
works by that person, and does not constitute all the works by that person in a 
particular form. (6.2.2.10.3)

"two or more but not all works ... in a particular form" means your phrase 
"incomplete works in a single form". (6.2.2.10.3 a)

"two or more but not all works ... in various forms" means your phrase 
"incomplete works not in a single form". (6.2.2.10.3 b)


Your phrase "complete works not in a single form" is simply 6.2.2.10.1.


For example, Person A wrote five plays and five novels. A compilation of all 
ten works would be 6.2.2.10.1. A compilation of all 5 plays (but no novels) 
would be 6.2.2.10.2 (same for a compilation of all 5 novels only). A 
compilation of three of the plays only would be 6.2.2.10.3a. A compilation of 
two of the plays and three of the novels wou

Re: [RDA-L] Use of brackets in RDA records

[Harden, Jean]

According to RDA 2.8.1.4, you transcribe whatever appears on the source of 
information. If both the main publisher and the imprint appear, you transcribe 
both, unless you have chosen to follow the option that allows omitting levels 
in a corporate hierarchy that are not required to identify the publisher (LC 
has chosen not to follow that option). But if only the imprint appears on that 
source, you transcribe only the imprint.

Jean Harden
Music Catalog Librarian
University of North Texas
Denton, TX  76203
jean.har...@unt.edu
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of MARILYN BOOK
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:59 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Use of brackets in RDA records

I have a question that applies to the publisher as well.  If a book lists a 
publisher that is an imprint of another do you put the publisher, the main 
publisher or both.  eg. Gallery Books is a division of Simon & Schuster Inc.  
what do I use as the publisher?  Thanks.

"The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and 
write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn. "  Alvin Toffler

Marilyn Book
Library Technician
Delhi District Secondary School
393 James Street
Delhi, Ontario N4B 2B6
Grand Erie Board of Education
519-582-0410
marilyn.b...@granderie.ca

Re: [RDA-L] Source of new terms for 300 subfield a

[Harden, Jean]

The instructions for recording extent are in 3.4.1.3 in the RDA Toolkit. There 
you are told to use "an appropriate term for the type of carrier as listed 
under 3.3.1.3." The latter is where you find a list of acceptable terms, such 
as audio disc. RDA 3.4.1.5 also gives you permission to use a term in common 
usage under specified circumstances (including if your library prefers a 
different term). That's where terms like DVD come from. LC and PCC have said 
that those terms should be limited to cases where the existing carrier list 
does not include an appropriate term, such as when a new format comes out and 
nothing really fits, but your library does not have to follow this Policy 
Statement unless you are doing PCC cataloging.


Jean Harden
Music Catalog Librarian
University of North Texas
Denton, TX  76203
jean.har...@unt.edu



-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Brown, Darmae
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 3:37 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Source of new terms for 300 subfield a

Hello,

I notice that we don't have to use sound disc and video disc, etc. when 
describing the resource in RDA.  Audio disc and DVD are being used.  Is there a 
list somewhere of what is permissible in the 300 subfield a?

A URL would be especially helpful.

Thank you,
Darmae Brown

Darmae Brown, MA Librarianship, MCIS
Cataloging Librarian | Lee County Library System
881 Gunnery Rd. N Suite 2 | Lehigh Acres, FL 33971 djbr...@leegov.com
239-533-4175 voice | 239-485-1120 fax
leelibrary.net


Please note: Florida has a very broad public records law. Most written 
communications to or from County Employees and officials regarding County 
business are public records available to the public and media upon request. 
Your email communication may be subject to public disclosure.

Under Florida law, email addresses are public records. If you do not want your 
email address released in response to a public records request, do not send 
electronic mail to this entity.  Instead, contact this office by phone or in 
writing.

Re: [RDA-L] Using 344-347?

[Harden, Jean]

At the moment, the University of North Texas Music Library is indeed using the 
34x fields as relevant, but since they don't yet display in our public catalog, 
we are also putting the relevant information in 300 $b, which does display. 
Once the display issues are straightened out, we will stop using 300 $b for 
this information and will use only the 34x fields.

The music cataloging community's decisions on the 34x fields are included in 
"Best Practices for Music Cataloging : using RDA and MARC21" 
(http://bcc.musiclibraryassoc.org/BCC-Historical/BCC2013/RDA_Best_Practices_for_Music_Cataloging11Feb2013.pdf).
 In particular, the charts of how to encode various audio formats (appendix to 
Chapter 3; where the document temporarily goes from portrait to landscape) and 
the immediately following examples are invaluable.

According to those charts, for a "regular" audio CD, the phrase "audio file" 
*is* recorded in 347, but the playing speed is not given in 344 (but playing 
speed is encoded in the 007).

