[RDA-L] French-language book, cataloged using English, with summary in French
RDA-L readers, The language of the cataloging agency is English. Some agencies might have more than one language of cataloging, but I don't know if that's permissible or advisable within an individual record. In a private response, someone said to put the summary in quotation marks. But I don't know if it is a quotation or not. The summary was already in the record when I first accessed it. Yes, if you can read the summary then you can read the book, and vice versa. That doesn't help the selector (whether librarian or patron) who doesn't read the language of the summary or book but must nevertheless decide, from the record, whether the book is of interest. I did not delete the summary field from the OCLC master. Nor did I replace it with what Google Translate came up with. My own translation would be an improvement on that, but I shouldn't boast so much, and didn't do it. And it doesn't bother me :-) though it will likely bother someone. - Ian Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - ifairclough43...@yahoo.com
[RDA-L] French-language book, cataloged using English, with summary in French
RDA-L readers, In hand: a book in French, cataloged using the English language. Except for the summary, which is in French, and was likely lifted from another source. I see nothing under7.10 Summarizationof the Content to comment on the advisability of including a summary that is in another language than that of the cataloging agency, nor in the LC-PCC PS. Please provide direction to any pertinent documentation. Also, please reply to the list (preferably). Thanks - Ian Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - ifairclough43...@yahoo.com
[RDA-L] Duets
RDA-L readers, A search by ti:duets retrieved 1,616 results. Here are some cases of duet and its cognates appearing in part of a title in a name authority record: Arban, J.-B. ǂq (Jean-Baptiste), ǂd 1825-1889. ǂt Méthode complète de cornet à pistons et de saxhorn. ǂp Duets, ǂm cornets Busch, Adolf ǂd 1891-1952. ǂt Hausmusik. ǂp Duett, ǂn no. 1 Clementi, Muzio, ǂd 1752-1832. ǂt Duet, sonatas, and fugues, ǂn op. 6. ǂp DuetErbach, Friedrich Karl, ǂc Graf zu, ǂd 1680-1731. ǂt Divertimenti armonici. ǂp Duetti I'm not sure whether these examples relate to Maliheh Dorkhosh's question, or Mark Ehlert's answer. Sincerely - Ian Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - ifairclough43...@yahoo.com
[RDA-L] illustrations (black and white)
RDA-L readers, The statement illustrations (black and white) is to be found in some bibliographic records for print materials. The records are coded as RDA. RDA has: 7.17.1.3 RecordingColour Content If the content of the resource is in colours other than black and white or shades of grey, record the presence of colour using an appropriate term. Other instructions pertaining to specific types of material (still images, moving images, three-dimensional forms) provide for describing them as black and white, but I don't believe they apply to printed books. (If I'm missing something please advise.) This poses a minor problem. I'm upgrading such a record. Technically the phrase black and white doesn't belong in an OCLC master record, though a cataloging agency might want to keep it locally. Do I delete the phrase? Alternatively, the RDA instruction can be adjusted to provide for specifying black and white for printed matter rather than just still images, etc. Incidentally: The LC-PCC PS tells us to use the spelling color, a recommendation I would urge upon my fellow Brits. One less character to (mis)type! Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - ifairclough43...@yahoo.com
[RDA-L] RDA CIP
RDA-L readers, Sometimes CIP for a previous edition is printed. In such cases you can take pertinent data, such as the LCCN (which is invalid, and should be coded so using subfield z, but is nevertheless usable as a search key) and include it in the record for the book in hand. Once I had a Spanish translation of an English-language book for which the Library of Congress had prepared CIP. The translator translated the entire book - CIP and all! For a while I wondered if LC had done it. - Ian Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - ifairclough43...@yahoo.com
[RDA-L] Use of square brackets for supplied imprint statements
