Re: [RDA-L] RDA Toolkit Price Change

[Julie Moore]

Melissa,
Perhaps as a consultant you can speak to directors/deans of libraries with
that "DUH" attitude, but I can say that as a cataloger, I would never
approach my dean with that attitude. As James stated, there are *always*
"options" ... and in this economic environment where we are being stretched
too thin, administrators do have to plan on figuring out what to let go of
in order to pay for X ... and I do value being employed! :-)
Julie


On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Melissa Powell wrote:

> This cataloging consultant/trainer who works with small libraries is piping
> in.  I am grateful for the price reduction for the rest of us--with the new
> pricing structure I can actually get RDA access to these small and rural
> libraries.
>
> On the other hand: makes it tough for us on the consortial level because
> the
> costs have changed for larger places..
>
> As far as the comment early in this discussion about how hard it was to
> convince administrators, here is where we as catalogers need to be better
> about communicating what we do.  There is no 'choice', the rules have
> changed.  This is the first step to compliance with the rest of the
> information industry.
>
> When I tell directors that, they are shocked.  Duh.  Then they comply.
>
>
> Melissa
> "What will kill our profession is not ebooks, Amazon, or Google, but a lack
> of Imagination". R. David Lankes
>
> Melissa M. Powell, MLIS
> Independent Librarian
> www.biblioease.com
> 970-218-4753
>
> Webcast Producer/Publishers Weekly
> Instructor/Lyrasis
> Editor/Biblio Tech Review
>
> LinkedIn
> Facebook
> Twitter
> Skype: thelibrarygirl
> Google+: Melissa Powell
> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer
> Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 5:42 AM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA Toolkit Price Change
>
> On 11/23/2013 12:53 AM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
> 
> > James said:
> >> Of course, when the time comes for retrospective conversion of the
> >> millions of records in that awful, terrible "legacy data" ...
> > Surely you jest.  Most of our library clients prefer the "awful
> > terrible 'legacy data'" to the strange (to them) RDA records.  Our
> > AACR2 compatible export is very popular.
> >
> > Most of our e-publisher and aggregator clients feel they must be "with
> > it", and go with the new standard.
> 
>
> Yes, I am joking. But if we are to make all of these relators and
> relationships useful for the public, the simple undeniable fact is:
> incredible retrospective conversions will have to be done and I have never
> heard of estimates of how much those will cost. The RDA subscriptions are
> peanuts by comparison. Was any of that discussed during the decision making
> for RDA? Maybe it wasn't discussed then, but it sure will be in the future!
> You can only ignore it for so long.
>
> Catalogers, of all people, should know that if you decide to make a new
> index, e.g. "actor" or "editor", it is not enough to say that all new
> records will now have that coding because the search *cannot* find it in
> the
> earlier records of your database. That is why I keep saying that the
> misnamed "legacy data" is so awful and terrible. Nobody wants to talk about
> it so: it's off the agenda. It's more fun to come up with new relator terms
> than to figure out if they of any real use and what the consequences will
> be
> for that "legacy data" (that we don't discuss).
>
> --
> James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com First Thus
> http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
> First Thus Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus
> Cooperative Cataloging Rules
> http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
> Cataloging Matters Podcasts
> http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
>



-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Head of Cataloging
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

“Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from
themselves.”... James Matthew Barrie

[RDA-L] Cost of Retrospective Conversion for Legacy Data (Was RDA Toolkit Price Change)

[Julie Moore]

James Weinheimer wrote:
But if we are to make all of these relators and relationships useful for
the public, the simple undeniable fact is: incredible retrospective
conversions will have to be done and I have never heard of estimates of how
much those will cost. The RDA subscriptions are peanuts by comparison. Was
any of that discussed during the decision making for RDA? Maybe it wasn't
discussed then, but it sure will be in the future! You can only ignore it
for so long.

So let's talk about it! I'm curious about this, too! Has this been
considered? All I have ever heard was that RDA records would work fine with
other legacy records in our catalogs.

Julie Moore

-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Head of Cataloging
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

“Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from
themselves.”... James Matthew Barrie

Re: [RDA-L] RDA Toolkit Price Change

[Julie Moore]

Are you serious?! This is outrageous! Do you know how difficult it was to
lobby to get RDA Toolkit for our libraries in the first place? (Many
administrators did not really see the need to move from AACR2 to RDA in the
first place.) I thought the pricing was high before -- for a basic tool
that every cataloger needs. This comes at a time when many libraries are
experiencing a crisis in cataloging -- where administrators are looking for
reasons to completely get rid of technical services and outsource
everything. And now we have to come back with this price structure for a
basic tool? RDA is going to be the death of us catalogers!

This is not only a problem for large libraries, but also medium libraries.
This pricing is going to squeeze libraries out of the market. Catalogers
who cannot cough up this kind of money will either have to buy the paper
and live with a far less superior version of RDA than the Toolkit ... or
just catalog blindly without access to the rules.
This is *VERY* disappointing.

Julie Moore
Head of Cataloging
California State University, Fresno


On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 6:59 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller <
wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote:

>  Isn't it amazing that *nobody* has commented on the new prices for the
> RDA Toolkit?
>
> Looking at http://www.rdatoolkit.org/content/2014pricechange, I had a
> short moment of mirth when I noticed that the symbol for the British pound
> is used for the Euro prices as well (let's wait and see whether it will be
> corrected now). But then the laughter stuck in my throat when I started to
> calculate.
>
> We are told that the new pricing model will be cheaper for small
> libraries. Indeed, there is a reduction for up to two concurrent users.
> Compare the new prices with the old ones (given in brackets):
>
> * only one person needing the toolkit: $ 180 ($ 195)
> * 1 concurrent user: $ 180 ($ 325)
> * 2 concurrent users: $ 342 ($ 380)
>
> Note that there is a considerable benefit if you need one concurrent user.
> However, If there is only one cataloger anyway, or if two concurrent users
> are needed, the reduction is not a large one.
>
> If, however, an institution needs more than two concurrent users, there is
> a substantial rise in prices - and it gets higher and higher the more users
> are needed. Again, compare the new prices with the old ones (given in
> brackets):
>
> * 3 concurrent users: $ 513 ($ 435)
> * 4 concurrent users: $ 684 ($ 490)
> * 5 concurrent users: $ 835 ($ 545)
> * 6 concurrent users: $ 1002 ($ 545)
> * 8 concurrent users: $ 1336 ($ 600)
> * 10 concurrent users: $ 1620 ($ 825)
> * 15 concurrent users: $ 2370 ($ 1075)
> * 20 concurrent users: $ 3060 ($ 1225)
> * 25 concurrent users: $ 3825 ($ 1450)
>
> Try as I may, I can't see how the new pricing model "will more fairly
> distribute the cost of subscription across all sizes of institutions". What
> I see instead is a drastic rise in prices which will hit every library
> which needs more than two concurrent users.
>
> My guess is that many larger libraries won't be able or willing to buy the
> number of concurrent users which would be needed according to the number of
> catalogers.
>
> Heidrun
>
>
> On 13.11.2013 21:14, schrieb James Hennelly:
>
>  Effective January 1, 2014 RDA Toolkit will be extending a new pricing
> model for site subscriptions. This change will make implementation of
>
> RDA: Resource Description Access more accessible for small cataloging
> departments and will more fairly distribute the cost of subscription across
> all sizes of institutions. Learn more at
> http://www.rdatoolkit.org/content/2014pricechange.
>
>
>
>
>
> James Hennelly
>
> Managing Editor
>
> ALA Digital Reference
>
> 1-800-545-2433, ext 5051, or 312-280-5051
>
> jhenne...@ala.org
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> -
> Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
> Stuttgart Media University
> Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germanywww.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
>
>


-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Head of Cataloging
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

“Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from
themselves.”... James Matthew Barrie

Re: [RDA-L] reprint relationships

[Julie Moore]

Adam,

This reminds me of my recent post on Autocat ... that uses the phrase
"Transferred to digital printing 2010." I guess I am still pondering
exactly what that means - and how this falls into the FRBR terms.

Julie

(Please excuse the cross-posting.)

Book in hand ...

Title: International organizations and implementation : enforcers,
managers, authorities
ISBN: 0415599660
Paperback
"Transferred to digital printing 2010." -- T.p. verso.

The ISBN brings up a several interesting records in OCLC, each with their
own problems. All of these had the date 2010.

When I did a title search, I found a DLC record that looked like a perfect
match to me although it had the ISBN for a hardback and an ebook, but not
the paperback, with the date of 2008. (I ended up adding our holdings to
this record #128236964, and I added the ISBN for the pbk in our local
catalog.)

My question is about that statement on the title page verso: "Transferred
to digital printing 2010." In my mind, this seems more like a printing
date, so I ignored it ... moving on to the publication date, 2008.

Has anyone seen that phrase before? "Transferred to digital printing
2010."-- And how are we to handle it?

Thanks kindly,
Julie Moore


On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Adam L. Schiff wrote:

> In RDA Appendix J "reprinted as" and "reprint of (manifestation)" are
> listed hierarchically under "reproduced as" and "reproduction of
> (manifestation)".  I have a 2010 large print edition of a book originally
> published in 2003.  The manifestation in hand says "This optimized
> ReadHowYouWant edition contains the complete, unabridged text of the
> original publisher's edition. Other aspects of the book may vary from the
> original edition."
>
> I was considering including a 775 field in the RDA record for the large
> print with the relationship designator "reprint of (manifestation)" and a
> description of the 2003 edition.  However large print editions are not
> reproductions, so the placement of "reprinted as (manifestation)"
> hierarchically under "reproduction of (manifestation)" seems suspect to me.
>
> Reprints are clearly equivalent manifestations, but not necessarily
> reproductions.  Shouldn't "reprinted as" and "reprint of (manifestation)"
> be taken out of the reproduction hierarchies in Appendix J?
>
> Adam
>
> ^^
> Adam L. Schiff
> Principal Cataloger
> University of Washington Libraries
> Box 352900
> Seattle, WA 98195-2900
> (206) 543-8409
> (206) 685-8782 fax
> asch...@u.washington.edu
> http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
> ~~
>



-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Head of Cataloging
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

“Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from
themselves.”... James Matthew Barrie

Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?

[Julie Moore]

Thanks, John ... this helps.

As a follow up question ...

in the instance where I am pretty sure that the item was published in 2013,
but there is no hint of a date anywhere ... is it OK for the cataloger to
record:

246 _1 $a xxx : $b yyy : $c [2013?]

Thanks kindly for your patience,
Julie


On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Myers, John F.  wrote:

>  Julie Moore wrote:
>
> Yes, it was the [197-?] scenario that I was thinking of, where there is
> nothing that tells you any kind of a date ... but you have the feeling that
> it was probably made in the 70s ... possibly just based on your own
> experience. I've been searching all over the place in RDA trying to find
> that ... so it's good to know that it simply is not there. As you say, one
> can always use the [between 1970 and 1979?] approach.
>
> 
>
> It is there.  RDA guidance 1.9.2 for Supplied Dates applies, as referenced
> in 2.8.6.6 “Date of Publication not Identified in a Single-Part Resource”
>
> In particular:
> 1.9.2.4  Probable Range of Years
> If the probable date falls within a range of years, record the range.
> Record between, followed by the earliest probable year, then and the latest
> probable year, followed by a question mark.
>
> EXAMPLE
> [between 1846 and 1853?]
> [between 1800 and 1899?]
> [between 1970 and 1979?]
> [between 1400 and 1600?]
>
>
> John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
> Schaffer Library, Union College
> Schenectady NY 12308
>
> mye...@union.edu
> 518-388-6623
>
>
>
>



-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Head of Cataloging
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

“Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from
themselves.”... James Matthew Barrie

Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?

[Julie Moore]

Bob ...

Yes, it was the [197-?] scenario that I was thinking of, where there is
nothing that tells you any kind of a date ... but you have the feeling that
it was probably made in the 70s ... possibly just based on your own
experience. I've been searching all over the place in RDA trying to find
that ... so it's good to know that it simply is not there. As you say, one
can always use the [between 1970 and 1979?] approach.

Thanks,
Julie


On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Robert Maxwell wrote:

>  You have to do something like “[between 2000 and 2010?]” (RDA 1.9.2.4)
> or “[between 2000 and 2010]” (RDA 1.9.2.5). The first would be if you think
> it’s some time between the two dates but aren’t sure—it might be earlier or
> later; the second would be if you know it’s some time between the two dates
> but don’t know the exact year. AACR2 formulations such as “18—“ or “197-“
> didn’t find their way into RDA.
>
> ** **
>
> Bob
>
> ** **
>
> Robert L. Maxwell
> Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept.
> 6728 Harold B. Lee Library
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> (801)422-5568
>
> "We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves
> to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Julie Moore
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 7:24 PM
>
> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?
>
> ** **
>
> Bob,
>
> Oh yes ... duh :-) ... I forgot the $c [date of publication not
> identified]! 
>
> ** **
>
>
> Are we still allowed to take a stab at the date if it's unknown ... for
> example, if there is absolutely no date on the item anywhere, but you're
> pretty sure it was published in this decade, is it OK to put $c [201?] in
> the 264 _1? (I catalog a lot of non-print materials ... and many have no
> date.) ... or is this where I just throw up my hands and evoke: $c [date
> of publication not identified]
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks for the guidance!
>
> Cheers,
> Julie Moore
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Robert Maxwell 
> wrote:
>
> Julie,
>
>  
>
> In addition to what Adam said, in current practice we are required to
> include subfields $a, $b, and $c in 264 _1 even if we’ve included “core if”
> elements later on, so your first example should read:
>
>  
>
> 264 #1 $a Syracuse, New York : $b [publisher not identified], $c [date of
> publication not identified]
> 264 #4 $c ©2009
>
>  
>
> But as Adam noted, it’s better to try to supply a date (as in your second
> example, which is fine). And actually, if you think about it, we probably
> never need to record “date of publication not identified” for a published
> item even if we have no evidence whatsoever about the date of publication,
> because we do know one thing: it was published before it got to us for
> cataloging, so you can always record, if nothing else, … $c [not after June
> 13, 2013]
>
>  
>
> (I know, I know, there’s the case where a publisher claims to have
> published something in 2014 and we receive it in 2013, proving that things
> sometimes get “published” after we get them, but let’s deal with that
> problem only if the publisher has explicitly put a future publication date
> on the piece—this has been extensively discussed before in this forum, I
> believe.)
>
>  
>
> Actually, I now have a question for the collective wisdom of the list. How
> do you code the MARC fixed date fields if you have a “not before” or a “not
> after” date of publication? I don’t see any explanation of this situation
> in the documentation for 008/06 – 008/14. I could possibly see using “q”
> and the date +  for a “not before” date, but what about a “not after”
> date? 
>
>  
>
> Bob
>
>  
>
> Robert L. Maxwell
> Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept.
> 6728 Harold B. Lee Library
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> (801)422-5568
>
> "We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves
> to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.
>
>  
>
> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Julie Moore
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 6:27 PM
>
>
> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> 

Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?

[Julie Moore]

Bob,

Oh yes ... duh :-) ... I forgot the $c [date of publication not
identified]!


Are we still allowed to take a stab at the date if it's unknown ... for
example, if there is absolutely no date on the item anywhere, but you're
pretty sure it was published in this decade, is it OK to put $c [201?] in
the 264 _1? (I catalog a lot of non-print materials ... and many have no
date.) ... or is this where I just throw up my hands and evoke: $c [date of
publication not identified]

Thanks for the guidance!

Cheers,
Julie Moore





On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Robert Maxwell wrote:

>  Julie,
>
> ** **
>
> In addition to what Adam said, in current practice we are required to
> include subfields $a, $b, and $c in 264 _1 even if we’ve included “core if”
> elements later on, so your first example should read:
>
> ** **
>
> 264 #1 $a Syracuse, New York : $b [publisher not identified], $c [date of
> publication not identified]
> 264 #4 $c ©2009
>
> ** **
>
> But as Adam noted, it’s better to try to supply a date (as in your second
> example, which is fine). And actually, if you think about it, we probably
> never need to record “date of publication not identified” for a published
> item even if we have no evidence whatsoever about the date of publication,
> because we do know one thing: it was published before it got to us for
> cataloging, so you can always record, if nothing else, … $c [not after June
> 13, 2013]
>
> ** **
>
> (I know, I know, there’s the case where a publisher claims to have
> published something in 2014 and we receive it in 2013, proving that things
> sometimes get “published” after we get them, but let’s deal with that
> problem only if the publisher has explicitly put a future publication date
> on the piece—this has been extensively discussed before in this forum, I
> believe.)
>
> ** **
>
> Actually, I now have a question for the collective wisdom of the list. How
> do you code the MARC fixed date fields if you have a “not before” or a “not
> after” date of publication? I don’t see any explanation of this situation
> in the documentation for 008/06 – 008/14. I could possibly see using “q”
> and the date +  for a “not before” date, but what about a “not after”
> date? 
>
> ** **
>
> Bob
>
> ** **
>
> Robert L. Maxwell
> Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept.
> 6728 Harold B. Lee Library
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> (801)422-5568
>
> "We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves
> to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Julie Moore
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 6:27 PM
>
> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?
>
> ** **
>
> If all that you have is the copyright date, then it should look like this,
> right?
>
> 264 #1 $a Syracuse, New York : $b [publisher not identified]
>
> 264 #4 $c ©2009
>
>  Is it OK or incorrect to add the copyright date in the 264 bracketed as
> an inferred date? So it would look like this:
>
> 264 #1 $a Syracuse, New York : $b [publisher not identified], $c [2009]
> 264 #4 $c ©2009
>
> Thanks for your guidance! 
>
> Best wishes,
> Julie
>
> ** **
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Adam L. Schiff 
> wrote:
>
> I think many catalogers feel that since the copyright date is present on
> the resource, they should record it even if they've given an inferred
> publication date in 264 _1 $c.  And some libraries have made it a local
> core element.  If it is present, I always record it.
>
> Adam Schiff
>
>
>
> ^^
> Adam L. Schiff
> Principal Cataloger
> University of Washington Libraries
> Box 352900
> Seattle, WA 98195-2900
> (206) 543-8409
> (206) 685-8782 fax
> asch...@u.washington.edu
> http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
> ~~
>
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Julie Moore wrote:
>
>  Follow up question ... why is it that I see the majority of RDA records
> with multiple 264s having the 264 _1 (publication) and 264 _4?
>
> Is this because the only date they have is a copyright date ... so they put
> the publisher info in the 264 _1 $a and $b and sometimes $c [copyright date
> -- so thus, and inferred publication date?] ... and then they are putting
> the copyright date in the 264 _4?
>
> Thanks,
> Julie Moore
>
>
>
>

Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?