These charts and the rest of the document are the product of about 18 months' 
work by a number of music catalogers. I normally catalog scores and so cannot 
pretend to understand the thinking behind every decision about audio materials, 
but I know everyone on the task force (to varying degrees), and I'm sure they 
had good, well informed reasons for their decisions. I would trust that 
document.


Jean Harden
Music Catalog Librarian
University of North Texas
Denton, TX  76203
jean.har...@unt.edu



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Bernadette Mary O'Reilly
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 3:31 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Using 344-347?

Hello

I need to prepare simple inhouse documentation for non-BK materials and am 
wondering whether or how we should use fields 344-347 for sound recordings, 
videos, CD-ROMs and suchlike, to cover the details which used to go in 300 $b.

In the Toolkit the RDA>MARC mapping still points to 300 $b for many of these 
elements, but the JSC example records use the new 34X.

The new fields include elements which were not normally included in 300 $b and 
duplicate a lot of the information in 007.  These elements would be needed in a 
post-MARC environment, but presumably could be generated from 007s when the 
time comes.

I would be very interested to discover:
- whether other agencies expect to use 34X straight away or will continue to 
use 300 $b at least until LC-PCC and specialist bodies produce best practice 
guidelines
- whether other agencies intend to record all available elements in 34X, or 
just the ones which typically were recorded in 300 $b, or just the ones which 
are not implied by the carrier type.

For instance: for audio CDs, do you expect to record playing speed in 344 $c or 
"audio file" in 347 $a?

Does a standard audio CD really need a 347 at all?

Best wishes,
Bernadette

***
Bernadette O'Reilly
Catalogue Support Librarian
01865 2-77134
Bodleian Libraries,
Osney One Building
Osney Mead
Oxford OX2 0EW.
***

Re: [RDA-L] order in 245 when title is more than one language, with bits in each language interspersed

[Harden, Jean]

A private communication from a member of the group that has worked out the 
document "Best Practices for Music Cataloging" 
(http://bcc.musiclibraryassoc.org/BCC-Historical/BCC2013/RDA_Best_Practices_for_Music_Cataloging.pdf)
 said that the next version of this document will include a section on this 
sort of problem, which happens more often than not in music, and the 
recommended solution will follow ISBD. He recommended that for now we continue 
following what we have been accustomed to do, which is essentially what Heidrun 
suggests.

I haven't seen this title page, as it is an item I am checking (from the online 
record only) for a colleague. Having seen roughly a zillion of these, though, I 
suspect that most of the commas represent line breaks. The title page probably 
looks like this:

Trio in G-Dur

Trio in G major

für Violine, Violoncello und Klavier

for violin, cello, and piano

B. 446

Whether to include commas to show the line breaks in a case like this is a 
matter of cataloger's judgment. Since they make no difference in searching, in 
our systems, at any rate, we would include those that the cataloger feels are 
needed to convey the correct sense of the title page, but we wouldn't obsess 
over them. We probably would include "B. 446" only once, as it does not need to 
be read twice for the title(s) to make sense.

Thanks for your analysis, Heidrun. It always helps to have someone who *hasn't* 
see a zillion of these tease the solution out of the rules.

Jean

-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, April 04, 2013 2:42 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] order in 245 when title is more than one language, with 
bits in each language interspersed

Hm, it's interesting to see how difficult these parallel statements turn out to 
be...

I think Jean is right that in this case there is no other title information 
(and no parallel other title information) at all. It is a case of RDA 
2.3.2.8.1, where elements like medium, key and number are treated as part of 
the title proper. I'd say that this rules out Mac's solution, where he 
interpreted the second bits as other title information / parallel other title 
information.

What it comes down to is that we have a title proper in German, and a parallel 
title proper in English. Only, the parts are intertwined (probably for reasons 
of layout), so that the source of information gives:

First half of title proper, first half of parallel title proper, second half of 
title proper, second half of parallel title proper

I'd argue that in this case a transposition (although, as I see it, it isn't 
really a transposition) is not only allowed, but even necessary. 
True, 2.3.1.4 says: "Transcribe a title as it appears on the source of 
information". If we had only one title on the source, I would hesitate to 
change the order of its parts. But here, we do not have one title, but rather 
we have two of them - and each of them must be transcribed as it appears on the 
source of information.

As I see it, the first one appears as "Trio in G-Dur für Violine, Violoncello 
und Klavier", and the second one as "Trio in G major for violin, cello and 
piano, B. 446". Note that by this, we haven't changed the order of the words 
within the title proper and within the parallel title proper. We only left out 
of the title proper the things which obviously don't belong to it, and did the 
same with the parallel title proper.