RDA-L readers, In my earlier post I deliberately began with please assume for the sake of argument. That is because I realised that some readers would find it hard to accept the RDA formulation, encoded with ISBD punctuation, on account of its wordiness plus the likelihood that some headway can be made with finding the actual data. I pretty much expected what has happened, namely that some of the response would redirect the discussion towards finding out information rather than documenting its absence and unavailability. My post was a straw man inasmuch as, knowing that it would be extremely rare to encounter a situation in which no information is available whatsoever I wondered how a statement formulated to accommodate that situation would actually look. So far, I've had several kind responses, particularly about the ISBD use of square brackets about which I specifically asked. But no one has criticized the actual RDA statement as I drew it up. So I think it's properly formulated. Finding materials requiring such description might be as rare as an aircraft landing on water, but in the unlikely event, it looks like we'll all know what to do. Without ISBD there would be no requirement for brackets or other punctuation. The data would simply be recorded. So in a post-ISBD world, you could wind up with this: Place of publication not identified publisher not identified date of publication not identified These statements would not necessarily be displayed in a catalog, other than to library staff and/or patrons with a need to know. In a consultation with a group of public library technical services staff last month, they responded that the RDA statement was preferable to AACR2's [S.l. : s.n., 19--?] Perhaps a data clean-up is in the works to map each of the elements in AACR2 to the respective RDA statement. Sincerely - Ian Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - ifairclough43...@yahoo.com
[RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date
RDA-L readers, Mac Elrod said: SLC agrees with the various guidelines (LC, PCC) that one should use the single year in 008 and 26X as on the item. We consider the book to be published when the publisher said it was, and the item received before January to be an early release, common for review copies. We should describe items as they present themselves. Remember the flap when some libraries who had advance copies of a Harry Potter, allowed people to see them in advance? When no publication date appears on a book, then the item has not presented itself as having one, to use Mac's phrase. The copyright date is not the publication date. I have yet to see a book with a statement First published in ... or the unadorned year on the title page with any year later than the current one, regardless of the fact that copyright years often are later. It appears that confusion has arisen between the roles of distribution and publication. Data about the actual date of publication, with month and day as well as year, are made available to all concerned. I believe that Publisher's Weekly is the tool used in the trade (correction requested). The book does not legally get sold in bookstores or lent in libraries prior to the publication date. But it can be distributed at an earlier date. Indeed, distribution must occur for bookstores to have thebook available on publication date. The case of Harry Potter involved distribution, not publication. The books were distributed to libraries, who were allowed to have the book in advance of publication, fully processed and ready to lend, but were prohibited from releasing the book until the stroke of midnight on the date of publication. The Harry Potter case is not the only one: I have had other materials arrive at my desk with notice not to release them until a specific date. In talking about an early release there's also a danger of confusion with releases labeled Advance uncorrected proof, etc., which are NOT the same as the published book. There's no need for the phrase early release. Rather, an understanding of the relationship between distribution and publication covers the Harry Potter scenario and similar ones. But if you have received the book with no restriction on the date on which it may be released for use, it has most probably been published and is ready for public use. I have been wondering how and why this situation concerning publication in a year yet to come arose, and why LCPCCPS was written the way it is. Perhaps the situation developed from an attempt in LCPCCPS to make RDA easier to use while fulfilling the instruction to supply a missing publication date, something not required in AACR2 nor LCRI, as in the following. Here are instructions from AACR2: 1.4F6: If the dates of publication, distribution, etc., are unknown, give the copyright date or, in its absence, the date of manufacture (indicated as such) in its place. LCRI 1.4F6 says If the item contains only a copyright date, give the copyright date. The corresponding instruction in RDA 2.8.6.6: If the date of publication is not identified in the single-part resource, supply the date or approximate date of publication. LCPCCPS 2.8.6.6 has If the copyright date is for the year following the year in which the publication is received, supply a date of publication that corresponds to the copyright date. Unlike RDA, AACR2 does not instruct to supply a publication date. Perhaps because RDA has that instruction, and because of the association of the copyright date with the publication date in a manner fostered by AACR2, the LCPCCPS was written the way it is. Maybe someone can clarify further. I wonder who is required to follow LCPCCPS. To my knowledge OCLC does not require that, unlike the expectation to follow both AACR2 and LCRI in days gone by. LCPCCPS clearly states what to do, for those who require instruction that does not require cataloger's judgment. Perhaps this LCPCCPS was formulated as a time-saving device, intending to parallel AACR2/LCRI. However, it does not parallel them exactly. Sincerely - Ian Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - ifairclough43...@yahoo.com
[RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date
RDA-L readers, To address Adam Schiff's concern about how scholars will cite a publication. We as catalogers are contributing to that very scholarship when we document the actual publication date. If scholars care to consult our records, they can correct the false impression that the copyright date creates. Envisage this scenario: A scholar is required to have had a publication during a certain year. The catalog can attest to the fact, when the book itself does not. Perhaps the next development in this train of thought is that the meaning ofpublished doesn't cover the fact that the book is in print and available to the public. In this scenario, the book can't possibly have been published in 2013, since it is copyright 2014. It must therefore be published in 2014, as LC PCC PS mandates be recorded. A question mark is irrelevant: we know that its publication date is 2014, just as we know that the book now exists (in 2013) but has not yet been published. If this argument is valid, it is an exercise in making a word mean what you want it to mean. Not thinking that way just yet? Don't worry, you'll get it once the new meaning has been adopted in common parlance, among catalogers if not among the population at large. There's another case in LC PCC PS where the meaning of the word published has been interpreted so that we are instructed to record materials as published when they are in fact restricted to a small, select group of recipients. 2.8.1.1 Treat privately printed resources as published resources ... Have we catalogers lost sight of the meaning of published as made publicly available? Here's a definition from Wikipedia: Publishing is the process of production and dissemination of literature, music, or information — the activity of making information available to the general public. - Ian P.S. Anyone read The Gutenberg Galaxy recently? Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - ifairclough43...@yahoo.com
[RDA-L] Victoria
RDA-L readers, A little more grist for the mill. While recording Victoria in field 370 of a NAR, I spent a little time looking for the qualifier. Turns out that the Australian state doesn't have one, see n 79046608. The conclusion: it, and it alone, is the unqualified Victoria. So, perhaps it should be recorded as: 370 Australia--Victoria (But DCM Z1 370 says nothing of the sort!) My understanding is that Victoria is a neighborhood in London adjoining the eponymous rail and coach stations along Buckingham Palace Road. If you find an authority record for it, you deserve high honor, if not reward. Sincerely - Ian Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - ifairclough43...@yahoo.com
[RDA-L] Victoria
RDA-L readers, Thanks to Adam Schiff for his correction. All is now clear - perhaps. Once again, I feel like I've been booby-trapped. Like many aspects of contemporary cataloging, mine was an error just waiting to happen. DCM Z1 370 has: Use the established form of the geographic place name as found in the LC/NAF, with the same adjustments as when using the place name as a parenthetical qualifier to names. (Note: The phrase parenthetical qualifier retrieves no results when used in the RDA Quick Search box.) 9.11.1.3 Recording Places of Residence has Record the place or places (town, city, province, state, and/or country) in which the person resides or has resided. Record the place name as instructed in chapter 16. Abbreviate the names of countries, states, provinces, territories, etc., as instructed in appendix B (B.11), as applicable. And yes, there in B.11, Victoria is abbreviated Vic. One can be quite clear about this, provided you've read and understood the instructions at the head: Use the abbreviations in table B.1 for the names of certain countries and for the names of states, provinces, territories, etc., of Australia, Canada, and the United States when the names are recorded: a) as part of the name of a place located in that state, province, territory, etc. (see 16.2.2.9) or other jurisdiction (see 16.2.2.11) b) as the name or part of the name of a place associated with a person (see 9.8–9.11) family (see 10.5), or corporate body (see 11.3). Do not abbreviate the name of a city or town even if it has the same name as a state, etc., listed in table B.1 (e.g., Washington, D.C. not Wash., D.C.). Do not abbreviate any place name that is not in the list. In my opinion this is AACR2 legacy thinking, and it's time to get rid of these abbreviations. If you must spell out approximately, when approx. and c. are in common usage in the English-speaking world, then abbreviating as Vic. for the supposed benefit of people some of whom won't even know it's an Australian state is not helpful. Good luck with compliance on this one. Is there now a chorus of Yes, we know! and We'll change those instructions as soon as we can!? - Ian P.S. I changed Victoria to Vic. in the draft NAR awaiting review. But I'm tempted to change it back :-) Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - ifairclough43...@yahoo.com