[Julie Moore]

Thanks, Bob ...

It's getting a little clearer!

Julie :-)



On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Robert Maxwell wrote:

>  Julie,
>
> ** **
>
> Strictly speaking once you’ve recorded or supplied a date of publication
> (264 _1 $c) you have fulfilled the RDA core requirement and can quit.
> However, if there is in fact a date I found in the resource that I’ve used
> to infer the date of publication I like to include it in the description as
> evidence for my inference. So I usually include 264 _4 if I’ve deduced the
> publication date from a copyright date; if I’ve supplied it based on a
> manufacture date (e.g. a printing date) found in the resource I include 264
> _3. This is even though the date in 264 _4 or 264 _3 may be the same as the
> supplied publication date. I also usually record the copyright date even in
> cases where I’ve recorded an explicit publication date from the resource
> itself, if the copyright date is different from the publication date.
>
> ** **
>
> This is just an explanation of my own practice; it’s totally up to the
> cataloger’s judgment.
>
> ** **
>
> Bob
>
> ** **
>
> Robert L. Maxwell
> Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept.
> 6728 Harold B. Lee Library
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> (801)422-5568
>
> "We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves
> to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Julie Moore
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 5:21 PM
>
> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?
>
> ** **
>
> Follow up question ... why is it that I see the majority of RDA records
> with multiple 264s having the 264 _1 (publication) and 264 _4? 
>
> Is this because the only date they have is a copyright date ... so they
> put the publisher info in the 264 _1 $a and $b and sometimes $c [copyright
> date -- so thus, and inferred publication date?] ... and then they are
> putting the copyright date in the 264 _4?
>
> Thanks,
> Julie Moore
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Adam L. Schiff 
> wrote:
>
> Distribution would only be a core element if the publication element was
> not identified.  Manufacture would only be core element if neither the
> publication nor the distribution element was identified.  You COULD provide
> everything you know but if you have publication place, publisher, and date
> of publication, nothing else is required.
>
> ^^
> Adam L. Schiff
> Principal Cataloger
> University of Washington Libraries
> Box 352900
> Seattle, WA 98195-2900
> (206) 543-8409
> (206) 685-8782 fax
> asch...@u.washington.edu
> http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
> ~~
>
>
>
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Julie Moore wrote:
>
>  (My apologies for the cross-posting)
>
> Dear All,
>
> In trying to move beyond the inexplicable inconsistent "period" issue ...
>
> Now we have with the 264 the possibilities of:
> 2nd indicator entity functions of:
> 0 = Production
> 1 = Publication
> 2 = Distribution
> 3 = Manufacture Statements
> 4 = Copyright notice date
>
> Are we required to provide all if we have all? If not, which ones are
> required?
>
> I have noticed that in most cases, there is only a 1 (Publication) and a 4
> (copyright date).
>
> I would be grateful for some clarification on this.
>
> Best wishes,
> Julie Moore
>
>
>
> --
> Julie Renee Moore
> Head of Cataloging
> California State University, Fresno
> julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
> 559-278-5813
>
> ?Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from
>
> themselves.?... James Matthew Barrie
>
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> Julie Renee Moore
> Head of Cataloging
> California State University, Fresno
> julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
> 559-278-5813
> “Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from
> themselves.”
>
> ... James Matthew Barrie
>



-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Head of Cataloging
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

“Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from
themselves.”... James Matthew Barrie

Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?

[Julie Moore]

If all that you have is the copyright date, then it should look like this,
right?

264 #1 $a Syracuse, New York : $b [publisher not identified]
264 #4 $c ©2009

Is it OK or incorrect to add the copyright date in the 264 bracketed as an
inferred date? So it would look like this:

264 #1 $a Syracuse, New York : $b [publisher not identified], $c [2009]
264 #4 $c ©2009

Thanks for your guidance!

Best wishes,
Julie


On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Adam L. Schiff wrote:

> I think many catalogers feel that since the copyright date is present on
> the resource, they should record it even if they've given an inferred
> publication date in 264 _1 $c.  And some libraries have made it a local
> core element.  If it is present, I always record it.
>
> Adam Schiff
>
>
> ^^**
> Adam L. Schiff
> Principal Cataloger
> University of Washington Libraries
> Box 352900
> Seattle, WA 98195-2900
> (206) 543-8409
> (206) 685-8782 fax
> asch...@u.washington.edu
> http://faculty.washington.edu/**~aschiff<http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff>
> ~~~~~~**
>
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Julie Moore wrote:
>
>  Follow up question ... why is it that I see the majority of RDA records
>> with multiple 264s having the 264 _1 (publication) and 264 _4?
>>
>> Is this because the only date they have is a copyright date ... so they
>> put
>> the publisher info in the 264 _1 $a and $b and sometimes $c [copyright
>> date
>> -- so thus, and inferred publication date?] ... and then they are putting
>> the copyright date in the 264 _4?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Julie Moore
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Adam L. Schiff > >**wrote:
>>
>>  Distribution would only be a core element if the publication element was
>>> not identified.  Manufacture would only be core element if neither the
>>> publication nor the distribution element was identified.  You COULD
>>> provide
>>> everything you know but if you have publication place, publisher, and
>>> date
>>> of publication, nothing else is required.
>>>
>>> ^^
>>>
>>> Adam L. Schiff
>>> Principal Cataloger
>>> University of Washington Libraries
>>> Box 352900
>>> Seattle, WA 98195-2900
>>> (206) 543-8409
>>> (206) 685-8782 fax
>>> asch...@u.washington.edu
>>> http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff<http://faculty.washington.edu/**~aschiff>
>>> <http://faculty.**washington.edu/~aschiff<http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff>
>>> >
>>> ~~
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Julie Moore wrote:
>>>
>>>  (My apologies for the cross-posting)
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear All,
>>>>
>>>> In trying to move beyond the inexplicable inconsistent "period" issue
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Now we have with the 264 the possibilities of:
>>>> 2nd indicator entity functions of:
>>>> 0 = Production
>>>> 1 = Publication
>>>> 2 = Distribution
>>>> 3 = Manufacture Statements
>>>> 4 = Copyright notice date
>>>>
>>>> Are we required to provide all if we have all? If not, which ones are
>>>> required?
>>>>
>>>> I have noticed that in most cases, there is only a 1 (Publication) and
>>>> a 4
>>>> (copyright date).
>>>>
>>>> I would be grateful for some clarification on this.
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes,
>>>> Julie Moore
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Julie Renee Moore
>>>> Head of Cataloging
>>>> California State University, Fresno
>>>> julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
>>>> 559-278-5813
>>>>
>>>> ?Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from
>>>> themselves.?... James Matthew Barrie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> Julie Renee Moore
>> Head of Cataloging
>> California State University, Fresno
>> julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
>> 559-278-5813
>>
>> ?Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from
>> themselves.?... James Matthew Barrie
>>
>>


-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Head of Cataloging
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

“Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from
themselves.”... James Matthew Barrie

Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?

[Julie Moore]

Follow up question ... why is it that I see the majority of RDA records
with multiple 264s having the 264 _1 (publication) and 264 _4?

Is this because the only date they have is a copyright date ... so they put
the publisher info in the 264 _1 $a and $b and sometimes $c [copyright date
-- so thus, and inferred publication date?] ... and then they are putting
the copyright date in the 264 _4?

Thanks,
Julie Moore




On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Adam L. Schiff wrote:

> Distribution would only be a core element if the publication element was
> not identified.  Manufacture would only be core element if neither the
> publication nor the distribution element was identified.  You COULD provide
> everything you know but if you have publication place, publisher, and date
> of publication, nothing else is required.
>
> ^^**
> Adam L. Schiff
> Principal Cataloger
> University of Washington Libraries
> Box 352900
> Seattle, WA 98195-2900
> (206) 543-8409
> (206) 685-8782 fax
> asch...@u.washington.edu
> http://faculty.washington.edu/**~aschiff<http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff>
> ~~~~~~**
>
>
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Julie Moore wrote:
>
>  (My apologies for the cross-posting)
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> In trying to move beyond the inexplicable inconsistent "period" issue ...
>>
>> Now we have with the 264 the possibilities of:
>> 2nd indicator entity functions of:
>> 0 = Production
>> 1 = Publication
>> 2 = Distribution
>> 3 = Manufacture Statements
>> 4 = Copyright notice date
>>
>> Are we required to provide all if we have all? If not, which ones are
>> required?
>>
>> I have noticed that in most cases, there is only a 1 (Publication) and a 4
>> (copyright date).
>>
>> I would be grateful for some clarification on this.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Julie Moore
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Julie Renee Moore
>> Head of Cataloging
>> California State University, Fresno
>> julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
>> 559-278-5813
>>
>> ?Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from
>> themselves.?... James Matthew Barrie
>>
>>


-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Head of Cataloging
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

“Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from
themselves.”... James Matthew Barrie

Re: [RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?

[Julie Moore]

Thanks, Adam!

Got it! I have often heard these "core if" statements, but I wasn't sure if
you happened to have all of that info, if you should put all of them -- and
it sounds like you could if you wanted to, but it's not required.

Thanks for clearing this up.

Best wishes,
Julie


On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Adam L. Schiff wrote:

> Distribution would only be a core element if the publication element was
> not identified.  Manufacture would only be core element if neither the
> publication nor the distribution element was identified.  You COULD provide
> everything you know but if you have publication place, publisher, and date
> of publication, nothing else is required.
>
> ^^**
> Adam L. Schiff
> Principal Cataloger
> University of Washington Libraries
> Box 352900
> Seattle, WA 98195-2900
> (206) 543-8409
> (206) 685-8782 fax
> asch...@u.washington.edu
> http://faculty.washington.edu/**~aschiff<http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff>
> ~~**
>
>
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Julie Moore wrote:
>
>  (My apologies for the cross-posting)
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> In trying to move beyond the inexplicable inconsistent "period" issue ...
>>
>> Now we have with the 264 the possibilities of:
>> 2nd indicator entity functions of:
>> 0 = Production
>> 1 = Publication
>> 2 = Distribution
>> 3 = Manufacture Statements
>> 4 = Copyright notice date
>>
>> Are we required to provide all if we have all? If not, which ones are
>> required?
>>
>> I have noticed that in most cases, there is only a 1 (Publication) and a 4
>> (copyright date).
>>
>> I would be grateful for some clarification on this.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Julie Moore
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Julie Renee Moore
>> Head of Cataloging
>> California State University, Fresno
>> julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
>> 559-278-5813
>>
>> ?Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from
>> themselves.?... James Matthew Barrie
>>
>>


-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Head of Cataloging
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

“Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from
themselves.”... James Matthew Barrie

[RDA-L] 264 All are entity functions required?

[Julie Moore]

(My apologies for the cross-posting)

Dear All,

In trying to move beyond the inexplicable inconsistent "period" issue ...

Now we have with the 264 the possibilities of:
2nd indicator entity functions of:
0 = Production
1 = Publication
2 = Distribution
3 = Manufacture Statements
4 = Copyright notice date

Are we required to provide all if we have all? If not, which ones are
required?

I have noticed that in most cases, there is only a 1 (Publication) and a 4
(copyright date).

I would be grateful for some clarification on this.

Best wishes,
Julie Moore



-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Head of Cataloging
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

“Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from
themselves.”... James Matthew Barrie

Re: [RDA-L] 264 & end punctuation

[Julie Moore]

I agree. I think that we should either always end in a period *or* never
end in a period. But this inconsistency makes things much more complicated
than they need to be.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Julie Moore
Fresno State


On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:53 PM, J. McRee Elrod  wrote:

> Julie asked on Autocat and RDA:
>
> >From the PCC Guidelines for the 264 Field, I am hoping that someone can
> >please explain why the 264 _4 $c =A92009 does not end in a full stop?
>
> There is no logical reason.  SLC will use a full stop.
>
>
Julie Renee Moore
Head of Cataloging
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

“Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from
themselves.”... James Matthew Barrie

[RDA-L] 264 _4 $c (c)2009 (why no full stop?)

[Julie Moore]

Hi there!

Please excuse the cross-posting.

>From the PCC Guidelines for the 264 Field, I am hoping that someone can
please explain why the 264 _4 $c ©2009 does not end in a full stop? I
realize that there is a copyright symbol, but I missed the point of exactly
why there is no ending full stop.

Thanks,

Julie Moore

Fresno State


Monographic example, different functions recorded



264 #1 $a Syracuse, New York : $b [publisher not identified],
$c 2010.

264 #2 $a [Place of distribution not identified] : $b Adirondack
Distributors, $c 2012.

264 #4 $c ©2009

-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Head of Cataloging
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

“Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from
themselves.”... James Matthew Barrie

Re: [RDA-L] RE : [RDA-L] "a" rather than "t" for ETD

[Julie Moore]

Perhaps it is time that we re-think the whole issue of theses. I think this
is a long over-due discussion that we now have a chance to iron out.

It has always bothered me that if they are in print only, then we treat
them purely as manuscripts (stemming from the good ol' days when we
actually typed -- on a typewriter -- our theses and dissertations.) Later
on, the paper thesis would be continued to be cataloged as a manuscript ...
but when it was digitized and put on the Internet, the same work would then
be considered to be "published" ... so we cataloged them that way. Yet,
it's the same exact thing. That has always bothered me.

Having seen many other "published" materials on the Internet, it is my
opinion that theses are just as "published" as other stuff on the Internet.
I would prefer that we consider treating theses and dissertations
"published" whether in paper or electronic. I would much rather prefer to
see a fulfilled out 264 for the publication information. Until now, we were
supposed to say that -- because they were not published -- there was no
place of publication or publisher. However, there is obviously a place
where the university resides, and there is a university which is
responsible for passing the thesis or dissertation.

Now that we have more granularity with the 264 and its many indicators,
could we possibly use one of those indicators to show that this is a thesis
or dissertation? Or maybe we need yet another indicator to show that.

I would prefer to see theses and dissertations to be treated the same --
whether they are paper or electronic. It has always seemed rather ludicrous
to me that if it is digitized and thrown up on the Internet, then it is
"published." My preference is for them to be considered "published" whether
they are paper or electronic.

Best wishes,
Julie Moore


On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Adam Schiff wrote:

> The implication of the instruction that all online resources are published
> is that when making a record for the electronic thesis from the record for
> the print manuscript, you'd need to change the type code to textual
> material and supply a place of publication and publisher.
>
> Adam
>
> -Original Message- From: Greta de Groat
> Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2013 9:55 AM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RE : [RDA-L] "a" rather than "t" for ETD
>
>
> Why would this be an exception to the P-N practice?  I don't see it
> addressed there as an exception.  It seems to me that we have here two
> BIBCO instructions that are in conflict (if you're not doing PCC
> cataloging, then its not an issue).
>
> Greta de Groat
> Stanford University Libraries
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Paradis Daniel" 
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2013 8:15:10 AM
> Subject: [RDA-L] RE : [RDA-L] "a" rather than "t" for ETD
>
> With the latest update to the RDA Toolkit, instruction 2.8.1.1 now
> includes the sentence: Consider all online resources to be published.
>
> Daniel Paradis
>
> Bibliothécaire
> Direction du traitement documentaire des collections patrimoniales
> Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec
>
> 2275, rue Holt
> Montréal (Québec) H2G 3H1
> Téléphone : 514 873-1101, poste 3721
> Télécopieur : 514 873-7296
> daniel.para...@banq.qc.ca<**mailto:daniel.para...@banq.qc.**ca
> >
> http://www.banq.qc.ca<http://**www.banq.qc.ca/ <http://www.banq.qc.ca/>>
>
>  _
>
> De: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access de
> la part de J. McRee Elrod
> Date: ven. 2013-05-17 23:12
> À: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
> Objet : Re: [RDA-L] "a" rather than "t" for ETD
>
>
>
> Greta asked:
>
>  So, if we are supposed to be cataloging online monographs according to
>> Prov=
>> ider-neutral guidelines, wouldn't that mean that they would still be
>> catalo=
>> ged as unpublished?
>>
>
> If it is electronic, it is considered published.
>
>
> J. McRee (Mac) Elrod
> 4493 Lindholm Road
> Victoria BC V9C 3Y1 Canada
> (250) 474-3361
> m...@elrod.ca
>



-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Head of Cataloging
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

“Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from
themselves.”... James Matthew Barrie

Re: [RDA-L] 336, 337, 338 and the post-MARC environment

[Julie Moore]

No, the 336, 337, 338's were not meant to be displayed.


Julie Moore
Fresno State


On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Kadri, Carolyn J  wrote:

> Are the 336,337,338’s meant to be displayed? Probably not. Maybe, meant to
> be used as accessible codes for a FRBRised catalog search yet to be
> developed? 
>
> ** **
>
> Carolyn Kadri
>
> Special Collections Cataloger
>
> University of Texas at Arlington
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Gene Fieg
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 09, 2013 2:57 PM
> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] 336, 337, 338 and the post-MARC environment
>
> ** **
>
> And how are these field going to be displayed in an easily understandable
> manner to the patron.  Will we need a priest of RDA near the shoulder of
> every patron as she/he searches for that DVD she knows is in the library
> somewhere, because the AACR2 catalog told her so?
>
> ** **
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 12:45 PM, McRae, Rick 
> wrote:
>
> HI, Julie—
>
> I think it’s great that you’re providing the local training, and are also
> offering the rationales for the RDA rules, not just the rules themselves.*
> ***
>
> I don’t have a clear vision of what Bibframe or other post-MARC catalog
> will look like either, so can’t offer you the right answer to your
> colleagues’ questions – though the one you have provided seems completely
> satisfactory to me. But I can offer a metaphor.
>
>  
>
> Say, instead of input bibliographic and related data into our systems, we
> were in the profession of cutting heavy stone blocks, transporting, and
> putting one next to or on top of another in some kind of symmetrical
> pattern, after slathering the rocks with mortar. And we did this for years
> on end.  No doubt every so often we would wipe the sweat off our faces,
> rest our aching backs, take a breather and during that time we might ask a
> “what is the point?” type of question.
>
>  
>
> Perhaps the fully-realized RDA-based catalog might not happen till after I
> retire—or perhaps even expire. Buf… when it comes, I think it’ll be a
> cathedral. J
>
> Best, Rick
>
>  
>
> Rick McRae
>
> Catalog / Reference Librarian
>
> Sibley Music Library
>
> Eastman School of Music
>
> (585) 274-1370
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Julie Moore
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 09, 2013 3:20 PM
> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> *Subject:* [RDA-L] 336, 337, 338 and the post-MARC environment
>
>  
>
> Please excuse the cross-posting. 
>
>  
>
> I am doing local training for my library on RDA. I have often said that
> the reason why we are moving to RDA is because this is now our national
> standard. I have also said that part of the reason for moving to RDA is a
> first step toward moving us into linked data and the post-MARC environment
> ... which will likely be Bibframe.
>
> Yesterday's lesson was on the replacement of the GMD to the 336 (content
> type), 337 (media type), and 338 (carrier type). One of the participants
> asked me how exactly this change would better prepare our records for
> moving into the post-MARC/Bibframe world. 
>
> I explained that the 336, 337, and 338 is an attempt to parse the various
> concepts out that have been kind of smooshed together over the years in the
> GMD. And we hope that in our post-MARC environment, that the programs will
> be able to make better use of these elements. Since Bibframe is not already
> built for us to exactly see how this will work, it is difficult to know for
> sure how the catalogs of the future will make use of these elements.
>
> I didn't feel like that was a very satisfactory answer, however. I was
> wondering if anyone out there had any better answers that I can add to
> this? 
>
> Thanks kindly,
> Julie
>
> --
> Julie Renee Moore
> Head of Cataloging
> California State University, Fresno
> julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
> 559-278-5813
> “Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from
> themselves.”
>
> ... James Matthew Barrie
>
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> Gene Fieg
> Cataloger/Serials Librarian
> Claremont School of Theology
> gf...@cst.edu
>
>  
>
> Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
> represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of a

Re: [RDA-L] What is the appropriate RDA element for a term like "Board book" or "Scented book"

[Julie Moore]

This reminds me of one of Sammy's (my son's) first favorite books was
called Dinos. It was on textured foam pages. There was a small amount of
text. And the thing that intrigued him the most was that the dinosaurs
could come out of their shapes (rather like a 1-piece puzzle on each page!)
He could play with (and chew on) the dinosaurs. The dinosaurs were all
different textures and colors. This was highly desirable for a 1-year old!
Here's a picture of it:
http://www.amazon.com/Textured-Soft-Shapes-AnnMarie-McLaughlin/dp/B00A16ZJQS

So don't forget to include:
On soft textured foam pages!