This can be backed by RDA 2.3.2.1:
"The title proper is the chief name of a resource (i.e., the title normally 
used when citing the resource). (...) The title proper excludes any parallel 
titles proper (see 2.3.3), other title information (see 2.3.4), and parallel 
other title information (see 2.3.5)."

By the way, if the commas are really there on the source of information, I 
think they should better be left out in the transctiption in this case.

There is perhaps a small problem with the "B. 446", which appears only once. I 
think that you would be free to decide between two options here:
- either transcribe it only once (as the third bit of the title proper or of 
the parallel title proper)
- or transcribe it twice by applying RDA 1.7.7 Personally, I would favour the 
first option here (as it's not really necessary to double the number in order 
to understand the transcription).

Heidrun



On 03.04.2013 23:57, Jean Harden wrote:
> How should this 245 be ordered? The title page of the item says this:
>
> Trio in G-Dur, Trio in G major, für Violine, Violoncello und Klavier, 
> for violin, cello and piano, B. 446
>
> This particular example is complicated by being one of the sorts of music 
> titles that is made up of a type word, key, medium, and number, in which case 
> all those elements are included in the title proper. So in this case we have 
> essentially a title proper a

[RDA-L] order in 245 when title is more than one language, with bits in each language interspersed

[Harden, Jean]

How should this 245 be ordered? The title page of the item says this:

Trio in G-Dur, Trio in G major, für Violine, Violoncello und Klavier, for 
violin, cello and piano, B. 446

This particular example is complicated by being one of the sorts of music 
titles that is made up of a type word, key, medium, and number, in which case 
all those elements are included in the title proper. So in this case we have 
essentially a title proper and a parallel title proper, but neither appears as 
a unit on the title page.

Under AACR2, we followed the ISBD admonition to keep elements in one language 
together, even if that meant some transposition from title page order. With 
ISBD punctuation, that would look like this:

Trio in G-Dur für Violine, Violoncello und Klavier = Trio in G major, for 
violin, cello, and piano, B. 446

RDA says simply to transcribe the title as it appears on the source of 
information. RDA 2.3.3.4 talks about the situation of having medium, key, etc. 
in multiple languages and says to transcribe information in the order it is on 
the source of information, but the example does not show the languages 
intertwined. The example has languages grouped together, but one cannot tell 
whether they were already grouped together on the source of information or not.

What are we supposed to do under RDA?

Jean

Jean Harden
Music Catalog Librarian
University of North Texas
Denton, TX  76203
jean.har...@unt.edu

Re: [RDA-L] Query re. 264 in RDA Toolkit

[Harden, Jean]

The mappings haven't been updated yet. Once they are, 264 will appear where 
appropriate.


Jean Harden
Music Catalog Librarian
University of North Texas
Denton, TX  76203
jean.har...@unt.edu



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Nelson
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 10:56 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Query re. 264 in RDA Toolkit

Hi, everyone;

I'm playing in my new sandbox and can't figure out why 260 - and not 264 - 
appears in Toolkit Tools tab under Mapping (RDA to MARC and MARC to RDA).

Thanks!

Re: [RDA-L] question about dates in 264 fields

[Harden, Jean]

I was just looking at that. I believe that the problem is that the Toolkit 
hasn't yet been updated to reflect the existence of 264. The MARC21 
Bibliographic Format on Cataloger's Desktop was just updated very recently to 
include it. Until a few days ago, the only place to find it was on the LC 
website where the MARC21 formats are maintained (specifically, "MARC 21 Format 
for Bibliographic Data").


Jean Harden
Music Catalog Librarian
University of North Texas
Denton, TX  76203
jean.har...@unt.edu



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Monica Boyer
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 3:00 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] question about dates in 264 fields

A slight tangent from the conversation:

In the interest of trying to learn about the 264 in RDA, I looked at the MARC 
Bibliographic to RDA Mapping in the RDA Toolkit, & the 264 isn't there.  
Likewise, & perhaps more surprisingly, the 264 also isn't in the RDA to MARC 
Bibliographic Mapping.

Please be aware that I am very unfamiliar with the RDA Toolkit so it is 
possible that I'm not looking in the right place or don't understand what I'm 
seeing.  However, it would seem to me that the 264 would be mentioned in at 
least one of these places.  Can someone explain why it's not there?  Or if it 
is there, can you tell me how to find it?

---
Monica Boyer
Technical Services Manager
Jackson County Public Library
(812)522-3412 ext. 1226

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Deborah Fritz 
mailto:debo...@marcofquality.com>> wrote:
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On 
Behalf Of Arakawa, Steven
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 10:39 AM

[SA]
[DF:]  Yes, if you use the copyright date to supply the date in 264_1, then 
adding the copyright date is optional, but I think it is a good thing to add 
it, as long as the copyright date is straightforward.