[RDA-L] examples to illustrate AACR2, ISBD, RDA, and MARC
RDA-L readers, Below are some examples to illustrate the relationships between AACR2, ISBD punctuation, RDA, and MARC. I would be grateful if you would look them over and let me know if anything seems not in proper accordance. Comments, criticisms and corrections are eagerly awaited! Note: for illustrative purposes I've doctored up the data from the actual book that serves as the basis for these examples, to illustrate the different treatment in heading and transcription. The author does not to my knowledge have a doctorate :-) - Ian Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - ifairclough43...@yahoo.com AACR2 Bib Record with MARC Coding 1001 Margolis, Michael, ǂc Ph. D. 24510 Make an Arduino-controlled robot / ǂc Michael Margolis. 250 1st ed. 260 Sebastopol, Calif. : ǂb O'Reilly Pub., ǂc c2013. 300 xvi, 238 p. : ǂb ill. (chiefly col.) ; ǂc 24 cm. RDA Bib Record with MARC Coding 1001 Margolis, Michael ǂc (Computer scientist) ǂe author ǂ4 aut 24510 Make an Arduino-controlled robot / ǂc Michael Margolis, Ph. D. 250 First edition. 264 1 Beijing : ǂb O'Reilly Publishers, ǂc [2013] 264 4 ©2013 300 xvi, 238 pages : ǂb illustrations (chiefly color) ; ǂc 24 cm 336 text ǂ2 rdacontent 337 unmediated ǂ2 rdamedia 338 volume ǂ2 rdacarrier AACR2 Bib Record without MARC Coding Margolis, Michael, Ph. D. Make an Arduino-controlled robot / Michael Margolis. -- 1st ed. -- Sebastopol, Calif. : O'Reilly Pub., c2013. xvi, 238 p. : ill. (chiefly col.) ; 24 cm. RDA Bib Record with ISBD Punctuation but without MARC Coding Margolis, Michael (Computer scientist) author. Make an Arduino-controlled robot / Michael Margolis, Ph. D. -- First edition. -- Beijing : O'Reilly Publishers, [2013], ©2013 xvi, 238 pages : illustrations (chiefly color) ; 24 cm RDA Bib Record without ISBD Punctuation Margolis, Michael (Computer scientist) author Make an Arduino-controlled robot Michael Margolis, Ph. D. First Edition Beijing O'Reilly Publishers [2013] ©2013 xvi, 238 pages illustrations (chiefly color) 24 cm
Re: [RDA-L] RDA instructions for accompanying material?
RDA-L readers, A correspondent has sent the following privately: See RDA 3.1.4 and the associated LCPS for several options. If you choose to describe the accompanying material, LCPS says you can either use a $e in the 300 of the primary content, or use a second 300 altogether. You can also repeat the 336/337/338 fields for accompanying material, with an explanatory $3. Hopefully RDA Toolkit will shortly include links to 3.1.4 from AACR2 1.5E and RDA Appendix D.2.1 field 300e. Sincerely - Ian Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - ifairclough43...@yahoo.com
[RDA-L] eBooks Playaways
RDA-L readers, Thanks to Mark Ehlert for the correction to my earlier post. Here are the instructions he refers to. Curiously, 3.2.1.3 has a table, but 3.3.1.3 does not. 6.9.1.3 has a table and also a link from the sentence to the head of the table. 3.2.1.3 RecordingMedia Type: If none of the terms listed in table 3.1 apply to the carrier of the resource being described, record other. If the media type or types applicable to the resource being described cannot be readily ascertained, record unspecified. 3.3.1.3 RecordingCarrier Type: If none of the terms listed above apply to the carrier or carriers of the resource being described, record other. If the carrier type or types applicable to the resource being described cannot be readily ascertained, record unspecified. 6.9.1.3 RecordingContent Type If none of the terms listed in table 6.1 apply to the content of the resource being described, record other. If the content type applicable to the resource being described cannot be readily ascertained, record unspecified. - Ian
[RDA-L] Double punctuation (was: Numbered and Unnumbered Sequences)
RDA-L readers, Just a follow-up to Mac Elrod's post. I sent the original message in a state of being almost sure that I was looking at an erroneous situation. After reading the responses, I became completely sure. Thanks to all of you who've responded to my several posts over the last 24 hours. My three-hour workshop RDA and the Local Library is now at the fine-tune tinker-with-the-Power-Point stage. You may be interested to know that I have no plans to mention FRBR or WEMI! Special thanks to Gene Fieg for this suggestion. Sincerely - Ian Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - ifairclough43...@yahoo.com