Julie Moore :-)
Fresno State


On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Deborah Fritz wrote:

> Although that sounds like a really good idea, without an added option,
> unfortunately, I do not think the RDA instructions for Extent of Text
> (3.4.5.2)  do not allow us to use 'other' terms.
>
> Even though 3.4.1.3 says " (For instructions on using other terms to
> designate the type of unit see 3.4.1.5.)" and 3.4.1.5 allows alternative
> terms, continuing down 3.4.1.3 takes us to Exceptions for Cartographic
> resources, Notated music, Still images, Text, and Three-dimensional forms.
>
> For all of those types of resources, except Notated music and Text, the
> recording instructions say "If none of the terms listed above is
> appropriate, use a term designating the type of unit as concisely as
> possible".
>
> Notated music (3.4.3.1) says: "Apply the instructions given under 3.4.3.2
> when recording the extent of a printed or manuscript resource consisting of
> notated music (with or without accompanying text and/or illustrations)" and
> "For resources consisting of notated music in other media (e.g.,
> microforms), apply the basic instructions given under 3.4.1" which limits
> us
> to using only the terms provided under 3.4.3.2 for printed or manuscript
> notated music, although we are free to use alternative terms for 'other
> media'.
>
> Text (3.4.5.1) says: " Apply the instructions given under 3.4.5.2-3.4.5.22
> when recording the extent of a resource consisting of one or more volumes,
> sheets, portfolios, or cases containing printed or manuscript text, with or
> without accompanying illustrations" and "For resources consisting of text
> in
> other media (e.g., microforms), apply the basic instructions given under
> 3.4.1", which limits us to using only the terms provided under
> 3.4.5.2-3.4.5.22 for printed or manuscript text, although we are free to
> use
> alternative terms for 'other media'.
>
> So, until (if) we get an added option, if it seems important for
> identification or selection  we can, perhaps, add Details of Base Materials
> notes (500) for things like:
> Board books: e.g., "On board pages"
> Rag books: e.g., "On cloth pages"
> Bath books: e.g., "On plastic pages"
>
> And (perhaps) Notes on Dimensions (500) for things that are shaped
> strangely
> (Die-cut books)
>
> Along with the Note on Expression (500) for things that contain different
> content types, e.g., "A pop-up book with pull out tabs"
>
> I don't think we have a Content Type for a 'Scented book', so would that be
> covered under Base Material or, perhaps, Applied Material: Scent?
>
> Deborah
>
> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -
> Deborah Fritz
> TMQ, Inc.
> debo...@marcofquality.com
> www.marcofquality.com
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 2:22 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] What is the appropriate RDA element for a term like
> "Board book" or "Scented book"
>
> Deborah Friz posted earlier:
>
> >Does anyone know, which, if any, of the RDA elements for Physical
> Carriers >would be appropriate for this type of information:
>
> >>Board book
>
> etc.
>
> In addition to a 655 genre heading, while it might need an RDA option to be
> added, one possibility would be to have a collation as some have for
> atlases:
>
> 300  $a1 board book (25 pages) :$bcoloured illustrations ;$c24 cm
>
>
>__   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
>   {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
>   ___} |__ \__
>



-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Head of Cataloging
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

“Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from
themselves.”... James Matthew Barrie

[RDA-L] 336, 337, 338 and the post-MARC environment

[Julie Moore]

Please excuse the cross-posting.

I am doing local training for my library on RDA. I have often said that the
reason why we are moving to RDA is because this is now our national
standard. I have also said that part of the reason for moving to RDA is a
first step toward moving us into linked data and the post-MARC environment
... which will likely be Bibframe.

Yesterday's lesson was on the replacement of the GMD to the 336 (content
type), 337 (media type), and 338 (carrier type). One of the participants
asked me how exactly this change would better prepare our records for
moving into the post-MARC/Bibframe world.

I explained that the 336, 337, and 338 is an attempt to parse the various
concepts out that have been kind of smooshed together over the years in the
GMD. And we hope that in our post-MARC environment, that the programs will
be able to make better use of these elements. Since Bibframe is not already
built for us to exactly see how this will work, it is difficult to know for
sure how the catalogs of the future will make use of these elements.

I didn't feel like that was a very satisfactory answer, however. I was
wondering if anyone out there had any better answers that I can add to
this?

Thanks kindly,
Julie

-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Head of Cataloging
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

“Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from
themselves.”... James Matthew Barrie

Re: [RDA-L] What is the appropriate RDA element for a term like "Board book" or "Scented book"

[Julie Moore]

Ooops! My mistake. For some reason, I was thinking we put that into the
300, but I don't think we actually did. (I don't normally catalog board
books -- but I do catalog a lot of other funny formats!)

So the 300 would probably stay similar to how it is now (except spelling
everything out) ... something like this:

300  12 unnumbered pages : ǂb color illustrations ; ǂc 24 x 30 cm

Your 336-338 look fine to me.

336 ## $atext $2rdacontent

336 ## $astill image $2rdacontent

336 ## $athree-dimensional form $2rdacontent

336 ## $asounds $2rdacontent

337 ## $aunmediated $2rdamedia

338 ## $avolume $2rdacarrier
(Resource is a children's pop-up book with sound effects)

Along with a 500 note to express the interesting form of the book. I would
think that a strangely shaped book would also go in a 500 note.

500 Board book.
or
500 Pop-up book with sound effects.
or
500 Board book in the shape of a shark.

and

655  #0 Board books.

Thoughts?

Julie Moore
Fresno State




On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 7:40 AM, Julie Moore wrote:

> Deborah,
>
> I've been following this post with great curiosity.
>
> I'm trying to get the full picture here. It is VERY important that people
> understand that this thing is a bathtub book, popup book, and etc.  Are we
> still going to describe the fact that it is a bathtub book, board book,
> etc. in the 300? (If so, I am good with this scenario.)
> So the fact that it is a board book, popup book, etc. will be reflected in
> the:
> 300
> 500
> and
> 655
>
> I'm just wanting to be sure that I am understanding this correctly.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Julie Moore
> Fresno State
>
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Deborah Fritz 
> wrote:
>
>> I agree with Mac and you that it appears that these types of *terms*will 
>> probably be best handled by the entity ‘Object’, once that entity is
>> covered by RDA. In the meantime, in MARC records, they (or their official
>> equivalents) can go in 655, as you both say.
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> The attributes of these types of materials will still need to be entered
>> as appropriate, e.g.:
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> 336 ## $atext $2rdacontent
>>
>> 336 ## $astill image $2rdacontent
>>
>> 336 ## $athree-dimensional form $2rdacontent 
>>
>> 337 ## $aunmediated $2rdamedia
>>
>> 338 ## $avolume $2rdacarrier
>>
>> (Resource is a children's pop-up book)
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> 336 ## $atext $2rdacontent
>>
>> 336 ## $astill image $2rdacontent
>>
>> 336 ## $athree-dimensional form $2rdacontent
>>
>> 336 ## $asounds $2rdacontent
>>
>> 337 ## $aunmediated $2rdamedia
>>
>> 338 ## $avolume $2rdacarrier
>>
>> (Resource is a children's pop-up book with sound effects)
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> I found the “BL Monograph WEMI Workflow” at
>> http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=wka700 very helpful for the
>> above. 
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> There are undoubtedly other attributes that can be entered. 
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> I like the idea of using the Nature of the Content for a summary of the
>> contents:
>>
>> 500 ## $aPop-up book with sound effects
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> I also think it would be useful to enter the Base Material for a ‘board
>> book’ but I can’t figure out which of the terms under 3.6.1.3 would apply,
>> or what other term is actually appropriate (perhaps ‘paper over
>> boards’—from ONIX:
>> http://www.editeur.org/files/ONIX%20for%20books%20-%20code%20lists/ONIX_BookProduct_CodeLists_Issue_20.html)
>> 
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> I’d also like to enter the ‘shape’ attribute somewhere, but can’t figure
>> out where—Note on Dimensions of Manifestation, perhaps.
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Deborah
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  
>>
>> Deborah Fritz
>>
>> TMQ, Inc.
>>
>> debo...@marcofquality.com
>>
>> www.marcofquality.com
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
>> Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Lapka,
>> Francis
>> *Sent:* Thursday, May 09, 2013 9:15 AM
>>
>> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
>> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] What is the appropriate RDA element for a term
>> like "Board book" or "Scented book"
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> I agree, the “types” you describe represent at 

Re: [RDA-L] What is the appropriate RDA element for a term like "Board book" or "Scented book"

[Julie Moore]

Deborah,

I've been following this post with great curiosity.

I'm trying to get the full picture here. It is VERY important that people
understand that this thing is a bathtub book, popup book, and etc.  Are we
still going to describe the fact that it is a bathtub book, board book,
etc. in the 300? (If so, I am good with this scenario.)
So the fact that it is a board book, popup book, etc. will be reflected in
the:
300
500
and
655

I'm just wanting to be sure that I am understanding this correctly.

Thoughts?

Julie Moore
Fresno State


On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Deborah Fritz wrote:

> I agree with Mac and you that it appears that these types of *terms* will
> probably be best handled by the entity ‘Object’, once that entity is
> covered by RDA. In the meantime, in MARC records, they (or their official
> equivalents) can go in 655, as you both say.
>
> ** **
>
> The attributes of these types of materials will still need to be entered
> as appropriate, e.g.:
>
> ** **
>
> 336 ## $atext $2rdacontent
>
> 336 ## $astill image $2rdacontent
>
> 336 ## $athree-dimensional form $2rdacontent 
>
> 337 ## $aunmediated $2rdamedia
>
> 338 ## $avolume $2rdacarrier
>
> (Resource is a children's pop-up book)
>
> ** **
>
> 336 ## $atext $2rdacontent
>
> 336 ## $astill image $2rdacontent
>
> 336 ## $athree-dimensional form $2rdacontent
>
> 336 ## $asounds $2rdacontent
>
> 337 ## $aunmediated $2rdamedia
>
> 338 ## $avolume $2rdacarrier
>
> (Resource is a children's pop-up book with sound effects)
>
> ** **
>
> I found the “BL Monograph WEMI Workflow” at
> http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=wka700 very helpful for the
> above. 
>
> ** **
>
> There are undoubtedly other attributes that can be entered. 
>
> ** **
>
> I like the idea of using the Nature of the Content for a summary of the
> contents:
>
> 500 ## $aPop-up book with sound effects
>
> ** **
>
> I also think it would be useful to enter the Base Material for a ‘board
> book’ but I can’t figure out which of the terms under 3.6.1.3 would apply,
> or what other term is actually appropriate (perhaps ‘paper over
> boards’—from ONIX:
> http://www.editeur.org/files/ONIX%20for%20books%20-%20code%20lists/ONIX_BookProduct_CodeLists_Issue_20.html)
> 
>
> ** **
>
> I’d also like to enter the ‘shape’ attribute somewhere, but can’t figure
> out where—Note on Dimensions of Manifestation, perhaps.
>
> ** **
>
> Deborah
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  
>
> Deborah Fritz
>
> TMQ, Inc.
>
> debo...@marcofquality.com
>
> www.marcofquality.com
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Lapka, Francis
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 09, 2013 9:15 AM
>
> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] What is the appropriate RDA element for a term
> like "Board book" or "Scented book"
>
> ** **
>
> I agree, the “types” you describe represent at least a change of content
> type (or a new Expression), and I could be persuaded that they don’t
> constitute new works. As Mac suggests, the types would be logically
> recorded as form/genre (MARC 655).
>
> ** **
>
> Francis
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA ] *On
> Behalf Of *Deborah Fritz
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 08, 2013 4:46 PM
> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] What is the appropriate RDA element for a term
> like "Board book" or "Scented book"
>
> ** **
>
> Hmm, that would mean that a change in the ‘type of book’ would be at the
> Work level, which would mean that the pop up version of a story would be a
> different work, and I’m not sure I would think of it at that level, e.g.:
> Horton Hears a Who
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Horton-Hears-Who-Dr-Seuss/dp/0394800788
>
> ** **
>
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0375841946/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_3?pf_rd_p=1535523722&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0394800788&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1SAQA14BEM9500KM52VR
> 
>
> ** **
>
> Or ‘Tails’, which appears to be available in hardcover and as a board book:
> 
>
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Tails-Matthew-Van-Fleet/dp/0152167730/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1368043414&sr=1-7&keywords

Re: [RDA-L] cm period/no period and sample records

[Julie Moore]

I followed this discussion on Autocat and now here.

As long as we are making changes, why are we not doing that now? It seems
to me that it would be a whole heck of a lot easier to just say "Never end
a field with a full stop."  Let's face it ... the whole thing of when to
add a period and when not to add a period comes from the olden days of
cataloging when we were typing cards. (Yes, I did that!)

It bothers me more to have two periods sitting in places than to have none
at all. That just looks ridiculous to me!

Hopefully, I will live to see the day when we have those forms that we can
just fill out and not have to worry about punctuation. I know the ISBD
punctuation -- I could do it in my sleep, it's so engrained in me. But to
teach this to newbie catalogers, they look at me like I'm crazy! (I am much
more concerned that they learn about matters that require more of their
intellectual energy, such as authorized headings.) In the end, does the
ending punctuation really matter all that much (I mean, to the public)? If
you could see the record without ending periods, would the catalog come
grinding to a halt? I don't think so.

When you look at a record in amazon.com, there are no periods at the end
... and they seem to do just fine.
http://www.amazon.com/Art-Mesoamerica-World/dp/0500204144/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1366922051&sr=1-3&keywords=aztec+art

Furthermore, if "normal people" (non-catalogers) could see this sort of
discussion raging on, I am sure that it would seem quite strange and funny
that we catalogers can discuss periods at such length.

Definitely goes in the How-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin
category!

Julie Moore
Fresno State





On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Kevin M Randall wrote:

>  In the (hopefully soon, but for sure I'm not holding my breath!) future,
> we will likely—or at least *should*—be entering RDA elements into
> workforms with no punctuation at all, unless that punctuation is part of
> the element itself (e.g., the period in an abbreviation, the question mark
> in *Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf?*, etc.).  Nothing after a title, or
> after other title information, or after the statement of responsibility.
> Even if there are multiple statements of responsibility, there will be no
> punctuation after any of them, because they will be entered as separate
> instances of the element "Statement of responsibility".  Punctuation will
> be supplied automatically depending on the data output.  This will make it
> *SO* much easier to follow the RDA guidelines (which don't have ISBD
> punctuation in the instructions or examples), and will make it much easier
> to allow for a limitless number of output choices (including ISBD).
>
> ** **
>
> Kevin M. Randall
>
> Principal Serials Cataloger
>
> Northwestern University Library
>
> 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] *On Behalf Of *Benjamin A Abrahamse
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 25, 2013 1:01 PM
> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
>
> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] cm period/no period and sample records
>
>  ** **
>
> All of this may be true but due to reasons discussed rather exhaustively
> in this very thread a dotless "cm" will only show up under certain
> circumstances anyhow.  To adequately explain why it doesn't requires
> informing users (a) that it is a "symbol" or "ligature", not an
> abbreviation, even though it appears to be otherwise; and, (b) what ISBD
> is, why ISBD is, and why a standard that is sometimes used to display
> metadata affects the way we record data in a shared database.
>
> ** **
>
> And in the end, "cm" and "cm." are both instantly recognizable--even by
> benighted Yankees such as myself--as representing "centimeters."  The good
> news I suppose is that it would be the rare user indeed who looks this
> carefully at a 300 field.
>
> ** **
>
> --b
>
> ** **
>
> Benjamin Abrahamse
>
> Cataloging Coordinator
>
> Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
>
> MIT Libraries
>
> 617-253-7137
>



-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Head of Cataloging
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

“Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from
themselves.”... James Matthew Barrie

[RDA-L] GMD revisited

[Julie Moore]

Please excuse the cross-posting ...

Dear All,

It is safe to say that many catalogers are disastisfied with the 336-338 as
a replacement for the GMD.
I know that many people are opting to do some sort of awkward work-around
to insert a GMD into RDA records that come into their systems. (I really do
not want to do that.)
I know that some people are continuing to catalog using AACR2 and adding in
the RDA fields, creating a hybrid record ... mainly so that they can keep
the GMD ... until some more satisfactory solution comes about. (I'd rather
not do that, either.)
Has anyone come up with any other options or solutions as the RDA cutover
date for the national and PCC libraries nears? (2 months to go!)
Cheers,
Julie Moore

-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Head of Cataloging
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

“Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from
themselves.”... James Matthew Barrie

Re: [RDA-L] accompanying material

[Julie Moore]

Do you recommend recording the 336, 337, and 338 of the accompanying
material as well as those fields for the main work?