Deborah

-  -  -  -  -  -  -  -
Deborah Fritz
TMQ, Inc.
debo...@marcofquality.com
www.marcofquality.com

Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16

[Harden, Jean]

Yes, we have at University of North Texas. Our reference librarians, in all 
areas of the library, love RDA records. Patrons find such records far easier to 
understand than AACR2 records, the reference librarians report, and the 
reference librarians themselves find the records easier to understand and thus 
to use in helping patrons find the materials they want.

This is a casual, impressionistic finding. We do not have hard data to support 
any preference one way or the other.


Jean Harden
Music Catalog Librarian
University of North Texas
Denton, TX  76203
jean.har...@unt.edu



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 3:11 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16

Just a question here, and I think this was part of what the podcast was getting 
at:   Has anyone asked practicing reference librarians what they thought of RDA?
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Harden, Jean 
mailto:jean.har...@unt.edu>> wrote:
This "more effort" issue worried me, too, until I oversaw a project, using 
people who were learning to catalog right then. They were supposed to be 
cataloging in AACR2. To my tremendous surprise, the great majority of their 
errors were in fact RDA-compliant. The project and this observation were 
written up in an article in Journal of Library Metadata that just came out 
electronically (I don't think it's out in print yet). But the article in its 
prepublication form is mounted in the Digital Library of University of North 
Texas. Take a look at 
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc93302/?q=Jean%20Harden (click 
on the little graphic of the title page to go to the full text). (Apologies for 
the self-promotion, but the article does seem relevant to the current 
discussion.)

For those who don't have time to read the article, the most important 
observation was that when people new to cataloging encountered situations they 
weren't sure how to handle, they tended to "guess" solutions that were in 
compliance with RDA. In other words, RDA really does seem to have hit on 
solutions that make intuitive sense to people who aren't already trained in 
AACR2. It's those of us who have been using the older code for years who will 
have the harder time with the new code.

When the solution makes intuitive sense, the student catalogers I used in this 
project never complained about the length of what they needed to type. They 
*did* complain when they had to type something, however short, that didn't make 
intuitive sense to them.


Jean Harden
Music Catalog Librarian
University of North Texas
Denton, TX  76203
jean.har...@unt.edu<mailto:jean.har...@unt.edu>



-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>] On 
Behalf Of Myers, John F.
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 1:00 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16
Billie Hackney wrote:

But it doesn't change the fact that creating an RDA record is more work, more 
typing, and more effort for overworked catalogers.

-

This is not an invalid criticism of RDA, and an area where early criticisms 
felt that RDA did not go far enough in evolving from its AARC2 roots.  The 
language of RECORDING element data in AACR2 was largely carried forward intact 
in RDA.  In places where we are to transcribe information directly from the 
resource, this is fine.  In many other places, it would be sufficient to 
INDICATE element data.

As a particular example, describing the extent and nature of content.  The 
arguments over abbreviating vs. not abbreviating is an unfortunate outcome of 
maintaining this RECORDING mindset.  The further dithering over the creation of 
new MARC fields to translated the recorded data into corresponding coded data 
is another by-product.

Is it really necessary to require a cataloger to record in a digital context 
the actual words "illustrations" or "colour/color" or "black and white"?  (And 
then duplicate those details with codes elsewhere?)  Should it not be 
sufficient to have interfaces on the cataloging and the public display modes 
that allow one to draft a record with "ill." "col." or "b&w", or corresponding 
coded values, or options from a drop-down menu, which are then converted when 
stored into an appropriate stored value and when displayed into the 
corresponding (and even language/script appropriate) text?  (And at the risk of 
overgeneralizing and of drawing commonalities where few believe they exist, 
this seems to be the crux of many of the disa

Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16

[Harden, Jean]

This "more effort" issue worried me, too, until I oversaw a project, using 
people who were learning to catalog right then. They were supposed to be 
cataloging in AACR2. To my tremendous surprise, the great majority of their 
errors were in fact RDA-compliant. The project and this observation were 
written up in an article in Journal of Library Metadata that just came out 
electronically (I don't think it's out in print yet). But the article in its 
prepublication form is mounted in the Digital Library of University of North 
Texas. Take a look at 
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc93302/?q=Jean%20Harden (click 
on the little graphic of the title page to go to the full text). (Apologies for 
the self-promotion, but the article does seem relevant to the current 
discussion.)