[RDA-L] Numbered and Unnumbered Sequences
RDA-L readers, I found this as a pagination statement: [xvii], 219 pages The source has no initial sequence with roman numerals. I have not found instructions for use of brackets with supplied page numbering. Nor does the bibliographic record refer elsewhere to unnumbered preliminary pages. Please tell: is use of a supplied and bracketed-in sequence such as this covered in any RDA documentation? I'd expect it to be found here: 3.4.5.3.1 Numbered and Unnumbered Sequences Thanks - Ian Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - ifairclough43...@yahoo.com
[RDA-L] eBooks Playaways
RDA-L readers: Granted that a Playaway can be judged as unmediated. But nevertheless, something that arose earlier in this discussion caught my attention: the suggested use of other with media type audio. Surely other is only established as controlled vocabulary for use when 338 = unmediated? I do not see other listed under other media types, unless I missed something. I don't like that - but am I right, that's the way things are? Sincerely - Ian Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - ifairclough43...@yahoo.com
[RDA-L] RDA instructions for accompanying material?
RDA-L readers, Final comment for the night :-) RDA does not seem to handle accompanying material, such as a DVD disc published with a book, in quite the way of the past. If you try the easy way of going to AACR2 1.5E and clicking on the RDA link, it takes you to27.1.1.3 Referencing Related Manifestations (where an LC PCC PS link appears to be addressing a totally different concern.). I saw nothing in RDA advising to add a description of the disc after the description of the book. I tried another easy way, via Appendix D.2.1 Mapping of MARC 21 Bibliographic to RDAunder field 300e, only to be directed to the same RDA instruction. My view of this scenario is that both AACR2 and MARC represent a view of accompanying material that must eventually be deprecated in favor of RDA's approach. But that is pretty radical talk. I found an example of an RDA record where accompanying material has been handled in field 300e as in the past, and it was investigation of this situation that led me to my failure to find instructions in support thereof. Am I right? Or am I missing something? Sincerely - Ian Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - ifairclough43...@yahoo.com
Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
RDA-L readers, Jenifer Marquardt asked Why is the corrected version of any 245 with an error put in the MARC field 246 rather than in the 240? Field 240, Uniform Title, is always associated with a 1XX field. If no 1XX field is present, the data is tagged 130. Thus, field 240 is always an appendage to an *author* field, a name heading plus uniform title (in AACR2-speak), that is, a name-title entry (in more common parlance among catalogers). See http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd240.html Uniform title for an item when the bibliographic description is entered under a main entry field that contains a personal (field 100), corporate (110), or meeting (111) name. Field 246, on the other hand, is a Varying Form of Title field: Varying forms of the title appearing on different parts of an item or a portion of the title proper, or an alternative form of the title when the form differs substantially from the title statement in field 245 and if they contribute to the further identification of the item. http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd246.html In terms of literary warrant: The corrected form of title often lacks it, in the sense that the title as transcribed, error and all, is the only existing warrant. The cataloger is exercising judgment in providing a correction. That is different from establishing the corrected title as a uniform title. You really should have justification in a documentable source in order to do that. RDA does not give instruction on using [sic] (in contrast to AACR2 1.0F1) and there are various reasons why doing so is a good/bad idea. So no wonder we argue the case back and forth! My favorite example is a compact disc sound recording with title The Dutchess (actually, the name of the artist). That is not a typo, so it would not be appropriate to correct it. You can however add [sic] to indicate that you haven't introduced a typo in your transcription, in case anyone should wonder. But that has gone out of fashion, so to speak, along with use of other Latin abbreviations. Personally, I dislike the phrase Title should read. Who are we catalogers to tell people how their creations should read? I hope this helps. Does it answer the question? - Ian Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - ifairclough43...@yahoo.com
[RDA-L] Use of ISBD punctuation with RDA. And a workshop.