Julie

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Julie Moore
wrote:

> For many of the "special formats" materials that I catalog, there is often
> "accompanying material" -- a CD-ROM, a DVD, a guide, a cassette, etc.
>
> The last I looked, there was no new way of dealing with accompanying
> material, and RDA had not spoken to it. So are we supposed to just keep
> adding these accompanying materials pieces as a 300 $e?
>
> Thanks,
> Julie Moore
>
> --
> Julie Renee Moore
> Catalog Librarian
> California State University, Fresno
> julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
> 559-278-5813
>
> Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1985!
>
>


-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Catalog Librarian
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1985!

[RDA-L] accompanying material

[Julie Moore]

For many of the "special formats" materials that I catalog, there is often
"accompanying material" -- a CD-ROM, a DVD, a guide, a cassette, etc.

The last I looked, there was no new way of dealing with accompanying
material, and RDA had not spoken to it. So are we supposed to just keep
adding these accompanying materials pieces as a 300 $e?

Thanks,
Julie Moore

-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Catalog Librarian
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1985!

Re: [RDA-L] content type: three-dimensional form vs. tactile three-dimensional form

[Julie Moore]

Thomas,

So you would not consider either brain to be tactile, because the main
intention is for it to be seen?

336 three-dimensional form ǂ2 rdacontent

Best wishes,
Julie Moore


On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 8:16 AM, Brenndorfer, Thomas <
tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca> wrote:

> I think the clearest definition for when “tactile” is used is found in the
> note in the RDA-ONIX Framework document for sensory modes (which include
> touch as one of the means by which the content of a resources is intended
> to be perceived).
>
> ** **
>
> http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2007/5chair10.pdf
>
> ** **
>
> *SensoryMode *
>
> A human sense through which the content of a resource is intended to be
> perceived. 
>
> *Note: This attribute refers to a human sense through which the content
> of a resource is intended to be perceived, as distinct from a sense through
> which it might be perceived either incidentally or with the aid of an
> intermediating tool other than one which would normally be expected to be
> used (e.g., a device for transforming digitally encoded alphabetic
> characters into simulated voice). *
>
> * *
>
> ** **
>
> I would take this mean that incidental sensory modes that are not
> essential to the perception of the content of the resource can be excluded
> from consideration.
>
> ** **
>
> Most three-dimensional objects can be touched, but if this sensory effect
> is not essential the perception of the intellectual or creative content of
> the object, then the objects are not “tactile” three-dimensional forms.***
> *
>
> ** **
>
> An educational object that teaches about textures through touch I would
> think would qualify as a “tactile three-dimensional object.”
>
> ** **
>
> Thomas Brenndorfer
>
> Guelph Public Library****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Julie Moore
> *Sent:* October 15, 2012 7:18 AM
> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> *Subject:* [RDA-L] content type: three-dimensional form vs. tactile
> three-dimensional form
>
> ** **
>
> Did we ever figure out the difference of when we use three-dimensional
> form vs. tactile three-dimensional form?
>
> I would say that most three-dimensional forms can be touched, so there is
> a tactile component to them, as three-dimensional forms.
>
> Of course, for some things, it is clearly not the intention for the 3D
> object to be touched. A Brain in Jar of formaldehyde comes to mind. (Go
> figure!) ;-) I mean, it would be possible to touch the brain, but probably
> not a good idea.
>
> What about a plastic model of a brain that comes apart in various pieces
> so it can be displayed, showing the anatomy of the brain -- or the brain
> can be taken apart, so you can see how the pieces fit together. Would you
> consider this to be "tactile"?
>
> Curious!
>
> Thanks,
> Julie
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.]
>
>
>
> --
> Julie Renee Moore
> Catalog Librarian
> California State University, Fresno
> julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
> 559-278-5813
>
> Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1985!
>
>


-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Catalog Librarian
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1985!
<>

[RDA-L] content type: three-dimensional form vs. tactile three-dimensional form

[Julie Moore]

Did we ever figure out the difference of when we use three-dimensional form
vs. tactile three-dimensional form?

I would say that most three-dimensional forms can be touched, so there is a
tactile component to them, as three-dimensional forms.

Of course, for some things, it is clearly not the intention for the 3D
object to be touched. A Brain in Jar of formaldehyde comes to mind. (Go
figure!) ;-) I mean, it would be possible to touch the brain, but probably
not a good idea.

What about a plastic model of a brain that comes apart in various pieces so
it can be displayed, showing the anatomy of the brain -- or the brain can
be taken apart, so you can see how the pieces fit together. Would you
consider this to be "tactile"?

Curious!

Thanks,
Julie




-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Catalog Librarian
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1985!

Re: [RDA-L] Content and carrier

[Julie Moore]

I like "units"!

Reminds me of my "box-o-stuff" problem, though ... which, in my mind, is
still an issue.

Julie Moore

Fresno State

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 6:45 AM, Brenndorfer, Thomas <
tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca> wrote:

> By my count, there are several kinds of "units" for Extent in RDA:
>
>
> Units for Carrier Type, or, Units for term substituting for Carrier Type
>
> Units for cartographic resources; can be subunits for some carriers
>
> Units for notated music; can be subunits for some carriers
>
> Units for still images; can be subunits for some carriers
>
> Units for three-dimensional forms; can have further subunits of component
> pieces
>
> Units for text (these stand alone as the subunits when a single volume is
> involved; otherwise use units for Carrier Type (volume, sheet)); can be
> subunits for some other carriers or used with special units (cartographic,
> notated music)
>
> Special subunits for certain carriers-- special subunits can be used for
> computer carriers, filmstrips and filmslips, flipcharts, microfiche,
> overhead transparencies, stereographs, videodiscs of still images
>
>
> Thomas Brenndorfer
> Guelph Public Library
>
>
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> > Sent: April 10, 2012 12:24 AM
> > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Content and carrier
> >
> > Thomas, it seems that you have introduced a new category: "unit." Given
> > that my interest is in creating an actual machine-actionable format for
> > this data, I have to ask: would this unit be coded as content, carrier,
> or
> > is it something different?
> >
> > kc
> >
> > On 4/10/12 1:26 AM, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
> > > 
> > > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> > [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle [
> li...@kcoyle.net]
> > > Sent: April-09-12 1:48 PM
> > > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> > > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Content and carrier
> > >
> > > 
> > >> So it looks like RDA does try to do a better separation of content and
> > >> carrier than exists in MARC, at least in the fixed field area. Also,
> RDA
> > >> content has the various cartographic types (dataset, image,
> > >> 3-dimensional, etc.) which I assume are subsumed under "map" in the
> MARC
> > >> 007.
> > >
> > > Rather the 007 for map is subsumed under LDR/06=e for cartographic
> > resources. The 007s for map and globe correspond to the cartographic
> > expression units (i.e., the cartographic extent units). My understanding
> is
> > that the 007 for map is applied to all cartographic resources, except
> > globes and if the carrier type is microform. Other 007s would be added
> for
> > the actual carriers' Media Type, like "projected" or "computer" or
> > "microform". The carriers are different -- volume, slide, object,
> computer
> > disc -- and don't indicate anything cartographic in and of themselves.
> > >
> > >
> > >>>
> > >>> An "atlas" can't be a carrier-- the carrier is defined in the
> > >>> RDA/ONIX Framework has having attributes such as binding and
> > >>> intermediation device. An "atlas" is only cartographic content, and
> > >>> the physical carrier could be three distinct physical volumes.
> > >>>
> > >>> Using all the elements, an atlas could be:
> > >>>
> > >>> Content Type: cartographic image Media Type: unmediated Carrier Type:
> > >>> volume Extent of Cartographic Resource: 1 atlas (3 volumes)
> > >>>
> > >
> > >> But it is listed in RDA under "extent of cartographic resource." So
> it's
> > >> either content or carrier, and it isn't in the RDA content list.  So
> it
> > >> seems that you are saying that the "extent of cartographic" list is
> > >> neither content nor carrier, but a display form that includes both?
> > >
> > >
> > > RDA 3.4.2.1 for the application of cartographic units points to
> "printed,
> > manuscript, graphic or three-dimensional resource" for situations in
> which
> > the cartographic unit appears fir

Re: [RDA-L] More thoughts on kits and 3-d objects

[Julie Moore]

DA 7.2 Nature of the Content might also be useful. It is not entirely
> clear
> to me what the intended distinction between Form of Work and Nature of the
> Content is.
>
> For collocation, I like genre/form terms because they're expansible and can
> be applied at multiple levels simultaneously. So at my previous library, we
> would use sets like
>
> Genre/Form: Clogs.
> Genre/Form: Shoes.
> Genre/Form: Clothing and dress--Netherlands.
> Genre/Form: Cultural objects--Netherlands. (local heading)
>
> Users could get all the shoes (http://goo.gl/fgK62), all the articles of
> clothing (http://goo.gl/EqCnW), all the cultural objects
> (http://goo.gl/fRVE5), or even all the cultural objects from a country
> such
> as the Netherlands (http://goo.gl/PhcAA) or region such as Latin America
> (http://goo.gl/Y89QQ) (go 043 and boo for Symphony's truncation of long
> searches).
>
> Kelley
>
> ***
> From: OnLine Audiovisual Catalogers electronic discussion list.
> [mailto:ola...@oclc.org] On Behalf Of Julie Moore
> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 4:27 PM
> To: ola...@oclc.org
> Subject: [OLAC-L] Cataloging Wasted Away
>
> Get a load of what I am cataloging now! It's called the Wasted Away
> Display.
>
>
> It is supposed to give people a graphic representation of how "getting
> wasted" can make people look, well, bad!
> Included:
> 1 mannequin with t-shirt
> 1 mannequin head (with a face on each side -- one wasted and one not! (Is
> this a tête-bêche?!)
> 1 wig
> 3 wig pins
>
> So I am back to my old GMD question.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Realia?
> Kit?
> Model?
>
> Julie
>
>
> --
> Julie Renee Moore
> Catalog Librarian
> California State University, Fresno
> julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
> 559-278-5813
>
> "In the end only kindness matters." -- Jewel
>



-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Catalog Librarian
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

"In the end only kindness matters." -- Jewel

Re: [RDA-L] Tactile three-dimensional form

[Julie Moore]

I have also cataloged educational cards that have the "scratch-n-sniff"
feature. Yes, if we are going to have tactile, we might as well also have
the sense of smell.

Getting back to the pig lungs, they smelled REALLY bad. The intention was
not to smell them, however. But they were very stinky. I don't think
anything ever got cataloged quite so quickly as those pig lungs, just to
get them off my desk and out of technical services.

Julie

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 6:57 AM, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:

> Well, they come in several flavors, so you might have to do more than one.
>  (Does RDA support flavors?)
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Benjamin Abrahamse
>
> Cataloging Coordinator
>
> Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
>
> MIT Libraries
>
> 617-253-7137
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] *On Behalf Of *A. P. Laubheimer
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 13, 2011 9:00 PM
> *To:* RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Tactile three-dimensional form
>
> ** **
>
> I can think of an item offhand that would be a "tactile three-dimensional
> form", though I certainly agree that the phrasing is problematic at best.
>  A recent musical recording by the band The Flaming Lips was issued as .mp3
> files stored on a USB drive embedded in a seven-pound edible gummy skull.
>  Yes, it's a fringe item, but total flexibility in regards to the
> representation of resources and their various manifestations seems to be a
> large part of the goal of RDA, at least in spirit.  It seems wise to
> future-proof a metadata standard by being as format-agnostic as possible,
> in my mind anyway.  On the other hand, how many gummy skulls is anyone
> likely to catalog?  
>
> ** **
>
> --
> A. P. Laubheimer
>
> On Sunday, November 13, 2011 at 8:03 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
>
> Sunday afternoon I was at a delightful concert of 18th century French
>
> music. During one legato movement, I admit my mind wondered (as it
>
> sometimes does) to what the RDA media content term "tactile
>
> three-dimensional form" might apply. A baton? The only answer which
>
> has been suggested to me (offlist) is a dildo. (The more provocative
>
> messages I receive are offlist.)
>
> ** **
>
> There has never been one of those for SLC to catalogue, but if there
>
> were, wouldn't "model" be a more intuitive term? Single intelligible
>
> words work better for me than difficult to comprehend, too long for
>
> display, phrases.
>
> ** **
>
> For display purposes, SLC plans to reduce long phrases to one word,
>
> e.g., "cartographic". and "form". But "map", "globe", "model", and
>
> "object" seem better choices to me.
>
> ** **
>
> The same applies to relationship terms, e.g., using "director" for the
>
> various phrases containing that word. It is obvious from other data
>
> in the record what has been directed.
>
> ** **
>
> Among RDA terms, second only to those phrases in being objectionable,
>
> is calling electronic media "computer".
>
> ** **
>
> The calm mood induced by the music did not last long!
>
> ** **
>
> Stewingly yours, Mac
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
>
> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
>
> ___} |__ \__
>
> ** **
>



-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Catalog Librarian
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

"In the end only kindness matters." -- Jewel

Re: [RDA-L] Tactile three-dimensional form

[Julie Moore]

Mac,

You are too funny!

I know, you are very predictable in your choice of a kit for a box of
stuff. In my final bib record, I did actually mention the wig and pins in a
note. I didn't duplicate the entire bib record here. I prefer the GMD model
because this is a representation of a person (and a situation).

My point was regarding the 336, 337, 338 as the replacement for the GMD
 as well as the issue about whether or not really any 3D thing is
tactile.

Julie

PS In answer to your first query ... not yet -- but I have come to work
with stranger things on my desk to catalog! ;-)

On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 7:59 PM, J. McRee Elrod  wrote:

> Julie Moore, cataloguer of everything, said:
>
> >Mac, you are not alone in your stewing!
>
> I took out the line which said I'll bet not even Julie has had a dildo
> to catalogue.
>
> >It is supposed to give people a graphic representation of how "getting
> >wasted" can make people look, well, bad!  ...  I ended up choosing
> [model].
>
> While it had a model in it, there are enough pieces of various sorts I
> would of course have called it a [kit].  Model seems too static a term
> for a resource with pieces to manipulate.
>
> >As much as I dither over which GMD to choose in AACR2, I remain
> >unconvinced that the 336, 337, and 338 fields more accurately and
> >succinctly convey to users what the thing is that they should expect
> >...
>
> I agree that RDA offers no terms which would convey meaning to a
> patron for this resource.  RDA doesn't even have "kit".
>
> >300 1 2-sided model (2 pieces) :$b plastic, col. ; $c 74 x 42 x
> >22 cm. (assembled) + $e  1 information tent.
>
> I suspect we would have gone with 300  $a1 kit (various pieces) ;$cin
> box 74 x 42 x 22 cm., and included your collation information in the
> 520 summary, using curves after each item, or in a 505 contents.
>
> >In RDA, I am assuming that we will have something like this: ...
>
> >336 three-dimensional form $2 rdacontent
> >-or-
> >336 tactile three-dimensional form $2 rdacontent
> >337 unmediated $2 rdamedia
> >338 object $2 rdacarrier
>
> Terms in 336 are repeatable, either in repeating $a or in repeating
> 336's. There is no provision for plural, however.  You have more than
> one form.  Should the same term be repeated X times, including once
> for the wig, and twice for the 2 pins?
>
> You don't mention the wig and pins in either AACR2 or RDA, which would
> be easier to do with "(various pieces)" and a 505 or 520, without over
> complicating the 300 it seems to me.
>
>
> > Do the 336, 337, and 338 fields more accurately and succinctly
> >convey to users >the Wasted Away mannequin that is being represented
> >in the record?
>
> No.  They express nothing more succinctly.
>
> > And finally getting around to Ma' point, it is unclear to me when we
> >call it tactile or not in the 336.
>
> I assume a tactile three-dimensional form is a model one is supposed
> to feel.  It seems to me calling at a "model", and saying in 520 that
> it is to be felt, works better.  Media terms should be *one* word
> drawn from common usage.
>
> We have media terms for sight, touch, and hearing.  What about smell
> and taste? :-{)}
>
>
>   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
>  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   
> HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/<http://www.slc.bc.ca/>
>  ___} |__ \__
>



-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Catalog Librarian
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

"In the end only kindness matters." -- Jewel

Re: [RDA-L] Tactile three-dimensional form

[Julie Moore]

Mac, you are not alone in your stewing!


>From OLAC-L, last week I posted that I was cataloging something called
Wasted Away Display.

 (My apologies for the repetitive nature of this posting.)

It is supposed to give people a graphic representation of how "getting
wasted" can make people look, well, bad!

Included:

1 mannequin with t-shirt

1 mannequin head (with a face on each side -- one wasted and one not! (Is
this a tête-bêche?!)

1 wig

3 wig pins

My initial question was the old GMD question … is it a [kit] or a [model]?
After numerous off-list jokes about 2-faced people, the tête-bêche
comment, and etc.,  I ended up choosing [model].

As with so many discussions today, we then turned to what Wasted Away will
look like in RDA.

As much as I dither over which GMD to choose in AACR2, I remain unconvinced
that the 336, 337, and 338 fields more accurately and succinctly convey to
users what the thing is that they should expect in our catalogs.

So in AACR2, I will have:

245 00 Wasted away display ǂh [model].

300 1 2-sided model (2 pieces) : ǂb plastic, col. ; ǂc 74 x 42 x 22 cm.
(assembled) + ǂe  1 information tent.

520 2-sided mannequin (female torso with t-shirt and 2-sided removable
head) with a wasted side and a non-wasted side. Depicts the physical
effects of the party lifestyle (a life filled with late nights, cigarette
smoke, alcohol, and high-fat foods). Mounted on a base.

In RDA, I am assuming that we will have something like this:

245 00 Wasted away display.

300 1 2-sided model (2 pieces) : ǂb plastic, col. ; ǂc 74 x 42 x 22 cm.
(assembled) + ǂe 1 information tent.

336 three-dimensional form ǂ2 rdacontent

-or-

336 tactile three-dimensional form ǂ2 rdacontent [depending on whether
or not you want to encourage the tactile aspects of the said mannequin]

337 unmediated ǂ2 rdamedia

338 object ǂ2 rdacarrier

520 2-sided mannequin (female torso with t-shirt and 2-sided removable
head) with a wasted side and a non-wasted side. Depicts the physical
effects of the party lifestyle (a life filled with late nights, cigarette
smoke, alcohol, and high-fat foods). Mounted on a base.

This is how I envision this thing cataloged in RDA, anyway. Is it just me?  Do
the 336, 337, and 338 fields more accurately and succinctly convey to users
the Wasted Away mannequin that is being represented in the record?  Is it
immediately distinguished from, say, a book? In RDA, is it just as clear
that it is a model  than what we currently have as the 245 $h [GMD]? --
especially given how these things display in our local catalogs. In my
opinion, the clarity is not there.