For those who don't have time to read the article, the most important 
observation was that when people new to cataloging encountered situations they 
weren't sure how to handle, they tended to "guess" solutions that were in 
compliance with RDA. In other words, RDA really does seem to have hit on 
solutions that make intuitive sense to people who aren't already trained in 
AACR2. It's those of us who have been using the older code for years who will 
have the harder time with the new code.

When the solution makes intuitive sense, the student catalogers I used in this 
project never complained about the length of what they needed to type. They 
*did* complain when they had to type something, however short, that didn't make 
intuitive sense to them.


Jean Harden
Music Catalog Librarian
University of North Texas
Denton, TX  76203
jean.har...@unt.edu



-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Myers, John F.
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 1:00 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16

Billie Hackney wrote:

But it doesn't change the fact that creating an RDA record is more work, more 
typing, and more effort for overworked catalogers.

-

This is not an invalid criticism of RDA, and an area where early criticisms 
felt that RDA did not go far enough in evolving from its AARC2 roots.  The 
language of RECORDING element data in AACR2 was largely carried forward intact 
in RDA.  In places where we are to transcribe information directly from the 
resource, this is fine.  In many other places, it would be sufficient to 
INDICATE element data.  

As a particular example, describing the extent and nature of content.  The 
arguments over abbreviating vs. not abbreviating is an unfortunate outcome of 
maintaining this RECORDING mindset.  The further dithering over the creation of 
new MARC fields to translated the recorded data into corresponding coded data 
is another by-product.  

Is it really necessary to require a cataloger to record in a digital context 
the actual words "illustrations" or "colour/color" or "black and white"?  (And 
then duplicate those details with codes elsewhere?)  Should it not be 
sufficient to have interfaces on the cataloging and the public display modes 
that allow one to draft a record with "ill." "col." or "b&w", or corresponding 
coded values, or options from a drop-down menu, which are then converted when 
stored into an appropriate stored value and when displayed into the 
corresponding (and even language/script appropriate) text?  (And at the risk of 
overgeneralizing and of drawing commonalities where few believe they exist, 
this seems to be the crux of many of the disagreements between the "pro" and 
"anti" RDA crowds -- they both see a problem but have widely divergent takes on 
the solutions -- change the way we deal with the data in the context of RDA or 
reject the changes RDA institutes outright.)

So now, instead of moving forward by experimenting with different solutions to 
input/storage/display, we instead can't get past the point of thousands of 
catalogers having to type out "illustrations" "colour/color" "black and white" 
etc., because that's the only option RDA gives us.

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu

Re: [RDA-L] Fwd: References from one chapter to another in RDA

[Harden, Jean]

For at least some of this, the Element Set View (which I hadn't explored until 
yesterday) is a great help. It assembles all the rules relevant to a particular 
RDA Element together in one place. Sometimes the rules so assembled are 
contiguous in RDA itself, but sometimes there are reference (and links) to 
widely separated rules.

Jean

Jean Harden
Music Catalog Librarian
Libraries
University of North Texas
1155 Union Circle #305190
Denton, TX  76203-5017
jean.har...@unt.edu



> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mark Ehlert
> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 1:14 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Fwd: References from one chapter to another in RDA
> 
> Gene Fieg  wrote:
> > Reading (slogging?) through RDA now.  I am in chapter 19.  I noticed
> > that for official pronouncements from people in the office have access
> > points for the office as well as the personal name access point.  That
> > instruction, I think is somewhere in the previous chapters, but I
> > cannot find it, even after look in the index.  I think chapter 19 (at
> > least that chapter) should have xref to the chapters that instruct us
> > to record both the office name/person and the personal name.  I am
> > sure that is correct, as I said, and I think it accords with AACR2,
> > but I cannot find the previous instruction.
> 
> RDA 11.2.2.21 discusses names of governmental officials, for instance.
>  RDA 11.13 tells you how to put together a corporate name heading from the
> bits and pieces described further up that chapter's food chain.
> 
> RDA 9.19 tells you how how to put together a personal name heading from
> the bits and pieces described further up that chapter's food chain.
> 
> On pointing back to previous chapters in the text of the examples, that could
> be quite helpful, if a hell of a lot of work to put together--not to mention
> making the example parts of the chapter even longer.  On the other hand,
> somebody might direct our gaze to 19.0's "persons, families, and corporate
> bodies," this thus informing us that we should look at chapters 9-11 on
> making up those name headings.
> 
> --
> Mark K. Ehlert                 Minitex
> Coordinator                    University of Minnesota Bibliographic & 
> Technical      15
> Andersen Library
>   Services (BATS) Unit        222 21st Avenue South
> Phone: 612-624-0805            Minneapolis, MN 55455-0439
> 

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Harden, Jean]