Dear RDA-L readers, On January 11th I asked a question (subject: question about dates in 264 fields) about the use of brackets and periods, and received several responses, most memorably from Deborah Fritz (who provided pertinent technical documentation) and Mac Elrod (who among all the respondents most closely answered the questions, which were phrased as What would you do ...). Also, in response to a more recent question (subject: cross training) I posted a list of MARC fields that I add to each RDA record in progress. In that list, I included field 300, and ended it with cm. That's right, cm. In so doing, I had in mind the likelihood of a response, which I indeed received. I had actually read up in ISBD prior to posting that message. John Hostage and I corresponded for a while about ISBD punctuation, and I found his response helpful and encouraging. Few people will care about this seemingly trivial issue, use of the period following the symbol for centimeters.But some people are likely to be perplexed. For example, some catalogers, used to the red pen of the revisor, and inded in some cases, points deducted for such transgressions as omission or inclusion of a punctuation mark, might wonder what is going on. In writing this message, however, I'm thinking of a different set of people. I am in the process of preparing a workshop RDA and the Local Library (with the support of George Mason University libraries, whose Professional Development Committee kindly awarded me research leave for this project). It is to be presented in the first instance at Norweld, a regional library support office, in Bowling Green, Ohio, a fortnight from today. No I am not expecting an influx of RDA-L readers to sign up! Though you would be welcome. Rather, this workshop is oriented to situations where people will encounter RDA records without actually writing the records themselves, particularly small public libraries. Will they need to know about periods at the end of fields, and ISBD punctuation? I doubt it. You can help me here. Imagine yourself as an ordinary public library user. Will RDA implementation affect him? My plan is to reassure the attendees. Don't worry, it's going to be all right. All comments gratefully received. Sincerely - Ian Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - ifairclough43...@yahoo.com
[RDA-L] Cross training
RDA-L readers, Paul Davey asks about cross-training from AACR2 to RDA. Since so many available resources are overwhelming, I'm providing one here that you might find underwhelming :-) Here are some fields that I have in a Word document and simply copy into any bib record that I'm updating to RDA, or create originally. 264 0 Production 264 1 Publication 264 2 Distribution 264 3 Manufacture 264 4 ǂc © 300 pages : ǂb illustrations ; ǂc cm. 336 text ǂ2 rdacontent 337 unmediated ǂ2 rdamedia 338 volume ǂ2 rdacarrier Paul: since you say you'll be working originally with monographs, the 33X data should be appropriate in most cases. You have to remember to delete illustrations when there aren't any! As well as the 264 fields you don't use. You can also add ǂe rda in field 040. As well as subfield e to name headings, for roles, such as author and editor. This little template is, of course, no substitute for understanding RDA instructions. One concern is that many people won't have access to RDA itself. People in small libraries around the world will likely get most of their RDA bib records via a supplier, but will wind up making do with workaround solutions for situations such as cataloging local materials. - Ian Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - ifairclough43...@yahoo.com
Re: [RDA-L] RDA Update Forum at ALA MW
Sunday, January 27th, from AM/PM to ___ On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Abbas, June M. jmab...@ou.edu wrote: Please join us for the following two sessions at ALA MW! RDA Update Forum The Cataloging and Metadata Management Section (CaMMS) and the RDA Conference Forums and Programs Task Force (TF) are co-sponsoring the ALA Midwinter RDA Update Forum. Please join us on January 27, 2013 in Rooms 606-607 in the Washington Seattle Convention Center for The Cataloging and Metadata Management Section (CaMMS) RDA Conference Forums and Programs Task Force (TF) ALA Annual RDA Update Forum. Panelists will outline steps being taken in preparation for implementation of RDA in March 2013. Scheduled presenters include: Beacher Wiggins (Library of Congress), Phil Schreur (Chair PCC), Glenn Patton (OCLC), John Attig (JSC update), and Troy Linker (ALA Publishing). RDA Conference Forums and Programs Taskforce Planning meeting Please also join us for the RDA Conference Forums and Programs Taskforce planning meeting directly following the RDA Update Forum on January 27, 2013. The Taskforce will meet in the Washington Seattle Convention Center Room 208 from 4:30 - 5:30 to discuss sessions we are planning at ALA Annual. All are welcome and we appreciate your feedback and ideas. June June Abbas, Ph.D. Associate Professor School of Library and Information Studies College of Arts and Sciences The University of Oklahoma 401 W. Brooks, Bizzell Library Norman, OK 73069 405-325-3921 jmab...@ou.edu
