Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

[M. E.]

Wilson, Pete  wrote:

> Should we be doing something similar for works that are selections from a
> single larger work, rather than collective works?  Certainly there is no
> reason to think that one book of selections from, say, Paradise Lost would
> have the same content as another.  Are we making headings like:
>
> Milton, John, $d 1608-1674. $t Paradise lost. $k Selections (Best of
> Paradise lost)
>
> or
>
> Milton, John, $d 1608-1674. $t Paradise lost. $k Selections (2012)?
>

Doing so would follow the same principle as distinguishing between
selections of full sets of works.  It wouldn't surprise me if there are
some music headings out there that do this.  Here's one example of a
textual work:

 Euler, Leonhard, ǂd 1707-1783. $t Vollständige Anleitung zur Algebra. $k
Selections $s (Ebert)




-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex


To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the 
address you are subscribed under to:
lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
In the body of the message:
SIGNOFF RDA-L

Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator

[M. E.]

Finnerty, Ryan  wrote:

> What if you have an entity that has multiple roles, one at the creator
> level and the other at another level (e.g. author and publisher)?
>
> Would it be acceptable to use relationship designator for both roles in a
> 1XX, like this:
> 110 2_   Geological Survey (U.S.), $e author, $e publisher.
>
> Or would you have to use a 1XX and 7XX, like this:
> 110 2_   Geological Survey (U.S.), $e author
> 710 2_   Geological Survey (U.S.), $e publisher
>

The name access point is usually only given one time, with a chain of
designators attached to it.  So the former is the most common of those you
give above.

See Guideline #10 in the PCC Guidelines on Relationship Designators for a
summary on this for 1xx/7xx $e/$j:
<
http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/PCC%20RDA%20guidelines/Relat-Desig-Guidelines.docx
>


-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Habilitation theses

[M. E.]

Heidrun Wiesenmüller  wrote:

> The other day, we were wondering how habilitation theses should be treated
> under RDA. These are quite common in Germany. In case you're not familiar
> with this European concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habilitation
>
>
I don't have an answer to your question, but an observation that the old
ALA cataloging rules and AACR1 had special instructions on
Habilitationsschriften.  These disappeared under AACR2.


-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] RDA imprint revision

[M. E.]

M. E.  wrote:


> Don't confuse RDA's "production statement", which refers to man-made
> stuff, with what might be similar statements in another universe for
> naturally occurring objects.
>

Thinking this over, I should qualify that the production statement would
also apply to natural objects that are "made" or "converted" into something
else by hand, such as a display--AACR2's "resource as communication" that I
brought up in a related thread on OLAC-L.  Again, a case of RDA not be more
clear on how to handle such things which can be important parts of some
collections.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex
<http://www.minitex.umn.edu/>

Re: [RDA-L] RDA imprint revision

[M. E.]

J. McRee Elrod  wrote:

> Why would one wish to do that?  Nobody has suggested 264 1 $bGod for a
> rock. All we need is 264  2 for the seller of the rock.  Like
> manuscripts, equipment and naturally occurring objects are not
> published, and should have the appropriate 264 indicator for
> manufacturer and distributor.
>

Don't confuse RDA's "production statement", which refers to man-made stuff,
with what might be similar statements in another universe for naturally
occurring objects.  RDA woefully lacks any direction on telling us to
forego 260/264-like statements for these objects--if that's the intent of
the standard.

Presumption through silence isn't good guidance.


> No they are not.  Much of RDA is very unclear, and not in accord with
> reality.


I disagree.  Some of it is unclear.  I have the same problems with parts of
AACR2.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Reprint

[M. E.]

Robert Bratton  wrote:

> I don't know if this is a good example, but we've been using both the MARC
> 534 (for users) and the 775 (for machine manipulation/linking).
> 534 $p Reprint of: $a Gross, Hans, 1847-1915. $t Raritätenbetrug. $c
> Berlin : J. Guttentag, 1901.
> 775 08 $i Reprint of (manifestation): $a Gross, Hans, 1847-1915 $t
> Raritätenbetrug $d Berlin : J. Guttentag, 1901 $w (OCoLC)10318982
>

Good example.