My experience leads me to the opposite conclusion. For people who don't already 
know how to catalog, much of RDA *is* simpler, more transparent, and so forth 
than AACR2. It's only those of us who have been using AACR2 for years that have 
so much trouble grasping the new rules.
In my job I teach a steady stream of young catalogers, and I was also in the 
RDA test. Teaching AACR2 while testing RDA gave me a daily side-by-side 
comparison. I have found that new catalogers very often stumble into doing 
descriptive cataloging "right" according to RDA when they come to the end of 
their AACR2 knowledge.
In formal classes, I have taught FRBR for at least a couple of years now. I 
find that people without previous cataloging experience understand the basics 
of FRBR within about half an hour. Then we do a couple more hours of exercises 
to cement the concepts (take books, scores, recordings, videos, etc. from the 
collection and make cards for the work, expression, manifestation, item, 
related works, responsible persons, and whatever else suits the particular 
group of students, putting these cards on the relevant spot on a labeled table 
or even floor). I haven't yet had a student fail to get a firm grasp on these 
basic ideas within one graduate-length class session.
Jean
Jean Harden
Music Catalog Librarian
Libraries
University of North Texas
1155 Union Circle #305190
Denton, TX  76203-5017
jean.har...@unt.edu
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Billie Hackney
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 10:58 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

Every time I see a discussion about how hard FRBR is to understand (which it 
is), how difficult the RDA Toolkit is to use (which it is), and the fact that 
RDA will actually increase the amount of work we have to do to each 
bibliographic record (which it does), I get more and more discouraged.  
Cataloging as a profession has been gasping for breath.  It desperately needed 
to become simpler, more transparent, and more attractive to library school 
students, easier for management to understand.  Instead, it seems to me that 
the opposite is happening, and at the worst possible time.  It seems to me that 
our leaders are taking us over a cliff, and they keep explaining to us why what 
they're doing is very, very important, as we're plummeting to the ground.
This is my own personal opinion as someone who has been cataloging for twenty 
years -- not that of my employer.



Billie Hackney
Senior Monograph Cataloger
Getty Research Institute
1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
(310) 440-7616
bhack...@getty.edu

Re: [RDA-L] Web catalog

[Harden, Jean]

What needs doing with your web catalog depends entirely on your vendor. It is 
very likely to take a telephone call or an online contact to the company to say 
you want the RDA tags made workable in your system. The vendor probably will 
know what fields these are but might need a list of fields you want activated.

The formal "test" creation of RDA records ends at the end of December 2010. 
Then the results will be studied for several months and a report written up. A 
decision - whether or not RDA will be adopted by the US national libraries, and 
if it is adopted, whether this will be as-is or with further revisions - is 
expected to be make public no later than June 2011, as I understand.


Jean Harden, Music Catalog Librarian
Libraries
University of North Texas
1155 Union Circle #305190
Denton, TX  76203-5017
(940) 565-2860
jean.har...@unt.edu



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Jeff Peckosh
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 4:23 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Web catalog

Do we need to have anything done with our web catalog to make it friendly with 
RDA tags or should we assume that it will work fine automatically? Also, do we 
know when the testing and everything will be finalized, and that we will start 
cataloging in accordance to RDA?

Thanks for your help,


Jeff Peckosh
Public Library Cataloging Librarian

Re: [RDA-L] LC's policies on RDA options

[Harden, Jean]

Look at http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/RDAtest/rdachoices.html for the choices 
LC has made for the test period.

Jean

Jean Harden, Music Catalog Librarian
Libraries
University of North Texas
1155 Union Circle #305190
Denton, TX  76203-5017
(940) 565-2860
jean.har...@unt.edu



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of MCCUTCHEON, SEVIM
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 12:18 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] LC's policies on RDA options


1.   Can someone point me to the document/website where LC lists what RDA 
options they are adopting for the test period?


2.   Can someone instruct me on how to find RDA records in LC's catalog?


Thank you

Ms. Sevim McCutcheon
Catalog Librarian; Asst. Prof.
University Libraries
Kent State University
tel: 330-672-1703
lmccu...@kent.edu

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR, RDA ... and transcendental idealism

[Harden, Jean]

Are you perhaps thinking of E28 Conceptual Object (of which Work is a 
subclass). According to FRBRoo, "this class comprises non-material products of 
our minds and information produced by humans."

As I see it, the practical value of this class is in linking various specific 
expressions and manifestations of this "non-material product." For instance, 
linking together the various scores, recordings, DVDs, books about, and so 
forth, of, say, Mozart's Magic Flute (Zauberflöte).