I know that the 336-338 were never intended be displayed in our catalogs.
Instead, we are expected to hope that our vendors will make the 336, 337,
and 338 into some sort of intelligible icon that the patron will instantly
know what that means. I ask you what kind of icon will accurately represent
Wasted Away? (The icon that I currently get with my III system is something
that looks like a crystal ball ... which perhaps is apropos ... it tells
the user nothing.)

To sum up, while I do get frustrated to the point of giddiness with our
AACR2 GMDs, I am not holding my breath on RDA to resolve this issue of
muddiness for our most special formats.

And finally getting around to Mac’s point, it is unclear to me when we call
it tactile or not in the 336. I questioned this when I cataloged a pig's
lung and used it as an RDA example as well. That particular situation was
used to demonstrate what human lungs looked like when they had been
subjected to smoking. In that case, there was actually a cancerous tumor,
as I recall. The ad showed the child with his finger on the tumor, so I
decided that it should, indeed, be considered textile. But who is to say
when it's textile and when it is not?

336 tactile three-dimensional form ǂ2 rdacontent

336three-dimensional form ǂ2 rdacontent
Julie Moore

On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 5:03 PM, J. McRee Elrod  wrote:

> Sunday afternoon I was at a delightful concert of 18th century French
> music.  During one legato movement, I admit my mind wondered (as it
> sometimes does) to what the RDA media content term "tactile
> three-dimensional form" might apply.




> Julie Renee Moore
> Catalog Librarian
> California State University, Fresno
> julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
> 559-278-5813
>
> "In the end only kindness matters." -- Jewel
>
>
>

Re: [RDA-L] Kits

[Julie Moore]

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Karen Coyle  wrote:
Kit may be the best that we can do, but we mustn't claim that it is the
user's choice of terms -- it could be the least worst term for what we mean.
I'm ok with that as long as we get over the idea that whatever preceded RDA
was perfect. It wasn't -- some of it was/is pretty arcane.

I admit that the 245 $h has always stuck out like a sore thumb to me.
Putting something like that in the middle of the title just seems weird.

Would you use the GMD "kit" if the title of the thing already had "kit" in
it?

kc

* *

Yes, if the title of the box-o-stuff is African culture kit, the GMD follows
it.
African culture kit [kit].

If it is a part $p, the GMD comes after the part. If it is a subtitle $b,
the GMD comes before the subtitle. The GMD comes before the $c statement of
responsibility. So yes, often the GMD is sort of sitting there in the
middle. We could always move it ... the placement doesn't really bother me,
one way or another.

Don't get me wrong ... I'm not saying that what came before RDA was perfect.
However, I certainly do expect and hope for whatever follows AACR2 to be
better. I am on the OLAC-L, and I am constantly on there asking what other
catalogers think that the GMD of this or that should be, because it is not
clear in AACR2. I usually get two or three or four different responses ...
with very good arguments for which GMD to choose. It is a very grey area
with most of the things that I catalog. I do hope that with RDA (or whatever
follows AACR2), the ultimate implementation of the evolution of the GMD will
be clearer and simpler for catalogers to figure out ... and ultimately, for
the users to immediately understand.

Julie

-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Catalog Librarian
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

"In the end only kindness matters." -- Jewel

Re: [RDA-L] RDA media terms

[Julie Moore]

I think that it is safe to say that most of us are sitting and waiting for
our vendors to do something! I know that while many have said  that the
336/337/338 is for the computer and are not supposed to display. Because we
do have RDA records coming in through our natural process these days, I am
not willing to suppress the 336/7/8 from the public display yet, because we
do not have something to replace the GMD at this point. Once there is a way
for the user to be able to discern what the record is representing, then
I'll be happy to suppress the display ... but not until then.

Julie

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Karen Coyle  wrote:

> Quoting Jonathan Rochkind :
>
>
>  Just like the system can process 336/337/338 to summarize as icons, it
>> could process them to summarize as text too.
>>
>
> Except that I've been told, off list, that there is not accepted set of
> text that they would be summarized to, nor any crosswalk from GMD to
> 336/7/8. I'm incredulous -- surely SOMEONE has thought about how these would
> display, and/or how we will move from the GMD in records to 336/7/8. Also, I
> wonder if there isn't a relationship between the 6/7/8 (or: CCM) and what we
> can glean from the Leader, 008 and 007? Has that analysis been done?
>
> Someone? Anyone?
>
> kc
>

-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Catalog Librarian
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

"In the end only kindness matters." -- Jewel

Re: [RDA-L] Kits

[Julie Moore]

On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Brenndorfer, Thomas <
tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca> wrote:

>
> There is also in RDA the single unit/multipart monograph distinction (which
> is somewhat new, and requires use of LDR/19), which also connects to the
> comprehensive/analytical description instructions. A kit of various pieces
> could have a piece, like an included published manual, separately cataloged.
> A kit could be >> less << than the sum of its parts, and require use of the
> RDA bibliographic relationship element instructions.
>

This is one FRBR/RDA point that is worrisome to me ... that you can create
multiple records for one "thing" to describe it every which way. I think
some have referred to this as an "expression fragment."

I, for one, want to see the box-o-stuff kept together on *one* record! I do
not want to be creating numerous records to represent one box-o-stuff. It's
difficult enough to create one record and keep the assembly line moving fast
enough to the satisfaction of our customers. If we have to create records
for each thing in the box-o-stuff, it will take too long and be
counter-productive. I know, it might be nice, in some cases to be able to
have the analytical records for the details. However, from a practical
point-of-view, we need to just catalog the whole thing once.

When you wrote: "A kit could be >> less << than the sum of its parts, and
require use of the RDA bibliographic relationship element instructions" --
this gave me flashbacks to an earlier day ... [twitch! twitch!} :-)

Back in the olden days, I am sure that many catalogers can recall cataloging
typed cards for "*In *analytics," and this is reminiscent to that.

Additionally, when I worked for a law library, and we first began to receive
many monographic titles on CD-ROMs, my director wanted to see the same
detail for each of those monographic entities in the bibliographic entries
that one would have if you had the monograph sitting on the shelf ... (i.e.,
the authors, editors, contents, subject headings, etc. -- and also to have
them link them together. I ended up creating what I called (for my own
clarification) "parent/child" records, with the title of the entire CD-ROM
being the parent record and all of the monographs on the CD-ROM being the
child records. I think I ended up using the 773 (host) and 774 (constituent)
fields for those relationships. (This was, of course, before these titles
were slapped into packages and made available via the Internet.) I cataloged
numerous CDs this way, and it was an interesting (but laborious) exercise.

Having lived through that, I am not eager to revisit it, however! Not for
these kits. Yes, it is within the realm of possibility ... been there, done
that, got the t-shirt!

I want to have one record that we all call one term (whether it is kit or
box-o-stuff) that gives just enough detail so that the patron can find what
they need!

Julie



-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Catalog Librarian
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

"In the end only kindness matters." -- Jewel

Re: [RDA-L] RDA media terms

[Julie Moore]

Adger,

I have to agree with you on this. I also use III, and I certainly don't know
what most of those icons are supposed to mean ... how is a patron supposed
to know?! Many are useless to me.

Julie

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Adger Williams wrote:

> I have to offer a few reservations about icons and communication.  They're
> great until, they are incomprehensible.
>
> How many of us can tell what ALL the icons next to the input jacks on the
> back of the computer signify?
> My ILS (Innovative) has different icons for different modules and they
> completely non-communicative.
> How is someone to tell the difference between CD, DVD, and Blue-Ray in an
> icon?
> Is a child of the cell-phone era likely to decode the old icon for a modem
> port (a handheld phone receiver with cord)?  This points out the possibility
> for quick obsolescence of icons.
>
> .02$
> AW
>
> --
Julie Renee Moore
Catalog Librarian
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

"In the end only kindness matters." -- Jewel

Re: [RDA-L] Kits

[Julie Moore]

Erin,

Sure, I think I could do that. Do we want to just find out if our students
understand the word "kit"?  What do they think the word "kit" in a library
means to them?

Or do you want me to have a box-o-stuff and ask them what they would call
that grouping?

Or both?

Julie

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Erin Stalberg wrote:

> Karen Coyle said:
>
>  So I don't think you can say that "kit" is in the language of the patron.
>> It's the language of the cataloger, and it's artificial -- perhaps not as
>> artificial as the three RDA values, but it's still artificial. You're
>> comfortable with it because you've been assigning "kit" to resources for
>>  possibly decades. But that doesn't mean users get what you mean.
>>
>
> So, I'd be curious if anyone has asked users what they would call these
> things.  Can I suggest that someone (Julie?!?) run a small survey or focus
> group and ask their users whether they understand the word "kit" in the
> library context.  Or what other terms they might use?  And how much
> specificity they want/need about the description of the component parts.  It
> wouldn't have to be very resource intensive at all, I wouldn't think, to do
> so.
>
> yours in trying to make data-driven decisions,
>
> Erin Stalberg
> Head, Metadata and Cataloging
> North Carolina State University Libraries
> erin_stalb...@ncsu.edu
> 919.515.5696
>



-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Catalog Librarian
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

"In the end only kindness matters." -- Jewel

Re: [RDA-L] Kits

[Julie Moore]

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Karen Coyle  wrote:

> Quoting "J. McRee Elrod" :
>
>> It tells the patron what the resource is, in language the patron can
>> understand.
>>
>
>  So I don't think you can say that "kit" is in the language of the patron.
> It's the language of the cataloger, and it's artificial -- perhaps not as
> artificial as the three RDA values, but it's still artificial. You're
> comfortable with it because you've been assigning "kit" to resources for
>  possibly decades. But that doesn't mean users get what you mean.
>
> kc
>
>

Karen,

I am not wed to "kit" as a term. If people think "set" or some other term
makes more sense, that is fine with me. (I am increasingly appreciating
"box-o-stuff"!)

Keep the African culture kit in mind, though. The intent of the kit is to
teach children about a culture by showing them an example of the native
cloths that are woven, perhaps a bag that has been made, perhaps a doll to
show the native clothing that is typically worn for a certain ceremony, a
thumb piano that is actually used by this group, etc. There might also be a
book about the culture. There might also be a CD of traditional music. There
might be a poster. While this is clearly educational, it is not an
educational game -- although a traditional game might be included in the
box-o-stuff. It is not an educational toy, although a traditional toy might
be included in the box-o-stuff.

I do think that we need to agree on a term that indicates this is a
"box-o-stuff."

Julie

-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Catalog Librarian
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

"In the end only kindness matters." -- Jewel

Re: [RDA-L] Are you all getting these for messages you post?

[Julie Moore]

Yes, we're all getting these error messages for j.ordering.
Annoying!

Julie
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 6:10 PM, J. McRee Elrod  wrote:

> Are you all getting these for messages you post to RDA-L?
>
> Any way of unsubscribing j.ordering?
>
> Hal, do you know what happened to her/him?  Australia being so small
> afterall :-{)}.
>
> Mac
>
>  Forwarded message 
> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 08:24:34 +1000
> From: "Mail Delivery System" 
> To: 
> Subject: Delivery Failure Notification
>
> With reference to your message addressed to:
> j.oder...@ballarat.edu.au
>
> One or more addresses in your message have failed with the following
> responses from the mail transport system:
>
> User  is not known at this site
>



-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Catalog Librarian
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

"In the end only kindness matters." -- Jewel

Re: [RDA-L] Large pring MRI revision

[Julie Moore]

Mac,
What's MRI?! Can't keep up with the acronyms!
Thanks,
Julie

On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 6:53 AM, J. McRee Elrod  wrote:

> The MRI has been revised to remove "large print" from carrier, and add
> "large print text" to content.  This seems to me to be as distinctive
> a content as "tactile text".
>


> --
> Julie Renee Moore
> Catalog Librarian
> California State University, Fresno
> julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
> 559-278-5813
>
> "In the end only kindness matters." -- Jewel
>
>
>

[RDA-L] TouchMath Touch2Learn texture cards

[Julie Moore]

On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 6:53 AM, J. McRee Elrod  wrote:

> The MRI has been revised to remove "large print" from carrier, and add
> "large print text" to content.  This seems to me to be as distinctive
> a content as "tactile text".


A ... speaking of tactile text, last week, I cataloged a set of
TouchMath Touch2Learn texture cards. These are cards with numbers on them,
and the numbers have tactile "TouchPoints" -- raised
circles/animals/shapes/fruit/sealife that the child can feel. There are many
textures that are used at these "TouchPoints", intended for children who are
kinesthetic learners. (Depending upon the surface of the touchpoints, the
textures might be described as slick, bumpy, soft, hairy, rough, etc.)

"TouchMath is a multisensory program that uses its signature TouchPoints to
engage students of all abilities and learning styles." -- website.

For once, this was not a GMD problem ... I think [activity card] fits this
set quite nicely ... it is a box of these tactile cards.

These days, however, I have the habit of thinking, "What would this look
like in RDA?"

336 tactile text ... or tactile image??? or both? There are animals on
the TouchPoints -- they are definitely designed to both be both seen and
felt. (There is no option for tactile numbers) Does text = numbers? Does
this texture (which is, of course, 3-dimension to a certain extent), warrant
"tactile three-dimensional form"?

337unmediated

338card  ... they are definitely cards, but these cards do have a slight
3-dimensional element to them, which causes the texture, reminiscent of
Braille, I suppose ... which made me begin to wonder how we deal with
Braille in RDA.

Anyway, I was wondering what people would have thought about this set of
tactile cards and how they should be handled in RDA?

As always, I look forward to your thoughts.

Best wishes,
Julie

-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Catalog Librarian
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

"In the end only kindness matters." -- Jewel

Re: [RDA-L] Kits

[Julie Moore]

On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Karen Coyle  wrote:

>
> It is a shame that RDA was "completed" without an analysis by library
> system vendors, and without a system requirements study. It is unusual in
> the information technology world to create a data set entirely apart from
> system considerations. There is therefore no guarantee that RDA is
> implementable in a systems sense. I think it would be an excellent idea to
> begin such a study ASAP because it may result that some changes will be
> needed to make implementation possible.
>
> Karen,

Thank you for your thoughtful comments on this thread.

I completely agree with your last paragraph. It is too bad that RDA was
published without system considerations. So here we are, with our maglev
transport that we're trying to run on wagonways. It's all in the timing.

I am keenly interested in what you, as a non-cataloger, would call this
grouping of "stuff" that I have been calling the African culture kit? (I
catalog stuff like this every day!)

Your message reinforces the idea that we do not look at the "grouping of
stuff" as a whole, but we look at the individual pieces that make up the
whole when we are cataloging using RDA, and we make a 336-8 on each of the
categories. I continue to try to imagine how this is useful to the end user,
regardless of whether or not we actually display the terms in the 336-338
... which I understand to be RDA's answer to the removal of the GMD. How
does the user immediately know that this is a grouping of stuff ... rather
than a book or a sound recording?

I am also trying to understand how this becomes "easier" for the cataloger
who is trying to code this stuff. It might be better to have the 336-8 data
coded into the fixed field as choices.

Best wishes,
Julie

 --
Julie Renee Moore
Catalog Librarian
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

"In the end only kindness matters." -- Jewel

Re: [RDA-L] Kits

[Julie Moore]

The drum would also be audio ... as well as unmediated.

Julie

On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Julie Moore
wrote:

> Thank you for your excellent and thoughtful argument, Thomas. I am just
> trying to get my head around RDA and how it will apply to the stuff that I
> catalog most often ... and those things are "kits".
>
> My understanding of what you are saying is that we do not look at the "kit"
> or "set" as a whole, but we look at the individual pieces, and we make a
> 336-8 on each of those items? I am trying to imagine this and understand how
> the computer knows which fields go together ... and more importantly, how
> this is is useful to the end user.
>
> I am thinking of other things that I have cataloged that would fall into
> the "kit" sort of category. There are these Culture Kits that we collect
> from various countries. They often have a lot of interesting "stuff" ... as
> well as a book, a teacher's guide, a poster, a music CD, a DVD about life in
> that country, etc. Our library has collected a number of these culture kits.
> The "stuff" in the Africa culture kit, for example, includes:
> African hut model (Kenya) -- Ndrama drum (Kenya) -- African Batik (Kenya)
> -- Mask (Ghana) -- Traditional ebony carved comb (Kenya) -- Thumb piano
> (Kenya) -- Mock elephant hair bracelet (Kenya) -- Kanga (clothing)
> (Kenya) -- Traditional African wooden stool (Kenya) -- Uyot seed rattle
> (palm seeds and raffia worn around ankle or wrist) (Nigeria) -- Coconut leaf
> woven bag (Kenya).
> So we would have:
>
> For content type, we would have:
>
> 336  text [for the book and teacher's guide]
> 336  still image [for the poster]
> 336  performed music [for the music CD]
> 336  two-dimensional moving image [for the DVD]
> 336  tactile three-dimensional form [for the "stuff" = the hut model,
> the drum, the batik, the mask, the comb, the thumb piano, the elephant hair
> bracelet, the clothing, the wooden stool, the seed rattle, and the coconut
> leaf woven bag.]
> For media type, we would have:
>
> 337 audio [for the music CD] [I have a question about the thumb piano,
> the drum, and the rattle, because they also are intended for sound.]
> 337 video [for the DVD]
> 337 unmediated [for all the rest of it]
>
> For carrier type, we would have:
>
>
> 338 volume [for the book and teacher's guide]
> 338 audio disc [for the music CD]
> 338 videodisc [for the DVD]
> 338 sheet [for the poster]
> 338 object [for the rest of the "stuff" =  the hut model, the drum, the
> batik, the mask, the comb, the thumb piano, the elephant hair bracelet, the
> clothing, the wooden stool, the seed rattle, and the coconut leaf woven
> bag.]
> (Sorry, this is beginning to sound like "The Twelve Days of Christmas!")
>
> I guess, again, my question would be: how does the computer know to put
> which things together?
>
> How does this make it clearer for the end user?
>
> And would it not be preferrable to have one term such as "kit" to concisely
> explain that this is going to be a box of different types of things?
>
> Just a few thoughts for a Saturday morning!
>
> Thank you for your consideration.
>
> Best wishes,
> Julie
>   On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 8:46 AM, Brenndorfer, Thomas <
> tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca> wrote:
>
>> 
>> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [
>> RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Julie Moore [
>> julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: September-09-11 6:02 PM
>> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
>> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Kits
>>
>>
>> >P.S.  I am about to catalog a Weight Box, which consists of a wooden box
>> with 6 pairs of wooden cylinders,
>> >each pair weighing a different amount. (The child is to figure out which
>> two pieces weigh the same.) In current
>> >AACR2 terms, this cannot be considered a "kit", because it is not: "An
>> item containing two or more
>> >categories of material, no one of which is identifiable as the
>> predominant constituent of the item." Therefore,
>> >for now, it looks like another candidate for the realia bin in AACR2. In
>> RDA, we need terms that make sense
>> >to both the catalogers and the users.
>> >http://www.amazon.com/Kids-Weight-Box-Natural-Finish/dp/B0006PKYZA
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Here's my take on it...
>>
>>
>>
>> I think each carrier value is only for what's being counted in the Exte

Re: [RDA-L] Kits

[Julie Moore]

Thank you for your excellent and thoughtful argument, Thomas. I am just
trying to get my head around RDA and how it will apply to the stuff that I
catalog most often ... and those things are "kits".