The 775 1st indicator should be "1".  With a "0", it would (or could) lead
to what are effectively duplicate displays of the same note.  (Linking
entries are fancy notes, really.)

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator

[M. E.]

Lynne LaBare, Senior Librarian/Cataloger  wrote:

> Is it correct to state that I can use "contributor" (20.2.1.3) or
> "creator" (I.2.1) when a *specific* MRI for an entity does not exist that
> reflects the entity's relationship to the bibliographical content of the
> work?
>

If you choose not to search for a specific designator on another list
(e.g., MARC relator code terms or LCSH or AAT or ...) or make up another
designator out of thin air (a last resort, in my view), then, yes, you may
use those broader RDA element names.  The PCC advise as much for their
institutions; see Guideline #4 in <
http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/PCC%20RDA%20guidelines/Relat-Desig-Guidelines.docx
>.

 100 1- Name, $e creator.
 700 1- Name, $e contributor.
 710 2- Company name, $e publisher.
 710 2- Name, $e custodian.

Here's a list of those RDA element names for those who don't have access to
the cataloging manual.  I've added their location via RDA rule numbers.
These element names are define in RDA's glossary as well as at the RDA
location assigned.


1. Name-Work Relationship (RDA 19)
 o  creator (RDA 19.2)
 - - more specific designators under Appendix I.2.1

 o  other person, family, or corporate body associated with a work (RDA
19.3)
 - - [our local designator: other (work)]
 - - more specific designators under Appendix I.2.2


2. Name-Expression Relationship (RDA 20)
 o  contributor (RDA 20.2)
 - - more specific designators under Appendix I.3.1


3. Name-Manifestation Relationship (RDA 21)
 o  producer of an unpublished resource (RDA 21.2)
 - - [our local designator: producer (manifestation)]

 o  publisher (RDA 21.3)
 - - more specific designators under Appendix I.4.2

 o  distributor (RDA 21.4)
 - - more specific designators under Appendix I.4.3

 o  manufacturer (RDA 21.5)
 - - more specific designators under Appendix I.4.1

 o  other person, family, or corporate body associated with a manifestation
(RDA 21.6)
 - - [our local designator: other (manifestation)]


4. Name-Item Relationship (RDA 22)
 o  owner (RDA 22.2)
 - - more specific designators under Appendix I.5.1

 o  custodian (RDA 22.3)

 o  other person, family, or corporate body associated with an item (RDA
22.4)
 - - [our local designator: other (item)]
 - - more specific designators under Appendix I.5.2



-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator

[M. E.]

Benjamin A Abrahamse  wrote:

> I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, but just to sound off my agreement
> with Mac's statement, "No finite list can reflect the infinite relationship
> possibilities" and wondering yet again why there aren't more generic RDA
> relators like "contributor".
>

On this point, I have some comments.  RDA expects a relationship between a
name and the thing being cataloged to fit into one or more of the spectrum
of elements in chapters 19-22.  But the MARC standard isn't up to snuff in
complying with this, e.g., a name in a 100 field can be either or both of
two different name-to-work relationships.  And a 700 field can be anything,
really.  So what do we do in MARC?  First, realize that Appendix I is not
the sole source WITHIN RDA for the name-thing relationship designators.  If
the only relationship you can muster is "contributor" for an
added entry, then use that element name sourced from Chapter 20.

Another way to look at it: those designators in Appendix I are finer terms
for those broader relationship elements in chapters 19-22, e.g.:

Contributor (20.2)
 - performer (App. I.3)
 - - actor (App. I.3)
 - - - voice actor (App. I.3)

Or

Publisher (21.3)
 - broadcaster (App. I.4)

The sucktastical part is having to deal with the longer element names from
those chapters.  Like hell I'd use:

 710 2- Company name, $e producer of an unpublished resource.