Jean Harden, Music Catalog Librarian
Libraries
University of North Texas
1155 Union Circle #305190
Denton, TX  76203-5017
(940) 565-2860
jean.har...@unt.edu




> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access /
> Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-
> l...@infoserv.nlc-bnc.ca] On Behalf Of Greta de
> Groat
> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 11:54 AM
> To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
> 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.
>
> greta de groat
> Stanford University Libraries
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Weinheimer Jim" 
> 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] Moving image work record

[Harden, Jean]

The Music Library Association's BCC Working Group on Work Records included in 
its final report an explicit mention (expectation, hope?) that the information 
that belongs to the work record would be recorded only there. Manifestation 
records would include only information *different from* or additional to what 
is already in the work record. There would be no repetition of information, 
which we saw as a huge time savings, at least in music. I expect it would be 
similarly a time-saving device in moving-image records.

Jean Harden, Chair
BCC Working Group on Work Records
Final report: http://tinyurl.com/467vej

> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access /
> Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan
> Rochkind
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 10:56 AM
> To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Moving image work record
>
> Wouldn't choosing one manifestation record (or
> expression record, if it
> exists) as the "exemplar" for the work, and
> linking to that from the
> work record be preferable to entering these
> characteristics twice, once
> in the work level, and once in the expression
> level?
>
> The values entered in the work level will be
> taken from an expression,
> right?  And taken from exactly one (not mixed
> and matched from more than
> one) expression record, right?
>
> Why not link to that record as an 'exemplar'
> rather than copying all the
> values from an expression (or manifestation)
> record to a work record?
>
> One of the downsides of having information in
> two different records, is
> if it is later corrected or enhanced, it needs
> to be corrected or
> enhanced in more than one place.
>
> Jonathan
>
> McGrath, Kelley C. wrote:
> > I have forwarded below (with permission)
> Martha Yee's response to Mac Elrod's question
> about the inclusion of attributes such as
> >
> > * color, b&w, etc.
> > * sound or silent
> > * aspect ratio
> >
> > in work-primary expression records as
> described in the OLAC Moving Image Work-Level
> Records Draft Report, Parts 1-2. I think
> language and duration at least should be added
> to the above list as these are also attributes
> for which the original or intended value and
> the value of a given expression may  vary.
> Martha pretty much sums up the position of the
> OLAC task force, but I would like to make a
> couple additional points.
> >
> > 1. All of these attributes are included at
> least sometimes in reference works on film and
> video, particularly color and duration. These
> reference works are generally intended to
> describe the original theatrical release or
> broadcast so it seems to me that including
> these values in work records for moving images
> will not confuse users or confound the average
> person's expectations as long as they are
> displayed clearly.
> >
> > 2. The task force wasn't addressing
> expression or manifestation attributes, but we
> certainly did not mean to imply that the
> attributes listed by Mac should not be
> recorded at the expression level in addition
> to the work level. We do not think these are
> mutually-exclusive options. In fact, many of
> the OLAC reviewers of RDA think that RDA's
> assumption that attributes and roles can be
> mapped to one and only one FRBR level is
> misguided. We will make our intention to
> record some values for both the work/primary
> expression and expression-in-hand clearer in
> the final version of our report.
> >
> > 3. Although clearly you would want to
> present users with a choice of values for each
> of these attributes in order to help them
> select an appropriate expression, it is not
> clear to me that you can always reliably
> extract the original or intended value from a
> cluster of manifestation records. It seems to
> me more efficient to record these values once
> in a work record that can be used in
> combination with manifestation and/or
> expression records. As Martha points out,
> these particular attributes, when they refer
> to expressions, are only fully meaningful in
> the context of their original or intended
> values.
> >
> > Kelley McGrath
> > A/V Cataloger, Ball State University
> > Chair, OLAC CAPC Moving Image Work-Level
> Records Task Force
> >
> >
> > -Forwarded Message-
> >
> > I think the idea is that it is necessary to
> record the characteristics of
> > the work at the time it was initially
> released so that you have something to
> > which to compare later expressions.
> Colorized implies that you already know
> > that the work was initially released in
> black and white.  We are asking that
> > original release physical characteristics be
> recorded explicitly at the work
> > level so that, for example, any color copy
> can be identified as a deviation
> > from a black and white work as originally
> released.  Physicality of the work
> > as originally released may be easier to
> understand for people who work with
> > visual materials than for peo

Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG

[Harden, Jean]

In a few places, the justification for a rule is something along the lines that 
"library catalogers need this information in this form." So these best 
practices weren't created without reference to library needs. That's good to 
know.