My understanding of what you are saying is that we do not look at the "kit"
or "set" as a whole, but we look at the individual pieces, and we make a
336-8 on each of those items? I am trying to imagine this and understand how
the computer knows which fields go together ... and more importantly, how
this is is useful to the end user.

I am thinking of other things that I have cataloged that would fall into the
"kit" sort of category. There are these Culture Kits that we collect from
various countries. They often have a lot of interesting "stuff" ... as well
as a book, a teacher's guide, a poster, a music CD, a DVD about life in that
country, etc. Our library has collected a number of these culture kits. The
"stuff" in the Africa culture kit, for example, includes:
African hut model (Kenya) -- Ndrama drum (Kenya) -- African Batik (Kenya) --
Mask (Ghana) -- Traditional ebony carved comb (Kenya) -- Thumb piano (Kenya)
-- Mock elephant hair bracelet (Kenya) -- Kanga (clothing) (Kenya) --
Traditional African wooden stool (Kenya) -- Uyot seed rattle (palm seeds and
raffia worn around ankle or wrist) (Nigeria) -- Coconut leaf woven bag
(Kenya).
So we would have:

For content type, we would have:

336  text [for the book and teacher's guide]
336  still image [for the poster]
336  performed music [for the music CD]
336  two-dimensional moving image [for the DVD]
336  tactile three-dimensional form [for the "stuff" = the hut model,
the drum, the batik, the mask, the comb, the thumb piano, the elephant hair
bracelet, the clothing, the wooden stool, the seed rattle, and the coconut
leaf woven bag.]
For media type, we would have:

337 audio [for the music CD] [I have a question about the thumb piano,
and the rattle, because they also are intended for sound.]
337 video [for the DVD]
337 unmediated [for all the rest of it]

For carrier type, we would have:


338 volume [for the book and teacher's guide]
338 audio disc [for the music CD]
338 videodisc [for the DVD]
338 sheet [for the poster]
338 object [for the rest of the "stuff" =  the hut model, the drum, the
batik, the mask, the comb, the thumb piano, the elephant hair bracelet, the
clothing, the wooden stool, the seed rattle, and the coconut leaf woven
bag.]
(Sorry, this is beginning to sound like "The Twelve Days of Christmas!")

I guess, again, my question would be: how does the computer know to put
which things together?

How does this make it clearer for the end user?

And would it not be preferrable to have one term such as "kit" to concisely
explain that this is going to be a box of different types of things?

Just a few thoughts for a Saturday morning!

Thank you for your consideration.

Best wishes,
Julie
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 8:46 AM, Brenndorfer, Thomas <
tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca> wrote:

> ____
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [
> RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Julie Moore [
> julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com]
> Sent: September-09-11 6:02 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Kits
>
>
> >P.S.  I am about to catalog a Weight Box, which consists of a wooden box
> with 6 pairs of wooden cylinders,
> >each pair weighing a different amount. (The child is to figure out which
> two pieces weigh the same.) In current
> >AACR2 terms, this cannot be considered a "kit", because it is not: "An
> item containing two or more
> >categories of material, no one of which is identifiable as the predominant
> constituent of the item." Therefore,
> >for now, it looks like another candidate for the realia bin in AACR2. In
> RDA, we need terms that make sense
> >to both the catalogers and the users.
> >http://www.amazon.com/Kids-Weight-Box-Natural-Finish/dp/B0006PKYZA
>
>
>
>
> Here's my take on it...
>
>
>
> I think each carrier value is only for what's being counted in the Extent,
> not to describe the aggregrate of the multi-piece manifestation. That's why
> "kit" or "large print" are not appropriate as carriers-- they belong
> somewhere else though.
>
>
>
> "Object" refers to the unit of extent, and if component pieces are
> specified for three-dimensional forms, I think it refers to each one of the
> component pieces.
>
>
>
> The carrier is what "conveys the content", and the content is defined as
> what human senses are involved. With objects, it's primarily sight, 

Re: [RDA-L] Kits

[Julie Moore]

I would ask that you please keep in mind my original list of real life
examples of these materials that I catalog day in and day out. How do these
things fit into the list of current unmediated carrier types?

card
flipchart
object
roll
sheet
volume

The fact is that they do not fit well into any of the current unmediated
carrier types. Now, if you can think of a term that fits better than "kit"
for these types of things, please speak up! If you think that "object" is
truly a decent way to describe these boxes of many pieces, I'd also like to
hear that argument.

We certainly do not want the RDA/ONIX framework to be so rigid that we
cannot add new carrier types when needed.

Best wishes,
Julie

P.S.  I am about to catalog a Weight Box, which consists of a wooden box
with 6 pairs of wooden cylinders, each pair weighing a different amount.
(The child is to figure out which two pieces weigh the same.) In current
AACR2 terms, this cannot be considered a "kit", because it is not: "An item
containing two or more categories of material, no one of which is
identifiable as the predominant constituent of the item." Therefore, for
now, it looks like another candidate for the realia bin in AACR2. In RDA, we
need terms that make sense to both the catalogers and the users.
http://www.amazon.com/Kids-Weight-Box-Natural-Finish/dp/B0006PKYZA

- - -


1. Title: Basic electricity & electronics educational program : model
SC-100R, Snap Circuits.
(I ended up using [realia].)
http://www.amazon.com/Elementary-Circuits-Model-SC-100R-experiments/dp/B0017Y7IDA/ref=sr_1_1?s=industrial&ie=UTF8&qid=1315515644&sr=1-1

2. Title: K'Nex education.Middle school math.
(I ended up using [realia].)
http://www.amazon.com/KNEX-Education-Middle-School-Math/dp/B003MGJTJW/ref=sr_1_1?s=industrial&ie=UTF8&qid=1315515770&sr=1-1

3. Title: Static electricity supply set.
(I ended up using [realia].)
http://www.delta-education.com/productdetail.aspx?Collection=N&prodID=1803&menuID=

4. Title: Motorized solar system and planetarium.
(I ended up using [model] on this one.)
http://www.educationalinsights.com/product/teachers/theme/space+--38-+weather/solar+system/geosafari-reg-+motorized+solar+system.do?search=basic&keyword=motorized+solar+system&sortby=bestSellers&page=1&;

5. Title: Planet walk
(I ended up using [model] for this as well. Can be set up on a football
field.)
http://www.etacuisenaire.com/catalog/product?deptId=&prodId=77662&q=planet+walk

6. Title: Giant magnetic solar system
(I ended up cataloging this as a [picture] -- rather hesitantly because the
magnets do have a 3rd dimension to them.)
http://www.gwschoolcatalog.com/giant_magnetic_solar_system_set_of_12-p-1539575.html

7. Title: Inertia crash dummies
(I ended up cataloging this just today as [realia].)
I have on my desk a box of wooden boards, stoppers, bottle caps, ping-pong
balls, blocks of wood (for the cars), wheel axels, wheels. Somehow, the user
is supposed to assemble these things, in order to have cars (with dummies --
the ping pong balls) and barriers. The kit is supposed to teach students
about the law of inertia. Students are to gather data and graph it, as well
-- with other the additional materials needed: knife, markers, glue,
stopwatches, meter sticks, masking tape.
http://sciencekit.com/inertia-crash-dummies-teacher-developed,-classroom-tested/p/IG0046731/


On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Brenndorfer, Thomas <
tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca> wrote:

> Carrier types have to go through the sieve of the RDA-ONIX framework, which
> established the underlying attributes for these elements.
>
> ** **
>
> http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2007/5chair10.pdf
>
> ** **
>
> Carrier type is built out of three attributes: Storage Medium Format,
> Housing Format, Intermediation Tool (the last one is the same as Media Type
> in RDA).
>
> ** **
>
> Terms like “kit” or “multimedia” as blanket terms seem like the term
> “polyglot” which was removed in RDA—there may be selection criteria that is
> lost when using such a blanket term.
>
> ** **
>
> I would like to see more effort done with elements like “Form of Work” or
> “Nature of the Content”, which may be more suitable for a value like “kit”
> (“press kit” especially). This seems like more of a genre or class of work
> issue. I see the carrier type as a general term that is used to categorize
> the things one wants to count in the Extent element. It’s just stuff that
> has to be barcoded, shelved, and in some cases eventually played on some
> device.
>
> ** **
>
> Thomas Brenndorfer
>
> Guelph Public Library
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf

Re: [RDA-L] Kits

[Julie Moore]

Thanks, Lori,

I'd be happy to send this in to Kelley as a revision proposal. I look
forward to your sending me the interim guidelines.

In the meantime, I was hoping to generate some conversation about this on
this listserv. Do folks think this (adding "kit" to the list of unmediated
carrier types in 3.3.1.3) is a good idea?

And how do you respond to the definition set forth?

Thanks again for your consideration.

Best wishes,
Julie

On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Lori Robare  wrote:

>  Julie,
>
> If you want to pursue this as a revision to RDA, you can submit a revision
> proposal through CC:DA.  Proposals may be forwarded to CC:DA through any
> voting member or through any of the groups represented on CC:DA.  OLAC is
> one of the groups represented and would be a good fit for this topic --
> Kelley McGrath is the OLAC liaison.
>
> The guidelines for submitting a revision proposal are currently being
> revised; I will send you a copy of the interim guidelines.
>
> Best,
>
> Lori Robare
> Chair, CC:DA
> lrob...@uoregon.edu
>
>
> On 9/9/2011 9:41 AM, Julie Moore wrote:
>
> Were RDA to adopt the term "kit" to its list of unmediated carrier types in
> 3.3.1.3, and were they to define it with not only the AACR2 verbiage but to
> also add "a box of stuff" in more eloquent terms. I looked up "kit" in
> Merriam-Webster online, and found: *"(3)* *:* a set of parts to be
> assembled or worked up   *(4)* *:* a packaged
> collection of related material "
>
> To make it more cataloger-friendly, I'd suggest verbiage such as this:
> 3. a set of parts to be assembled intended for play or education (e.g.,
> Tinker Toys, Snap Circuits, K'Nex, Static Electricity Supply Set)  4. a set
> of parts to be assembled into a model (pieces to create a model car or a
> model solar system) 5. a packaged collection of related material (e.g., a
> set of fossils).
>
> which would make the definition look rather like this:
>
> Kit
>  1. An item containing two or more categories of material, no one of which
> is identifiable as the predominant constituent of the item; also designated
> “multimedia 
> item<http://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=Aacr2MultimediaSPACEitemSLASHglossary&hash=MultimediaSPACEitemSLASHglossary>”
> (q.v.).  2. A single-medium package of textual material (e.g., a “press
> kit,” a set of printed test materials, an assemblage of printed materials
> published under the name “Jackdaw”). 3. a set of parts to be assembled
> intended for play or education (e.g., Tinker Toys, Snap Circuits, K'Nex,
> Static Electricity Supply Set)  4. a set of parts to be assembled into a
> model (pieces to create a model of the solar system). 5. a packaged
> collection of related material (e.g., a set of fossils).
>
> See also Activity 
> card<http://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=Aacr2ActivitySPACEcardSLASHglossary&hash=ActivitySPACEcardSLASHglossary>,
> Game<http://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=Aacr2GameSLASHglossary&hash=GameSLASHglossary>
> .
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kit
>
>
> Were RDA to adopt the term "kit" in such a manner, *then -- and only then
> *-- would I embrace the term "kit" in my cataloging of such materials.
>
> I would actually welcome and embrace this change. Because I catalog these
> types of things on a daily basis, it has always been a major challenge for
> me.
>
> Thanks for your consideration.
>
> Best wishes,
> Julie
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:33 PM, J. McRee Elrod  wrote:
>
>>
>> Julie said:
>>
>> >In RDA, I am not sure what I would do with it!
>>
>>  Julie raises a very valid concern.  The loss of GMD is serious.  Also,
>> the word "object" no more conveys the nature of a kit resource than
>> "realia".
>>
>> For those clients who wish to have something in the GMD position, we
>> plan to export [338 : 336] as 245$h, e.g., [online resource : text]
>> for an e-book.
>>
>> We will add "kit" to unmediated media.  Granted some items in some
>> kits require "mediation", but the media type placement of the term
>> will not be displayed.  We will not export 337 media type.  Not only
>> would few understand "unmediated", but I know of no library patron who
>> considers their Kobo or Kindle to be a "computer" (the media type term
>> RDA uses for

Re: [RDA-L] Kits

[Julie Moore]

I would say yes, just as much as an "object" is a kind of carrier. (Object
is on the list of unmediated carriers.) RDA 3.3.1.3

Julie

On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Mark Ehlert  wrote:

> Julie Moore  wrote:
> > Were RDA to adopt the term "kit" to its list of unmediated carrier types
> in
> > 3.3.1.3...
>
> Here's the first question that comes to my sleep-deprived mind: is a
> kit a kind of *carrier*?
>
> --
> Mark K. Ehlert Minitex
> CoordinatorUniversity of Minnesota
> Bibliographic & Technical  15 Andersen Library
>   Services (BATS) Unit222 21st Avenue South
> Phone: 612-624-0805Minneapolis, MN 55455-0439
> <http://www.minitex.umn.edu/>
>



-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Catalog Librarian
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

"In the end only kindness matters." -- Jewel

Re: [RDA-L] Kits

[Julie Moore]

Were RDA to adopt the term "kit" to its list of unmediated carrier types in
3.3.1.3, and were they to define it with not only the AACR2 verbiage but to
also add "a box of stuff" in more eloquent terms. I looked up "kit" in
Mirriam-Webster online, and found: *"(3)* *:* a set of parts to be assembled
or worked up   *(4)* *:* a packaged collection of
related material "

To make it more cataloger-friendly, I'd suggest verbiage such as this:
3. a set of parts to be assembled intended for play or education (e.g.,
Tinker Toys, Snap Circuits, K'Nex, Static Electricity Supply Set)  4. a set
of parts to be assembled into a model (pieces to create a model car or a
model solar system) 5. a packaged collection of related material (e.g., a
set of fossils).

which would make the definition look rather like this:

Kit
 1. An item containing two or more categories of material, no one of which
is identifiable as the predominant constituent of the item; also designated
“multimedia 
item”
(q.v.).  2. A single-medium package of textual material (e.g., a “press
kit,” a set of printed test materials, an assemblage of printed materials
published under the name “Jackdaw”). 3. a set of parts to be assembled
intended for play or education (e.g., Tinker Toys, Snap Circuits, K'Nex,
Static Electricity Supply Set)  4. a set of parts to be assembled into a
model (pieces to create a model of the solar system). 5. a packaged
collection of related material (e.g., a set of fossils).

See also Activity
card,
Game
.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kit


Were RDA to adopt the term "kit" in such a manner, *then -- and only then *--
would I embrace the term "kit" in my cataloging of such materials.

I would actually welcome and embrace this change. Because I catalog these
types of things on a daily basis, it has always been a major challenge for
me.

Thanks for your consideration.

Best wishes,
Julie




On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:33 PM, J. McRee Elrod  wrote:

>
> Julie said:
>
> >In RDA, I am not sure what I would do with it!
>
> Julie raises a very valid concern.  The loss of GMD is serious.  Also,
> the word "object" no more conveys the nature of a kit resource than
> "realia".
>
> For those clients who wish to have something in the GMD position, we
> plan to export [338 : 336] as 245$h, e.g., [online resource : text]
> for an e-book.
>
> We will add "kit" to unmediated media.  Granted some items in some
> kits require "mediation", but the media type placement of the term
> will not be displayed.  We will not export 337 media type.  Not only
> would few understand "unmediated", but I know of no library patron who
> considers their Kobo or Kindle to be a "computer" (the media type term
> RDA uses for what most of us consider to be "electronic" media, and
> for which ISBD Area 0 substituted "electronic").
>
>
>   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
>  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
>  ___} |__ \__
>
>
>


-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Catalog Librarian
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

"In the end only kindness matters." -- Jewel

Re: [RDA-L] Kits

[Julie Moore]

OK, so you're just saying that you are going to add "kit" and "large print"
to your list of unmediated carriers. That makes more sense, I guess. Unless
adopted into RDA, it is a local practice, however.

So my black bear and pig lungs are still an "object" ... I'm fine with that.


Julie

On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 9:25 PM, J. McRee Elrod  wrote:

> Julia said:
>
> >Not all unmediated media would be a kit ...
>
> Certainly not.  Unmediated media includes, in addition to "kit"
> and "large print" which we have added:
>
> Unmediated carriers
>
> card
> equipment
> flipchart
> [kit]
> [large print]
> object
> roll
> sheet
> volume
>
> Until overtaken by e-books, it was the most common type of carriers.
>
>
>   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
>  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
>  ___} |__ \__
>



-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Catalog Librarian
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

"In the end only kindness matters." -- Jewel

Re: [RDA-L] Kits

[Julie Moore]

Not all unmediated media would be a kit, even in the layman's definition of
the term.  The pig lungs and the black bear that I cataloged come to mind
... and they are certainly not a kit!

Julie

On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:33 PM, J. McRee Elrod  wrote:

> Mac said:
>
We will add "kit" to unmediated media.