That's why I've furnished--but haven't yet had recourse to apply--local
designators for these long ones, e.g.:

 710 2- Company name, $e producer (manifestation).

These are formatted in the style of other RDA designators and not
necessarily public-friendly, of course.  Still, making concessions when
applying RDA in MARC records is part of the game.

And for thing-to-thing relationships, I've used $i Related work a few times
already.

I seem to have an aversion to making up designators.


-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Finding examples of RDA authority records for personal names and corporate bodies

[M. E.]

Robert Maxwell  wrote:
>
> The search “dx:rda” in the OCLC authorities keyword search finds all the
RDA-coded records, but since there are 785,362 of them
> this morning you might want to find some way to limit the search rather
than go through them all J

Indeed,  The en: and rx: indexes are your friend.  Even nt: is worth a try.

<
http://www.oclc.org/support/services/worldcat/documentation/authorities/authformat.en.html
>

--
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)

[M. E.]

Jack Wu  wrote:

>  I've always learned that a fictitious character is just that, a figment
> of our imagination. It is not capable of authorship (or as creator) unless
> it's a pseudonym of some real person. I can understand Holmes, Sherlock
> getting an access point, but cannot understand it as the Preferred access
> point.
>

Another way to think about it is to consider the "identity" as being
responsible for the work, not the flesh-and-blook human being bearing that
name (real or pseudonymous).

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

[RDA-L] To the legion unsubscribing from RDA-L

[M. E.]

Quoting from a post to this list from a couple months ago:


*  *  *

Re-sending this message for your information. Please note that this list
migrated from the nlc-bnc.ca server to the lac-bac.gc.ca server several
years ago. 

 Commands to control your subscription options may also be sent directly to
the listserv machine. There is also a web interface available for
controlling your subscriptionat:

https://listserv.collectionscanada.gc.ca/cgi-bin/wa?A0=RDA-L

As with other web interfaces, you will need to set up your own password,
etc.

** Reading via RSS possible through links at the bottom of the page. **

* To remove your name from the list.

Send an email to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca with this command in the
body of the message:

SIGNOFF RDA-L



* To stop postings temporarily -- Please use this when you go on holidays
or will not be reading your e-mail regularly.

Send an email to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca with this command in the
body of the message:

SET RDA-L NOMail



* To re-start mail delivery after usingNOMail.

Send an email to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca with this command in the
body of the message:

SET RDA-L Mail

** **

* To receive one message per day as an index in html format.

Send an email to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca with this command in the
body of the message:

set RDA-L IND HTML



* To receive one message per day that contains all the daily postings to
the list.

Send an email to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca with this command in the
body of the message:

SET RDA-L DIGest



* To receive "carbon copies" of messages that you post to the list.

Send an email to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca with this command in the
body of the message:

SET RDA-L REPro



* To obtain a short list of common LISTSERV commands.

Send an email to: lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca with this command in the
body of the message:

HELP RDA-L

**

To post messages to the list, send messages to:

RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca



The web interface for controlling your RDA-L subscription options is
available at:

https://listserv.collectionscanada.gc.ca/cgi-bin/wa?A0=RDA-L

As with other web interfaces, you will need to set up your own password,
etc.

RDA-L is archived at:

https://listserv.collectionscanada.gc.ca/cgi-bin/wa?A0=RDA-L



Library and Archives Canada's listserv archive:

https://listserv.collectionscanada.gc.ca



 ---

For further information, please contact:

JSC Secretary

email:jscsecret...@rdatoolkit.org



RDA-L uses the LISTSERV(tm) software. Detailed help is available at the
Subscribers Cornerhttps://listserv.collectionscanada.gc.ca

*  *  *

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] French-language book, cataloged using English, with summary in French

[M. E.]