An element compilers of library cataloging rules could perhaps learn from: 
These best practices give an explicit "business case" for each data element (at 
least, each one I looked at). These are short paragraphs that essentially 
specify the business benefit of accuracy in each of these elements. Library 
cataloging rules would be easier to "sell" to administrators if they included 
statements about what each element contributes to the library's (or the 
catalog's) goal. Some of the "business case" paragraphs would need only slight 
tweaking to make them applicable to libraries.


Jean Harden, Music Catalog Librarian
Libraries
University of North Texas
PO Box 305190
Denton, TX  76203-5190
(940) 565-2860
[EMAIL PROTECTED]




> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access /
> Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Karen
> Coyle
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 10:33 AM
> To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress
> response to LCWG
>
> Bryan, thanks for sending this along. The
> "best practices" document
> (http://www.bisg.org/docs/Best_Practices_Docum
> ent.pdf) bears a striking
> resemblance to cataloging rules (which are, in
> effect, best practices
> themselves, although calling them "rules"
> makes them sound more
> mandatory than "best practices"). Look at:
>
> "The title is defined as the following:
> The complete name of a published product,
> including the subtitle, as it
> appears on the title page.
> The title page is the definitive source for
> both the main title and
> subtitle of a book; variant titles found on
> book covers, dust jackets,
> spines, half-title pages, etc. should not be
> supplied in product data
> records. Titles should be presented in the
> appropriate title case for
> the language of the title."
>
> Sound familiar? Obviously, some things are
> different, but this
> encourages me not only in terms of data
> sharing but in terms of data
> *element* sharing. I'm wondering if we can
> fold some of this into the
> RDA in RDF work... wheels spinning.
>
> kc
>
> Bryan Baldus wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 17, 2008 4:45 AM, James
> Weinheimer included the quote:
> >
> >> "1.1.1.6 All: Demonstrate to publishers the
> business advantages of supplying complete and
> accurate metadata."
> >>
> >
> > There was recently a story at Book Business
> Extra, "Are You Providing Poor Book Data?
> Executive Director Michael Healy on the BISG's
> Product Data Certification Program." [1], with
> additional information at The Book Industry
> Study Group's website [2].
> >
> > [1]
>  p?sid=111018&var=story>
> > [2]
>  roductdata.html>
> >
> >
> > Bryan Baldus
> > Cataloger
> > Quality Books Inc.
> > The Best of America's Independent Presses
> > 1-800-323-4241x402
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> ---
> Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kcoyle.net
> ph.: 510-540-7596   skype: kcoylenet
> fx.: 510-848-3913
> mo.: 510-435-8234
> 

Re: [RDA-L] Expression and Manifestation

[Harden, Jean]

> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access /
> Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan
> Rochkind
> Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 3:09 PM
> To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Expression and
> Manifestation
>
> author-title added entry can be used for (at
> least) TWO different functions:
>
> 1) A pre-existing work
> 2) An included work ("analytic" entry).
>
> The thing used for both of these is called an
> "author title added
> entry". And put in the 700.

Yes.

...

> There is _sort of_ MARC indicator to
> distinguish which purpose the
> linking data (ie, identifier -- that's still
> what I say an author-title
> entry is, although Karen disagrees) in 700 is
> being used for.  Second
> indicator "2" means it is an analytical entry
> (ie, not a related work,
> but a contained work). Second indicator blank
> means... it could be
> either. These are the only options. And the
> 2nd indicator isn't
> generally even used for analytic entries in
> our actual corpus, because
> after all leaving it blank ("no information
> provided") is perfectly
> accurate...
>
...

In my experience (in music), the second indicator 2 for analytic entries is 
consistently used. I don't know whether any current online catalogs pay 
attention to this indicator - ours doesn't - but the indicator is there.

> Jonathan
>

Jean Harden, Music Catalog Librarian
Libraries
University of North Texas
PO Box 305190
Denton, TX  76203-5190
(940) 565-2860
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: One more question: RDA development tracking

[Harden, Jean]

Try http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/rda.html

This doubtless doesn't have everything you need (for instance, I don't believe 
it has any vendor information, by which I presume you mean ILS vendors), but it 
has a lot.


Jean Harden, Music Catalog Librarian
Libraries
University of North Texas
PO Box 305190
Denton, TX  76203-5190
(940) 565-2860
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Karen Schneider
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 1:10 PM
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] One more question: RDA development tracking

One more question. I'm tracking RDA for my organization and reporting
back key developments, any known timelines and deadlines that are
available, vendor actions, FRBR, the DC working group, etc. Before I
reinvent the wheel, is there any one spot that is already consolidating
this information?

(Thanks--now I'll really retreat to my corner!)

Karen G. Schneider
Research & Development
College Center for Library Automation
http://www.cclaflorida.org
Voice: 850-922-3159
AIM/Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]