> --
> Julie Renee Moore
> Catalog Librarian
> California State University, Fresno
> julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
> 559-278-5813
>
> "In the end only kindness matters." -- Jewel
>
>
>

Re: [RDA-L] Kits

[Julie Moore]

BTW, if any RDA folks are in need of game-model-kit-realia-toy-picture-flash
card sorts of examples to think about, I'm your girl! :-)

Julie

On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Julie Moore wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> Mac and I have been batting this issue back and forth for awhile now on the
> OLAC list. These are often "kits" (in layman's terms) with pieces that you
> put together ... and the point is for the children to learn something with
> most of them. (We buy tons of these "kits" for my Teacher Resource Center
> that has lots of curriculum materials with educational manipulatives.)  I
> often find myself in a grey area, as I have tried to choose a GMD for these
> materials, none of them fitting quite perfectly.
>
> I am hoping that RDA will somehow be make these "kits" better to discern
> for both the cataloger and the user.
>
> The AACR2 1.1C1 terms that we have available for GMDs (from List 2) for
> these materials include:
>
> *Kit*
>  1. An item containing *two or more categories of material, no one of
> which is identifiable as the predominant constituent of the item*[emphasis 
> mine]; also designated “multimedia
> item<http://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=Aacr2MultimediaSPACEitemSLASHglossary&hash=MultimediaSPACEitemSLASHglossary>”
> (q.v.).  2. A single-medium package of textual material (e.g., a “press
> kit,” a set of printed test materials, an assemblage of printed materials
> published under the name “Jackdaw”). See also Activity 
> card<http://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=Aacr2ActivitySPACEcardSLASHglossary&hash=ActivitySPACEcardSLASHglossary>,
> Game<http://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=Aacr2GameSLASHglossary&hash=GameSLASHglossary>
> .
>
> *Game*
>  An item or set of materials designed for play according to prescribed or
> implicit rules and intended for recreation or instruction. See also Activity
> card<http://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=Aacr2ActivitySPACEcardSLASHglossary&hash=ActivitySPACEcardSLASHglossary>,
> Kit<http://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=Aacr2KitSLASHglossary&hash=KitSLASHglossary>,
> Toy<http://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=Aacr2ToySLASHglossary&hash=ToySLASHglossary>
> .
>
> *Toy*
>  An object designed for imaginative play or one from which to derive
> amusement. See also 
> Game<http://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=Aacr2GameSLASHglossary&hash=GameSLASHglossary>,
> Model<http://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=Aacr2ModelSLASHglossary&hash=ModelSLASHglossary>,
> Realia<http://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=Aacr2RealiaSLASHglossary&hash=RealiaSLASHglossary>
> .
>*
> *
> *Model*
>  A three-dimensional representation of a real thing. See also 
> Toy<http://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=Aacr2ToySLASHglossary&hash=ToySLASHglossary>
> .
>
> *Realia*
>  An artefact or a naturally occurring entity, as opposed to a replica. See
> also 
> Object<http://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=Aacr2ObjectSLASHglossary&hash=ObjectSLASHglossary>,
> Toy<http://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=Aacr2ToySLASHglossary&hash=ToySLASHglossary>
> .
>
>
> It might help to illustrate my challenges with some of the actual materials
> that I have cataloged over the months ... most of these materials require
> assembly. With some of them, it is in the assembling that the learning takes
> place.
>
> 1. Title: Basic electricity & electronics educational program : model
> SC-100R, Snap Circuits.
> (I ended up using [realia].)
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Elementary-Circuits-Model-SC-100R-experiments/dp/B0017Y7IDA/ref=sr_1_1?s=industrial&ie=UTF8&qid=1315515644&sr=1-1
>
> 2. Title: K'Nex education.Middle school math.
> (I ended up using [realia].)
>
> http://www.amazon.com/KNE

Re: [RDA-L] Kits

[Julie Moore]

I like "activity set" as well ... would this 1 activity set (2 plastic clock
hands, 12 magnetic foam numbers) go into the 300 then?

Julie

On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Brenndorfer, Thomas <
tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca> wrote:

> I like “activity set” as the unit of extent because it’s similar to the
> still image value “activity card”.
>
> ** **
>
> The pieces making up the set can be subsumed as subunits, or called
> “various pieces” with details covered in a note (RDA 3.4.6.3).
>
> ** **
>
> So something like this would work:
>
> ** **
>
> Extent of Three-Dimensional Form: 1 activity set (2 plastic clock hands, 12
> magnetic foam numbers)
>
> ** **
>
> The teacher’s guide can be covered as a separate piece. LCPS 3.1.4 provides
> the usual options in MARC for 300$e or repeating 300’s or use a note; record
> just the unit of extent for the accompanying piece, or use all 300 subfield
> details.
>
> ** **
>
> The usual carrier types: object, volume
>
> The usual content types: three-dimensional object, text
>
> ** **
>
> Thomas Brenndorfer
>
> Guelph Public Library
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Julie Moore
> *Sent:* September 8, 2011 7:03 PM
>
> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Kits
>
> ** **
>
> So what would we call these things that have many pieces to put together
> ... that do not fall in the RDA starter list? For example I am cataloging
> this magnetic time activity set right now, which consists of foam numbers
> that (with magnets) stick to a whiteboard, a minute hand and an hour hand.
>
> http://www.etacuisenaire.com/catalog/product?deptId=&prodId=77982&q=magnetic+time+activity+set
>
> In AACR2, I'm going to use the GMD [model].
>
> In RDA, I am not sure what I would do with it!
>
> Julie
>
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Brenndorfer, Thomas <
> tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca> wrote:
>
> There isn’t a blanket term like “kit” in RDA for such material, which also
> means it’s a moot point about considering limitations around the number or
> types of media that would make up a kit.
>
>  
>
> In RDA, like in AACR2, all the units of extent can be identified
> specifically, or the phrase “various pieces” can be used if no form is
> predominant. The starter list in RDA is
>
>  
>
> coinVM 008/33=r – GMD [realia]
>
> diorama   VM 008/33=d – GMD [diorama]
>
> exhibit  VM 008/33=r – GMD [realia]
>
> game VM 008/33=g – GMD [game]
>
> jigsaw puzzle VM 008/33=g – GMD [game]
>
> medal   VM 008/33=r – GMD [realia]
>
> mock-up  VM 008/33=q – GMD [model]
>
> model   VM 008/33=q – GMD [model]
>
> sculpture VM 008/33=a – GMD [art original]
>
> specimenVM 008/33=r – GMD [realia]
>
> toy VM 008/33=w – GMD [toy]
>
>  
>
> I’ve linked them to what the GMD value would likely have been (VM 008/33
> carries this). The GMDs like “realia” don’t appear at all in RDA—it’s either
> the very specific unit of extent, or the more general carrier type.
>
>  
>
> Other terms for the units of extent can be created, and RDA uses the
> examples: feather headbands, pair beaded moccasins, quilts.
>
>  
>
> Moving up a level, the carrier type would be “object” for all of these. In
> fact, the guesswork about more specific general terms like “diorama” vs very
> general general terms like “realia” vs in-between general terms like “toys”
> is all gone in RDA. One can record all carrier types present, so with
> various objects and a booklet, the values would be:
>
>  
>
> Carrier type: object
>
> Carrier type: volume
>
>  
>
> One could also record just the predominant carrier type. In MARC, there are
> various choices for LDR, 006, and 007 fields (whether one picks LDR/06 r or
> o), but in RDA  one just lists the carrier types.
>
>  
>
> Likewise, the content types would just be listed. Generally, objects are
> “three-dimensional forms”. A booklet would have the “text” content type. You
> could include them both, and there is no blanket term like “kit”. I think a
> work-level element, like “Nature of the Content” would be a place to
> indicate the type of usage expected of the resource. At the carrier level,
> one counts and measures widg

Re: [RDA-L] Kits

[Julie Moore]

So what would we call these things that have many pieces to put together ...
that do not fall in the RDA starter list? For example I am cataloging this
magnetic time activity set right now, which consists of foam numbers that
(with magnets) stick to a whiteboard, a minute hand and an hour hand.
http://www.etacuisenaire.com/catalog/product?deptId=&prodId=77982&q=magnetic+time+activity+set

In AACR2, I'm going to use the GMD [model].

In RDA, I am not sure what I would do with it!

Julie

On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Brenndorfer, Thomas <
tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca> wrote:

> There isn’t a blanket term like “kit” in RDA for such material, which also
> means it’s a moot point about considering limitations around the number or
> types of media that would make up a kit.
>
> ** **
>
> In RDA, like in AACR2, all the units of extent can be identified
> specifically, or the phrase “various pieces” can be used if no form is
> predominant. The starter list in RDA is
>
> ** **
>
> coinVM 008/33=r – GMD [realia]
>
> diorama   VM 008/33=d – GMD [diorama]
>
> exhibit  VM 008/33=r – GMD [realia]
>
> game VM 008/33=g – GMD [game]
>
> jigsaw puzzle VM 008/33=g – GMD [game]
>
> medal   VM 008/33=r – GMD [realia]
>
> mock-up  VM 008/33=q – GMD [model]
>
> model   VM 008/33=q – GMD [model]
>
> sculpture VM 008/33=a – GMD [art original]
>
> specimenVM 008/33=r – GMD [realia]
>
> toy VM 008/33=w – GMD [toy]
>
> ** **
>
> I’ve linked them to what the GMD value would likely have been (VM 008/33
> carries this). The GMDs like “realia” don’t appear at all in RDA—it’s either
> the very specific unit of extent, or the more general carrier type.
>
> ** **
>
> Other terms for the units of extent can be created, and RDA uses the
> examples: feather headbands, pair beaded moccasins, quilts.
>
> ** **
>
> Moving up a level, the carrier type would be “object” for all of these. In
> fact, the guesswork about more specific general terms like “diorama” vs very
> general general terms like “realia” vs in-between general terms like “toys”
> is all gone in RDA. One can record all carrier types present, so with
> various objects and a booklet, the values would be:
>
> ** **
>
> Carrier type: object
>
> Carrier type: volume
>
> ** **
>
> One could also record just the predominant carrier type. In MARC, there are
> various choices for LDR, 006, and 007 fields (whether one picks LDR/06 r or
> o), but in RDA  one just lists the carrier types.
>
> ** **
>
> Likewise, the content types would just be listed. Generally, objects are
> “three-dimensional forms”. A booklet would have the “text” content type. You
> could include them both, and there is no blanket term like “kit”. I think a
> work-level element, like “Nature of the Content” would be a place to
> indicate the type of usage expected of the resource. At the carrier level,
> one counts and measures widgets; at the expression level one looks at the
> human senses and language aspects involved; at the work level, one gets into
> the nature of the resource and its audience.
>
> ** **
>
> For the tin of buttons, I would say, if there was a guesstimate of 100
> buttons:
>
> ** **
>
> Extent of Three-Dimensional Form: approximately 100 buttons
>
> Carrier type: object
>
> Content type: three-dimensional form
>
> and I would add something just for the container, like
>
> Dimensions: tin 10 cm x 5 cm
>
> ** **
>
> I had just been reviewing this very area, so this is a first attempt at
> using the RDA elements for these kinds of examples.
>
> ** **
>
> Thomas Brenndorfer
>
> Guelph Public Library
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Julie Moore
> *Sent:* September 8, 2011 5:40 PM
>
> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Kits
>
> ** **
>
> Dear All,
>
> Mac and I have been batting this issue back and forth for awhile now on the
> OLAC list. These are often "kits" (in layman's terms) with pieces that you
> put together ... and the point is for the children to learn something with
> most of them. (We buy tons of these "kits" for my Teacher Resource Center
> that has lots of curriculum materials with educational manipulatives.)  I
> often find myself in a grey area, as I have tried t

Re: [RDA-L] Kits

[Julie Moore]

In addition, because I catalog so many of these types of materials, I guess
I'm a little worried about the GMD (as annoying as it has been) disappearing
completely with RDA. We now have the 336, 337, and 338.

Under unmediated (which all of these are), our choices for carrier type are:


card
flipchart
object
roll
sheet
volume

All of these then will become "object", I suppose.

So in RDA, we lose the GMD, and we gain:

336 three-dimensional form

337 unmediated

338 object

 and we put the specifics in the 300.

I guess I'm concerned about whether or not this is actually going to improve
our ability to describe these types of materials. (That's what I was trying
to get around to say.)

Julie

P.S. BTW, I am now cataloging a Magnetic time activity set!
http://www.etacuisenaire.com/catalog/product?deptId=&prodId=77982&q=magnetic+time+activity+set





On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Julie Moore wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> Mac and I have been batting this issue back and forth for awhile now on the
> OLAC list. These are often "kits" (in layman's terms) with pieces that you
> put together ... and the point is for the children to learn something with
> most of them. (We buy tons of these "kits" for my Teacher Resource Center
> that has lots of curriculum materials with educational manipulatives.)  I
> often find myself in a grey area, as I have tried to choose a GMD for these
> materials, none of them fitting quite perfectly.
>
> I am hoping that RDA will somehow be make these "kits" better to discern
> for both the cataloger and the user.
>
> The AACR2 1.1C1 terms that we have available for GMDs (from List 2) for
> these materials include:
>
> *Kit*
>  1. An item containing *two or more categories of material, no one of
> which is identifiable as the predominant constituent of the item*[emphasis 
> mine]; also designated “multimedia
> item<http://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=Aacr2MultimediaSPACEitemSLASHglossary&hash=MultimediaSPACEitemSLASHglossary>”
> (q.v.).  2. A single-medium package of textual material (e.g., a “press
> kit,” a set of printed test materials, an assemblage of printed materials
> published under the name “Jackdaw”). See also Activity 
> card<http://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=Aacr2ActivitySPACEcardSLASHglossary&hash=ActivitySPACEcardSLASHglossary>,
> Game<http://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=Aacr2GameSLASHglossary&hash=GameSLASHglossary>
> .
>
> *Game*
>  An item or set of materials designed for play according to prescribed or
> implicit rules and intended for recreation or instruction. See also Activity
> card<http://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=Aacr2ActivitySPACEcardSLASHglossary&hash=ActivitySPACEcardSLASHglossary>,
> Kit<http://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=Aacr2KitSLASHglossary&hash=KitSLASHglossary>,
> Toy<http://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=Aacr2ToySLASHglossary&hash=ToySLASHglossary>
> .
>
> *Toy*
>  An object designed for imaginative play or one from which to derive
> amusement. See also 
> Game<http://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=Aacr2GameSLASHglossary&hash=GameSLASHglossary>,
> Model<http://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=Aacr2ModelSLASHglossary&hash=ModelSLASHglossary>,
> Realia<http://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=Aacr2RealiaSLASHglossary&hash=RealiaSLASHglossary>
> .
>*
> *
> *Model*
>  A three-dimensional representation of a real thing. See also 
> Toy<http://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=Aacr2ToySLASHglossary&hash=ToySLASHglossary>
> .
>
> *Realia*
>  An artefact or a naturally occurring entity, as opposed to a replica. See
> also 
> Object<http://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=Aacr2ObjectSLASHglossary&hash=ObjectSLASHglossary>,
> Toy<http://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc

Re: [RDA-L] Kits

[Julie Moore]

Dear All,

Mac and I have been batting this issue back and forth for awhile now on the
OLAC list. These are often "kits" (in layman's terms) with pieces that you
put together ... and the point is for the children to learn something with
most of them. (We buy tons of these "kits" for my Teacher Resource Center
that has lots of curriculum materials with educational manipulatives.)  I
often find myself in a grey area, as I have tried to choose a GMD for these
materials, none of them fitting quite perfectly.

I am hoping that RDA will somehow be make these "kits" better to discern for
both the cataloger and the user.

The AACR2 1.1C1 terms that we have available for GMDs (from List 2) for
these materials include:

*Kit*
 1. An item containing *two or more categories of material, no one of which
is identifiable as the predominant constituent of the item* [emphasis mine];
also designated “multimedia
item”
(q.v.).  2. A single-medium package of textual material (e.g., a “press
kit,” a set of printed test materials, an assemblage of printed materials
published under the name “Jackdaw”). See also Activity
card,
Game
.

*Game*
 An item or set of materials designed for play according to prescribed or
implicit rules and intended for recreation or instruction. See also Activity
card,
Kit,
Toy
.

*Toy*
 An object designed for imaginative play or one from which to derive
amusement. See also
Game,
Model,
Realia
.
   *
*
*Model*
 A three-dimensional representation of a real thing. See also
Toy
.

*Realia*
 An artefact or a naturally occurring entity, as opposed to a replica. See
also 
Object,
Toy
.


It might help to illustrate my challenges with some of the actual materials
that I have cataloged over the months ... most of these materials require
assembly. With some of them, it is in the assembling that the learning takes
place.

1. Title: Basic electricity & electronics educational program : model
SC-100R, Snap Circuits.
(I ended up using [realia].)
http://www.amazon.com/Elementary-Circuits-Model-SC-100R-experiments/dp/B0017Y7IDA/ref=sr_1_1?s=industrial&ie=UTF8&qid=1315515644&sr=1-1

2. Title: K'Nex education.Middle school math.
(I ended up using [realia].)
http://www.amazon.com/KNEX-Education-Middle-School-Math/dp/B003MGJTJW/ref=sr_1_1?s=industrial&ie=UTF8&qid=1315515770&sr=1-1

3. Title: Static electricity supply set.
(I ended up using [realia].)
http://www.delta-education.com/productdetail.aspx?Collection=N&prodID=1803&menuID=

4. Title: Motorized solar system and planetarium.
(I ended up using [model] on this one.)
http://www.educationalinsights.com/product/teachers/theme/space+--38-+weather/solar+system/geosafari-reg-+motorized+solar+system.do?search=basic&keyword=motorized+solar+system&sortby=bestSellers&page=1&;

5. Title: Planet walk
(I ended up using [model] for this as well. Can be set up on a football
field.)
http://www.etacuisenaire.com/catalog/product?deptId=&prodId=77662&q=planet+walk

6. Title: Giant magnetic solar system
(I ended up cataloging this as a [picture] -- rather hesitantly because the
magnets do have a 3rd dimension to them

[RDA-L] RDA Toolkit (on the chopping block)

[Julie Moore]

My library (in its current frenzy of needing to cut resources) is looking
for titles to cut, and they are asking me about both Cataloger's Desktop and
RDA Toolkit. They are especially wondering why we are buying RDA Toolkit
when it has not even been implemented yet. I said that I use it to converse
with other catalogers, while we are still trying to figure this out. I am
also doing workshops where I touch on RDA. I also can imagine that sometime
in the near future, I will likely be helping to write guidelines of one sort
or another.

I know that there is a paper version of RDA that has been published.
http://www.alastore.ala.org/detail.aspx?ID=3065
Has anyone bought that and are you using it? I am just wondering if, for
now, I should buy the paper version ... and wait until we hear more about
the LC implementation recommendations ... and put off buying the online RDA
Toolkit for a year or two?

What do you think?

Julie

PS Is there a less expensive rate for someone who is just buying RDA Toolkit
on their own, as an individual (for the purpose of keeping up with the
conversation, giving workshops, and all the kinds of work that is done
outside of my own library?)

-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Catalog Librarian
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

"There is more to life than simply increasing its speed." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Re: [RDA-L] Where to Direct Questions about RDA Examples?

[Julie Moore]

Dear Adam,

Thank you for showing you the thought process that we might follow in trying
to come to a determination on such an access point. This is very helpful!