Ian Fairclough  wrote:

> In hand: a book in French, cataloged using the English language.  Except
> for the summary, which is in French, and was likely lifted from another
> source.
> I see nothing under 7.10 Summarization of the Content to comment on the
> advisability of including a summary that is in another language than that
> of the cataloging agency, nor in the LC-PCC PS.
>

RDA 5.4, last paragraph: "Record the descriptive attributes of a work or
expression covered in chapter 7 in a language and script preferred by the
agency creating the data."

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Punctuation question--quoted notes

[M. E.]

Benjamin A Abrahamse  wrote:

>  When a note is quoting the source of information (see 1.10.3) and so
> ends with a quotation mark, does the full stop fall inside or outside of
> the quotation mark?  I am having trouble finding an instruction that
> addresses this.
>
Most folks have followed the old LCRI and the newer LC-PCC PS to give the
final punctuation within the quotation.
<
http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=lcpschp1&target=lcps1-502#lcps1-502
>
Scroll down to the second example under #2.

That said, my former boss, Edward Swanson, always used the ISBD method you
describe of adding the full stop after the quotation.  At least one
client library asked what was going on with that, so we reverted to the
more popular application.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Thanks RE: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)

[M. E.]

Robert Maxwell  wrote:

>  In a message to the PCC list dated September 4, 2013, Kate James of the
> LC Policy and Standards Division addressed this issue (with reference to
> the record for “Holmes, Sherlock”):
>

Thanks for the reminder, Bob.  Looking through my inbox, I held on to and
highlighted Kate's original message, but don't remember having read it.
I'm also one who expects these sorts of details--temporary though they
are--to be posted somewhere on the NACO site if not in the LC-PCC PS.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Thanks RE: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)

[M. E.]

Robert Maxwell  wrote:
>
> No one should be “correcting” authorized access points that were
correctly established under current policy, which is to include the
qualifier if there is a conflict but otherwise not.

But the material of 9.6.1.7 falls under the 9.19.1.2 group of additions
that are applied to AAPs regardless of conflict.  Unless you're referring
to the core status laid out in the back half of the blue text below 9.6.

Did I miss something here?

--
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Thanks RE: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)

[M. E.]

Bernhard, S. Michael  wrote:

> It seems to me, too, that the heading for Holmes should be Holmes,
> Sherlock |c (Fictitious character).  Do
> others agree?  If I were still at a NACO library, I might go ahead and
> correct both headings (unless I've missed
> something somewhere with regard to the Holmes heading).
>

Nothing missed.  The authority record was created before July of this year
when "Fictitous character" monikers and such were sanctioned for use in
RDA.  No one's gotten around to updating the 100 and 368 fields yet.  (The
040 $d DLC, it seems, refers to the merging of the old subject heading
record to .)

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] A date between 1310 and 1319

[M. E.]

Moore, Richard  wrote:

>  We have an author whose birth date is known to be between 1310 and 1319.
> We can record it in the 046 following edtf, but how would people deal with
> it in an RDA authorized access point? RDA 9.3.1.3 doesn’t have an example
> of “between 1310 and 1319”, but should this mean we can’t do it? It’s as
> comprehensible as “approximately”.
>
> ** **
>
> If it’s considered unlawful then do people think it would be a useful
> addition to propose?
>

A similar question was asked in late May of this year on the PCCLIST
(Subject: Born between 1914 and 1916). From Bobby Bothmann:


> Neither RDA nor the Policy Statements provide any guidance for what to do
> when a person is “born between 1914 and 1916”.
>
> 9.3 gives [year] or [year] as one option and “approximately [year]” as
> another option. It seems silly to split the difference and say
> “approximately 1915,” but that might be easier, if less accurate than the
> information provided.
>
> I should think that in the spirit of flexibility we can simply record
> “between 1914 and 1916-” as the date element in a 100, correct?
>
> Does that make the 046 $f 1914-1916 or 1914,1916?