[RDA-L] RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee response to PCC Relationship Designator Guidelines TG Report
Mac Elrod said Codes are a better solution when records need to be exported in more than one language. Actually it should be just as easy to perform the necessary translation from one English term to the equivalent in another language as it is to take a code and change to a word in any language. For example: Computer reads: prf Computer translates to: performer [for English-language context] Computer reads: performer Computer translates to: performer [for English-language context] Computer reads: prf Computer translates to: [translation of performer in other language] Computer reads: performer Computer translates to: [translation of performer in other language] From a linguistic standpoint all verbal data is code. A Google search for code linguistic retrieves a few related documents. See for example the Wikipedia article code-switching http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code-switching The task is translation in either case, and a machine can perform such tasks. The only difference between using prf and using performer is that, in the second instance the translation is identical to the source data. Many spoken languages share textual characters, even when pronounced differently. Sincerely - Ian Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - ifairclough43...@yahoo.com
[RDA-L] Editor as main entry
Dear RDA-L readers, Although RDA to my knowledge makes no mention of the concept of main entry, discussion has taken place whether a heading for an editor might be tagged 100, effectively designating that heading as main entry. Among other concerns, cuttering is affected. CSM G 53 Determining the Call Number, section 2. Shelflisting, refers to ... a Cutter number, frequently based on the first word of the main entry, usually the author's surname. The work in hand has two editors, who might both be tagged 700, or one of them tagged 100 and the other 700. Please send any comments to RDA-L. Sincerely - Ian Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - ifairclough43...@yahoo.com
[RDA-L] Quick question about RDA 2.4.1.8
RDA-L readers, The second example might have the other title information and statement of responsibility data in more than one manner of presentation on a printed title page. If, as Benjamin Abrahamse has already given, it is presented on two lines: Another Tome a novel by John Smith Then it might be recorded as: a novel / by John Smith on the basis that there are two phrases, not one, on separate lines, the first being other title information, the second a statement of responsibility. But if the presentation is instead an integrated phrase on one line, thus: Another Tome a novel by John Smith Then it can be recorded as: a novel by John Smith as an integrated statement of responsibility. This is the practice indicated in RDA 2.4.1.8. Perhaps, with this rule, we are at long last getting away from the practice of carving up such statements by inserting a slash, as was done for most of the duration under AACR2. If the above is contradicted elsewhere in RDA, now would be a good time to say! Thanks - Ian Ian Fairclough - George Mason University - ifairclough43...@yahoo.com
[RDA-L] Warning about authority record numbers and headings - they DO change
Dear RDA-L readers, Adger Williams said in the discussion of Linked Files: We all do our authority updates by authority record numbers, which (by and large) don't change. Sometimes they do. Cases of name authority records representing first one person, then another of the same name, are recorded. What happens is that the unqualified name heading is created for the first person and that person alone. Then a namesake is added to that record, making it undifferentiated. Later on, information about the first person such as a date of birth is discovered, allowing differentiation and qualification of the first person. A new NAR is created for the first person, leaving the original unqualified NAR representing the second person. Since the two NARs have different numbers, the first person winds up having a change of record number as well as a change of heading. The first number winds up representing a different person with the unqualified heading. Alerts of specific cases are posted to the PERSNAME-L list (via which I discovered this situation) and can be found in the archives of that list. Ian Fairclough George Mason University ifairclough43...@yahoo.com 703-993-2938 (office) __
Fictitious characters as authors