Julie

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Adam L. Schiff wrote:

> The resource being cataloging has this manifestation:
>
> Dr. Snoopy's advice to pet owners / by Dr. Snoopy ; illustrations by
> Charles M. Schulz.
>
> The author of it is clearly stated in both the title and the statement of
> responsibility as Dr. Snoopy.  This is the usage that we have to work with.
>  In RDA, it matters not that Dr. Snoopy is fictitious:
>
>9.0  Purpose and scope.
>
>Persons include fictitious entities.
>
> Given the usage that we have, we then apply the instructions in RDA.
>
> 9.2.2.1  The preferred name for the person is the name or form of name
> chosen as the basis for the authorized access point representing that
> person.
>
> 9.2.2.2  Determine the preferred name for a person from the following
> sources (in order of preference):
>
> a) the preferred sources of information (see 2.2.2 rdalink) in resources
> associated with the person
>
> b) other formal statements appearing in resources associated with the
> person
>
> c) other sources (including reference sources).
>
> 9.2.2.3  In general, choose the name by which the person is commonly known
> as the preferred name for that person. The name chosen may be the persons
> real name, pseudonym, title of nobility, nickname, initials, or other
> appellation.
>
>
> The appellation for this person is "Dr. Snoopy".  Now you have to figure
> out which of the following instructions in RDA apply, 9.2.2.9.3, 9.2.2.18,
> 9.2.2.22, or 9.2.2.23:
>
>
> 9.2.2.9.3  Persons Known by a Surname Only
>
> If the name by which a person is known consists of a surname only, treat
> the word or phrase associated with the name in resources associated with the
> person or in reference sources as an integral part of the name.
>
>Deidier, abbe
>Read, Miss
>Seuss, Dr.
>Nichols, Grandma
>
>
> 9.2.2.18 General Guidelines on Recording Names Containing Neither a Surname
> nor a Title of Nobility
>
> Record a name that does not include a surname and that is borne by a person
> who is not identified by a title of nobility applying the general guidelines
> on recording names given under 8.5.
>
>Charles
>Nelly
>Riverbend
>
> Record as the first element the part of the name under which the person is
> listed in reference sources. In case of doubt, record the last part of the
> name as the first element, applying the instructions given under 9.2.2.9.2.
>
> Include as an integral part of the name any words or phrases denoting place
> of origin, domicile, occupation, or other characteristics that are commonly
> associated with the name in resources associated with the person or in
> reference sources. Precede such words or phrases by a comma.
>
>Paul, the Deacon
>Eric, the Red
>Rafa, el Tuerto
>Judah, ha-Levi
>Chayim, the Priest, of Hebron
>Iolo, Goch
>Feofan, Grek
>
>
> 9.2.2.22  General Guidelines on Recording Names Consisting of a Phrase
>
> Record a name consisting of:
>
> a) a phrase or appellation that does not contain a forename
>
> or
>
> b) a phrase that consists of a forename or forenames preceded by words
> other than a term of address or a title of position or office
> applying the general guidelines on recording names given under 8.5.
>
> Record the name in direct order.
>
>Dr. X
>Mother Hen
>Every Other Dad
>Sister Friend
>Poor Old No. 3
>Buckskin Bill
>Boy George
>Little Richard
>Miss Piggy
>Happy Harry
>Special Ed
>D.J. Jazzy Jeff
>
>
> 9.2.2.23  Phrase Consisting of a Forename or Forenames Preceded by a Term
> of Address, Etc.
>
> Record a phrase consisting of a forename preceded by a term of address
> (e.g., a word indicating relationship) or a title of position or office
> (e.g., a professional appellation) applying the general guidelines on
> recording names given under 8.5.
>
> Record the forename as the first element. Record words or phrases denoting
> place of origin, domicile, occupation, or other characteristics that are
> commonly associated with the name applying the instructions given under
> 9.2.2.18.
>
>Jemima, Aunt
>Claire, Tante
>Sam, Cousin
>Fez, Uncle
>Robert, Chef
>Vittoria, Signora
>
>
>
> I believe that "Snoopy" is a forename rather than a surname.  I would
> assert that "Dr." is a term of address (specifically, a professional
> title).*  Therefore, I believe that 9.2.2.22b) is excluded and that 9.2.2.23
> applies and the name would be recorded as Snoopy, Dr. (authorized access
> point in MARC 21: 100 0_ $a Snoopy, $c Dr.).  The abbreviated form is used
> because that is what the person uses in his name.
>
>
> * "The American system of address 

Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging playaways

[Julie Moore]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but was it not at least partially because of such
new media and the mixing of electronic with other characteristics (such as
audio or visual materials) (especially materials on the Internet) that
actually began this whole movement toward a new set of rules other than
AACR2? I think that it is rather ironic that the things that seem to be
easiest to catalog in RDA are, for example, a monograph (which were not much
of a problem in AACR2) ... and the things that we continue to be having
issues with in RDA is cataloging this "new media" ... and mixed media such
as a kit (and other realia items -- games, 3D objects, equipment, etc.)

Julie

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 1:36 PM, J. McRee Elrod  wrote:

>
>
> RDA is no improvement over AACR2 in the cataloguing of new media, and
> worse for mixed media such as a kit.
>
>
-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Catalog Librarian
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

"There is more to life than simply increasing its speed." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging playaways

[Julie Moore]

My concern is that if you have

336 spoken word $2 rdacontent
337 audio $2 rdamedia
338 other $2 rda carrier

How do they know that that this thing is a Playaway, unless you say it's a
Playaway in the 300? And for matching, you must have consistency. Even for
human beings, we need consistency. Even for human beings looking at the
following list of various possible 300s, would everyone understand that what
they are talking about is a Playaway? (No!)
 1 sound media player
 1 pre-recorded MP3 player
 1 pre-recorded digital audio player
 1 Playaway
 1 audio media player
 1 digital media player

Once LC says whatever it is going to say, we are in desperate need for the
various cataloging constituencies to write guidelines (their
interpretations) of exactly how materials such as these are to be
consistently cataloged. This piece really cannot be left up to cataloger's
judgment, because that leaves the field open to many different answers.

Julie



On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 7:38 AM, Mark Ehlert  wrote:

> Jonathan Rochkind  wrote:
> > One idea is if perhaps the matching algorithm could use the new 3xx
> fields
> > instead of the 300 "type of unit" free text.  Of course, that relies on
> the
> > new 3xx fields using only controlled terms, which I'm not sure is the
> case
> > (but should be!).
>
> Assuming 3xx is limited to the 336-338, then the CMC types are already
> set up as controlled terms.  Hence the prescribed "other" and
> "unspecified" terms provided for all three lists.
>
> --
> Mark K. Ehlert Minitex
> CoordinatorUniversity of Minnesota
> Bibliographic & Technical  15 Andersen Library
>   Services (BATS) Unit222 21st Avenue South
> Phone: 612-624-0805Minneapolis, MN 55455-0439
> 
>



-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Catalog Librarian
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

"There is more to life than simply increasing its speed." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging playaways

[Julie Moore]

And herein lies my point ... I am seeking consistency!

Julie

On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Deborah Fritz
wrote:

>  But what you do in the local catalog, does *not* actually stay in the
> local catalog, because records get batchloaded to WorldCat and other union
> catalogs (or catalogues) and, when that happens, what then will happen with
> the matching algorythms for deduping records if each record has a different
> SMD?
>  1 sound media player
>  1 pre-recorded MP3 player
>  1 pre-recorded digital audio player
>  1 Playaway
>  1 audio media player
>  1 digital media player
>
> 1) Is there an explicit code, currently in use in MARC--that we can use
> while we are creating RDA descriptions in a MARC environment, that will make
> it clear to a matching algorythm that this record is describing the same
> thing as that record, no matter what is in the 300$a?
>
> 2) And since this is the RDA-L not the MARC-L, is there a combination of
> RDA data elements that will reliably indicate that this description is
> describing the same thing as that description, no matter what is in the SMD,
> for whatever future matching we will need to do?
>
> 3) And/or is this another situation where The Registry could *really* help,
> so that every SMD is registered, before it is used in a description in a
> library environment, so that a matching algorythm can check the registry and
> match on 'variant' terms? And, if so, when will that become an integral part
> of our cataloging procedures?
>
> Deborah
> --
> Deborah Fritz
> MARC Database Consultant
> The MARC of Quality
> www.marcofquality.com
> Voice/Fax: (321) 676-1904
>
>
>   On Friday, April 22, 2011 10:58 AM , Ed Jones  wrote:
>
>
> Julie,
>
>
>
> If you insist on a straight answer…
>
>
>
> If my library promoted them as Playaways and users knew them as Playaways,
> I would probably argue for calling them Playaways in the physical
> description. (As they say, What you do in the local catalog stays in the
> local catalog.) In an ideal world, where records carried more information in
> coded form, I would have a coded value in the record rather than a literal
> (something analogous to ONIX’s “AK”) and would leave it up to the local
> library what literal they wanted to have display in their catalog. In a
> shared catalog like OCLC, I would probably follow standard practice to the
> extent it exists. In 2008 the Playaway Cataloging Joint Task Force—yes,
> there was such a thing—recommended “1 sound media player” so I would
> probably go with that.
> http://www.olacinc.org/drupal/capc_files/playawaysPDF.pdf
>
>
>
> Ed
>
>
>
>  On  Thursday, April 21, 2011 5:07 PM ,  Julie Moore<
> julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ed,
>
> Are you saying that you would call it a:
>
> 300 1 pre-recorded MP3 player ?
>
> Just curious!
>
> Thanks,
> Julie
>
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Ed Jones  wrote:
>
> FWIW, ONIX calls it a "pre-recorded MP3 player", which also seems to be the
> name used in the marketplace, if a Google search I just did is any
> indication (1.5 million results as a quoted string). The new "product form"
> was added to ONIX in early 2007. The RDA ONIX framework predates this
> (unless there is a newer version than version 1.0).
>
> http://www.onixtools.de/downloads/ONIX_Code_Lists_Issue_7_Changes.pdf
>
> Ed Jones
>
> --
>
>


-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Catalog Librarian
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

"There is more to life than simply increasing its speed." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging playaways

[Julie Moore]

Dear Ed,

Thank you for your straight answer ... (which I think is really 3 if-then
answers.)

I am aware of the 2008 OLAC Playaway Cataloging Joint Task Force
recommendations, but I take that with a grain of salt since RDA was not
actually published yet. It was the best that they could come up with at the
time, but a lot has happened with RDA since then. So I think that this
document is rather dated, as far as RDA life is concerned.

I think that this example illustrates that we are not quite there yet with
RDA. I do not think that we've gotten to a "final answer" just yet on this
... and many other issues.

Thanks kindly for your thoughtful response.

Best wishes,
Julie



On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Ed Jones  wrote:

> Julie,
>
>
>
> If you insist on a straight answer…
>
>
>
> If my library promoted them as Playaways and users knew them as Playaways,
> I would probably argue for calling them Playaways in the physical
> description. (As they say, What you do in the local catalog stays in the
> local catalog.) In an ideal world, where records carried more information in
> coded form, I would have a coded value in the record rather than a literal
> (something analogous to ONIX’s “AK”) and would leave it up to the local
> library what literal they wanted to have display in their catalog. In a
> shared catalog like OCLC, I would probably follow standard practice to the
> extent it exists. In 2008 the Playaway Cataloging Joint Task Force—yes,
> there was such a thing—recommended “1 sound media player” so I would
> probably go with that.
> http://www.olacinc.org/drupal/capc_files/playawaysPDF.pdf
>
>
>
> Ed
>
>
>
> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Julie Moore
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 21, 2011 5:07 PM
>
> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging playaways
>
>
>
> Ed,
>
> Are you saying that you would call it a:
>
> 300 1 pre-recorded MP3 player ?
>
> Just curious!
>
> Thanks,
> Julie
>
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Ed Jones  wrote:
>
> FWIW, ONIX calls it a "pre-recorded MP3 player", which also seems to be the
> name used in the marketplace, if a Google search I just did is any
> indication (1.5 million results as a quoted string). The new "product form"
> was added to ONIX in early 2007. The RDA ONIX framework predates this
> (unless there is a newer version than version 1.0).
>
> http://www.onixtools.de/downloads/ONIX_Code_Lists_Issue_7_Changes.pdf
>
> Ed Jones
>
> --
> --
>
Julie Renee Moore
Catalog Librarian
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

"There is more to life than simply increasing its speed." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging playaways

[Julie Moore]

Ed,

Are you saying that you would call it a:

300 1 pre-recorded MP3 player ?

Just curious!

Thanks,
Julie

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Ed Jones  wrote:

> FWIW, ONIX calls it a "pre-recorded MP3 player", which also seems to be the
> name used in the marketplace, if a Google search I just did is any
> indication (1.5 million results as a quoted string). The new "product form"
> was added to ONIX in early 2007. The RDA ONIX framework predates this
> (unless there is a newer version than version 1.0).
>
> http://www.onixtools.de/downloads/ONIX_Code_Lists_Issue_7_Changes.pdf
>
> Ed Jones
> --
>
Julie Renee Moore
Catalog Librarian
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

"There is more to life than simply increasing its speed." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Re: [RDA-L] cartographic three-dimensional form

[Julie Moore]

Ahhh! I missed the tactile part! Thanks, Mark!

Julie

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Mark Ehlert  wrote:

> Julie Moore  wrote:
> > In the RDA Table 6.1, I was wondering why "cartographic three-dimensional
> > form" was listed twice.
>
> It looks fine in the Toolkit from here.
>
> > 1) "Cartographic content expressed through a form or forms intended to be
> > perceived through touch as a three-dimensional form or forms."
> > 2) "Cartographic content expressed through a form or forms intended to be
> > perceived visually in three-dimensional form or forms."
>
> The content type for the first one is "cartographic tactile
> three-dimensional form."
>
> --
> Mark K. Ehlert Minitex
> CoordinatorUniversity of Minnesota
> Bibliographic & Technical  15 Andersen Library
>   Services (BATS) Unit222 21st Avenue South
> Phone: 612-624-0805Minneapolis, MN 55455-0439
> <http://www.minitex.umn.edu/>
>



-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Catalog Librarian
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

"There is more to life than simply increasing its speed." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

[RDA-L] cartographic three-dimensional form

[Julie Moore]

In the RDA Table 6.1, I was wondering why "cartographic three-dimensional
form" was listed twice.

I am guessing that it is because it is perceived through both the senses of
touch and vision?

1) "Cartographic content expressed through a form or forms intended to be
perceived through touch as a three-dimensional form or forms."
2) "Cartographic content expressed through a form or forms intended to be
perceived visually in three-dimensional form or forms."

Thanks,
Julie

-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Catalog Librarian
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

"There is more to life than simply increasing its speed." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

[RDA-L] Cataloging playaways

[Julie Moore]

As long as we are looking at cataloging kits using RDA, I am also wondering
if people have cataloged playaways using RDA? (Is there a way to search
specifically for playaways with RDA records on OCLC?)

While I have been studying RDA and its relationship to playaways, I must say
that I am a tad bit discouraged ... as I know that the combination of having
both the elements of sound recording and electronic resource was a big issue
in AACR2. I am not sure that this sort of combination (as with the kits that
we are also talking about in another thread) has really been remedied (or
made clearer to the patron) by the approach of splitting out the content
type, media type, and carrier type.

I am very interested to hear from people who cataloged playaways during the
test ... and what your thoughts are on trying to use RDA with playaways (or
other materials that have such combo GMD needs on the AACR2 side.)

Cheers,
Julie
-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Catalog Librarian
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

"There is more to life than simply increasing its speed." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Re: [RDA-L] Cataloguing kits

[Julie Moore]

Since I catalog a lot of kits (as well as models, games, realia and other 3D
objects), I was wondering if there were any of these that were cataloged in
the "test"? I'd be really interested in seeing such records.

Julie

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:48 AM, J. McRee Elrod  wrote:

> Would kit appear anywhere?  Should "kit" be added to "Unmediated" even
> though some items might require "mediation"?
>

-- 
Julie Renee Moore
Catalog Librarian
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813

"There is more to life than simply increasing its speed." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Re: Sample OPAC display of records cataloged with RDA?

[Julie Moore]

Dear Bernhard,


Many thanks for your response and example of your other metadata format.


While I realize that parts II and III are not yet released, I think it's
interesting that this whole RDA project is happening without an illustration
of what the goal is ... even if it is just a generalization of what you wish
to see happen as a group. I realize that these are also "just" the Rules ...
on top of that, you have MARC and the various OPAC displays. However, it
seems to me that it would be useful to the inventors of the new code to have
a common picture of where we are going, even if it is reaching for the stars
at this point.


It seems to me that moving forward without a picture is somewhat akin to
saying, "Let's drive to Fairbanks, Alaska ... without a map!" I have done
this drive to Fairbanks, and if I were trying to convince another person to
travel with me to Fairbanks, I would likely need to provide some information
about where and why we were going ... and I would bring along a map.


I realize that the JSC and constituents are rather the trailblazers into
unchartered territory in this analogy.Also, driving to Fairbanks is a simple
task compared to creating new Rules, especially since there is only one
highway at a certain point, so the choices are limited -- and also, many
people have done it before! There are road signs, if nothing else!  Still, I
know that I would appreciate a visual of the desired outcome. I have heard
quite a bit about the "why" we're going. I've heard a whole lot about "how"
we're going (the process). I would like to see some of the possibilities of
our destination.


Just an observation from a visual learner!


Best wishes,


Julie Moore
Catalogue Librarian
Henry Madden Library
California State University, Fresno
559.278.5813
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



On 2/9/06, Bernhard Eversberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
>
> Julie Moore wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone developed an illustrative sample OPAC screen with records
> > cataloged under RDA?
>
> Presently, none of the likes can exist - with RDA parts II and III
> still in the making.
>
> In the course of another project, however, not directly related to
> RDA, we have almost completed the design of a new metadata format
> plus indexing, and rigged up a demo database of some 1.2 mio diverse
> records (including all titles from our own OPAC, reformatted).
> A brief English description with samples is here:
>http://www.allegro-c.de/doku/neutral/example.htm
>
> The database search interface, or the homepage of it, is here:
>
>http://www.biblio.tu-bs.de/db/neutral/index-e.php
>
> (After that, much of what you see will be in German...)
>
> Regards, B. Eversberg
>




--
Julie Renee Moore
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Sample OPAC display of records cataloged with RDA?

[Julie Moore]

Dear Colleagues,


Has anyone developed an illustrative sample OPAC screen with records
cataloged under RDA? It would be helpful to me to see something like this. I
think it would be much easier to explain to colleagues, if I had such an
example to show them where we think we're going, illustrating the benefits
of RDA and why it's going to be so much better than our current AACR2R.


Best wishes,
Julie Moore
Catalogue Librarian
Henry Madden Library
California State University, Fresno
559.278.5813


--
Julie Renee Moore
[EMAIL PROTECTED]