I added some examples in my response (the links sorta work during this
shutdown period):


> There are at least a handful of "born/died between a range of years"
> examples in the NAF, both RDA and older.  Here are few I found:
>
> http://lccn.loc.gov/n79150485
> http://lccn.loc.gov/n91059316
> http://lccn.loc.gov/n2012003715
> http://lccn.loc.gov/n87873238
> http://lccn.loc.gov/nb2009023360
>
> The most common method employs the earliest dates with "approximately" (or
> "ca." in their previous incarnations), at least in the sample records I
> looked at.  The 046s may need some tweaking in light of the comments made
> [in the thread] about the formatting of that field.



Paul Frank added the following at the end of the thread:


> The element "Date of Birth" is defined in RDA as the "year a person was
> born" -- not a span of years -- so if you have three possible birth years
> (1914, 1915, 1916), the formulation of the date of birth element in the
> authorized access point could be:
>
> $d approximately 1915-
>
> This is arrived at by "splitting the difference" in the three possible
> years.
>
> The date you pick for the 'approximately' date per RDA 9.3.1.3 is a
> judgment call, though. Splitting the difference is as good a choice as any,
> but any of the three dates could have been selected.
>
> But remember that when a precise birth year is debatable, NACO rules
> always allow you to omit the date altogether from the authorized access
> point. The 046 field allows you to record date information in a much more
> granular way.



-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Questions for videodisc reproduction of videocassette

[M. E.]

J. McRee Elrod  wrote:


> Even Bibframe does not have WEMI


True, but that's BIBFRAME, not RDAFRAME or FRBRFRAME.  BIBFRAME, as I've
come to understand it, is trying to be all things to all people.
Supposedly something called application profiles will serve as "templates"
that lay over the BIBFRAME foundation and house RDA data or AACR2 data or
DCRM data and so forth.  Presumably the RDA profile will incorporate the
WEMI entities and all the other whiz-bang components of that standard.

As to whether all of this will happen before the heat death of the
universe, I don't know.

--
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Questions for videodisc reproduction of videocassette

[M. E.]

J. McRee Elrod  wrote:

> We have introduced "manufacturer" as a
> relationship designator, needed for equipment manufacturers for
> example.
>
> RDA is still very book centric, I suspect because the national
> cataloguing agencies catalogue few of the nonbook nontextual resources
> most of us catalogue.  Our experience since 1979 is that if something
> is needed, it will eventually happen.  I expect to see "manufacturer"
> added to the relationship terms.
>

It won't be added to the relationship designator list in the back of RDA
because it already exists as an element name in Chapter 21.  Which is to
say it's one of those broader, "fill-in-the-blank" terms.  In MARC, because
there's no 1xx or 7xx that is specifically defined for a publisher's
name or a manufacturer's name or an owner's name or a creator's name, we
use the $e/$j work-around to get these into the record.  To use another
mental example for a book where the publisher and printer are traced:

Publisher (RDA 21.3): ABC Publishing (New York, N.Y.)
Manufacturer (RDA 21.5): XYZ Printing Press
- Specific kind of manufacturer (I.4.1): printer

The 710s would be:

710 2- ABC Publishing (New York, N.Y.), $e publisher.
710 2- XYZ Printing Press, $e printer.
 - or -
710 2- XYZ Printing Press, $e manufacturer.

The PCC guidelines prefer a more specific term over a general term.  I tend
to lean that way too, so the first XYZ heading would be preferred over the
second.



> I could understand not adding relationship designations at all, since
> they are not RDA core, and legacy records lack them.