Dear RDA-list readers, Previous discussion has taken place on OCLC-Cat. For the benefit of anyone interested, I'm reposting my e-mails to that list, from the archives http://listserv.oclc.org/archives/oclc-cat.html. (If other contributors to the discussion want to bring their writings to your attention, they can do so without my intervention!) - Ian Ian Fairclough Marion (Ohio) Public Library tel. 740-387-0994 x233 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:54:34 -0400 Jane Myers writes But why should they [i.e. the people out working with the public] have to keep track of which authors are fictitious and which are not? This is reminiscent of the ancient criterion capable of authorship for determining entry status. Regardless of whether or nay mice are capable of authorship, surely a fictitious mouse is not. But what is being suggested here? Main entry under fictitious character? Or a reference, tagged 400 as a personal name, in an authority record? The fact that the fictitious character is a mouse is a distraction from the essence of the question. Most fictitious characters are subjects and understood to be such. They are accessed via a subject search. Here, the fictitious character is presumably being searched as an author, so the search fails. Must it fail? What if Sherlock Holmes were to have someone ghost write his autobiography? Perhaps it's been done - or if not Holmes, a pseudo-autobiography of some other worthy though fictitious person (anyone who knows an example, please post to the list). Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:45:00 -0400 Responding to the person who said: Geronimo Stilton is not just a fictitious character; it is also a pseudonym. I disagree. In my humble opinion, people who think a person can be fictitious as well as pseudonymous are confused. As lawyers would say, Produce the body. The existence of a body, dead or alive, is the test to determine whether a person is real or fictitious. A pseudonym does not represent a fictitious character, but a real one, having a body. A fictitious person has no body -- and the resemblance of any real person, living or deceased, is entirely coincidental. Perhaps, rather than focusing on access, we should consider the educational role of our profession with respect to fictitious persons (or mice). If someone, be it a circulation clerk or a customer, does not know who Geronimo Stilton is, librarians (broadly speaking) should educate that person. If someone searches for the author Geronimo Stilton and doesn't find any books written by said mouse, that person receives an educational benefit. Geronimo Stilton didn't author any books. The fact that an author search for Geronimo Stilton fails is in itself educational. That's a good thing. An author search should retrieve works written by those capable of authorship, not by those who aren't. Show me a mouse that has authored a book, and I'll write you an authority record for it. (Don't worry, I don't contribute to NACO.) Perhaps there really was an actual mouse with that name, presumably by now dead (in which case, should one add dates of birth and death to the heading for a dead mouse? Just kidding, folks!). __ Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:03:21 -0400 In a private communication a correspondent has noted that a name can be a pseudonym as well as in use for a fictitious person (or mouse). A human whose real name is unknown but who has adopted the pseudonym Geronimo Stilton has, if I understand correctly, used the same name for the character of the fictitious mouse. This person has also authored a cookbook. This being the case, the heading Stilton, Geronimo, as established in n 2005053414, is a valid name heading. It's unfortunate that the record, which Kenichi Tsuda has kindly posted for use to review, has no mention of either the pseudonymous status nor the relationship to the fictitious mouse. A separate heading is appropriate as a subject heading. And such a heading is to be found! sh2005002661 HEADING: Stilton, Geronimo (Fictitious character) 000 00686cz 2200229n 450 001 6521379 005 20050518235852.0 008 050422 | anannbabn |a ana 035 __ |a (DLC)6521379 035 __ |a (DLC)sh2005002661 035 __ |a (DLC)329130 906 __ |t 0520 |u te04 |v 0 010 __ |a sh2005002661 040 __ |a DLC |b eng |c DLC 150 __ |a Stilton, Geronimo (Fictitious character) 450 __ |a Geronimo Stilton (Fictitious character) 670 __ |a Work cat.: The curse of the cheese pyramid, 2004. 670 __ |a Paws off, cheddarface!, 2004. 670 __ |a A fabumouse vacation for Geronimo, c2004. 952 __ |a 0 bib. record(s) to be changed 952 __ |a SCM H 1610 953 __ |a ym09 I sincerely hope that these authority records have NOT been deleted. Though modification, by addition of notes clarifying the relationship, if not of cross-references, would help stave off some of the confusion. I stand by what I previously wrote about a name being a pseudonym if a (human) body is represented and fictitious