True, but this refers to those designators in Appendix I, J, and K.  In my
reading, RDA has--how to put this, an expectation?--that if we're tracing a
name, it should fit under one of the relationship categories in Chapters
19-22, even if the appendix designators aren't employed.  For those who
don't have access to RDA, there they are (I'm listing the names of the
elements, not necessary what would show up in the MARC record or in the
public display):

Ch. 19
- Creator (e.g., author, composer, artist)
- Other Person, Family, or Corporate Body Associated with a Work (e.g.,
directors, production companies, addressee of a letter, sponsoring bodies)
Ch. 20
- Contributor (e.g., editors of various stripes, illustrators, movie
soundtrack composers in records for the movie, etc.)
Ch. 21
- Producer of an Unpublished Resource
- Publisher
- Distributor
- Manufacturer
- Other Person, Family, or Corporate Body Associated with a Manifestation
Ch. 22
- Owner
- Custodian
- Other Person, Family, or Corporate Body Associated with an Item

For the reasons I stated above concerning MARC's more generic 1xx and 7xx
definitions, the category or categories under which a name heading would be
set must be explicitly signified in the record, again using the $e/$j.  See
the first 710 example above.

This is also my rationale for occasionally using the RDA elements "creator"
and "contributor" in those situations where I could find no suitable
specific terms in Appendix I.  I'd prefer sourcing from sanctioned lists
rather than making up words and phrases willy-nilly.  I've even employed
the generic "related work" (RDA 25.1) as a 7xx $i in lieu
of missing Appendix J designators for the same reason.  I'd much rather
supply these high-level terms (when known) over giving none at all.



>  But if we are
> using them, they should be added to all entries, even if it means
> going outside the present list.  But why make this entry for a
> commercial enterprise?


Special collections may want to highlight publishers in this manner in
addition to making their presence felt in the 260/264 field--irrespective
of their status as large commercial entities or one-man printing presses.
I've done that before.


-- 

Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Role of relators and labels in display

[M. E.]

>
> If the OPAC supplies "Publisher" as the label for 264 1, then
> certainly the printer of a one off copy of the electronic resource
> should *not* be coded 264  1.  Publisher name and date are important
> clues to the authority and currency of a resource.


True enough.


>  Who printed it
> when is not relevant...


I disagree.  I usually like to know if I'm getting an "original" thing or a
photocopy/printout by the local institution or another outfit like
UMI.  Quality can vary.


> ...although it could be a 264 3 if wanted.
>

Remember that manufacture statements as defined in RDA only apply to
published stuff.  Ditto the distribution statements.  Production statements
(264 -0) are something of a hybrid: the making of something that's
unpublished and, in a way, the release of that thing.  This leads to the
other active thread on what criteria is necessary to distinguish something
as published versus unpublished.


> Most patrons do not go beyond brief display, and would not see a 77X.
> It it important to have actual publisher in 264  1.


Again, agreed.  I should reiterate that my "Creator: Doe, Jane" listing is
what is happening in the cataloger's head.  The MARC steps (which tags,
fields, subfields?) and display considerations (what ILS am I using? what
and how does this show up?) are separate but still closely related and
important milestones in the whole get-it-on-the-shelf workflow.


>
> >In our own MARC cataloging practice, we're not going to use the more
> >lengthy element names in the $e/$j
>
> VERY wise IMNSHO.  In a record for a video recording, it is clear from
> the record what is being described; $eeditor of moving image work, or
> $efilm director, can be replaced by $eeditor, or $edirector, which are
> short and to the point and better for display, granted a full 508
> justifying the entries.
>

Though you'd get into trouble with a videorecording of a film edited by one
person that had an accompanying book edited by another.  I suppose the $3
would differentiate between them.  But that's having the human reader make
the connection.  Can the system make that connection too?

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts

[M. E.]

Tarango, Adolfo  wrote:

>  Weighing in with trepidation to comment on the part of 2.8.1.3
> addressing the appearance of publication data. Note, that 2.8.1.3 states a
> condition must be met, that when *bo**th* publication data of the
> reproducer and the original are found on the item, then in that case, you
> record the data for the reproducer. The implication is that if the data for
> the reproducer isn't presented, then you use the data of the original.
>


I read the last sentence of 2.8.1.3 as countering the implication when read
in the light of 1.11's broader handling of facsimile/reproduction
descriptions.


-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Questions for videodisc reproduction of videocassette

[M. E.]

Deborah Fritz  wrote:

> However, there doesn't seem to be a relationship designator for
> 'producer'; or rather, there is one, but it is assigned to:  "producer: A
> person, family, or corporate body responsible for most of the business
> aspects of a production for screen, audio recording, television, webcast,
> etc. The producer is generally responsible for fund raising, managing the
> production, hiring key personnel, arranging for distributors, etc."--I.2.2
> (Work)
>
> So it seems that we need a new relationship designator to cover this
> situation, and I wonder why RDA does not already have one; is there an
> actual reason why RDA has designators for Manufacturers (I.4.1), Publishers
> (I.4.2) and Distributors (I.4.3) but not Producers (manifestation)?
>

For the same reason there's no specific "publisher" designator--that
role is covered by the broader element Publisher.

This is one of those RDA learning hurdles: applying function/role terms to,
in this case, name headings.  RDA assumes at the very least that the blank
lines catalogers fill in (mentally more often than not) to
describe relationships between a name and a title/thing are labeled in some
manner.  The labels are the elements found under RDA chapters 19-22:

 Creator: Doe, Jane
 Publisher: ABC Media (New York, N.Y.)
 Owner: Smith, John

Designators are nothing more than terms for specific roles under the
broader element banners.  In other words, the hierarchy from broad to
specific roles is not limited to Appendix I alone, but RDA chapters 19-22 +
Appendix I.  For instance:

Creator (RDA 19.2)  >  author (RDA I.2.1)  >  librettist (RDA I.2.1)

This can be read backwards too: a librettist is a kind of author, which is
a kind of creator.

So when filling in those blank lines, the Appendix I designators serve to
answer the question "What specific kind of ...?," a question that can be
repeated through successive layers of specificity.

Creator: Doe, Jane
- Specific kind of creator: architect
Publisher: ABC Media (New York, N.Y.)
- Specific kind of publisher: broadcaster
Owner: Smith, John
- Specific kind of owner: former owner
- - Specific kind of form owner: donor

For the last one above, part of the decision-making process we do is select
either "former owner" or "donor" for John Smith's relationship to the thing
we're cataloging.  Similar decisions are done with "director" vs. "film
director" and "performer" vs. "singer" and so on.

As to this mental process being translated into boots-on-the-ground MARC
practice, the specifics of RDA run into the sometimes more
general structure of MARC.  The 100 field, often used for authors,
artists, composers, and other creators, is not limited only
to creators; the 700 field can hold names that serve the function of, well,
damn near anything.  MARC tags alone only get us halfway to the blank line
scenario I painted above.  So we have the $e and $j the bridge the gap and
act as placeholders for these role terms--terms not only from Appendix I,
but also the elements from Chapters 19-22.

In our own MARC cataloging practice, we're not going to use the more
lengthy element names in the $e/$j (e.g., 700 10 Smith, John, $e other
person, family, or corporate body associated with a manifestation).  We
devised abbreviated versions of these as proxies, like "producer
(manifestation)" for "producer of an unpublished resource" and "other
(work)" for "other person, family, or corporate body associated with a
work."  We haven't had any materials come through that have called for
these yet.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] "All illustrations"

[M. E.]

 J. McRee Elrod  wrote:

> Thomas proposed:
>
> >Extent: 1 comic book (ix, 45 pages)
> >Dimensions: 24 cm
> >Colour Content: color
>
> Perhaps it is because I grew up with cards, but I would find far
> clearer the following without a label:
>
> 1 comic book (ix, 45 pages) : colour, 24 cm
>
> or
>
> ix, 45 pages (comic book) : colour, 24 cm
>
> I think most could understand that the number of pages is extent, and
> that 24 cm is dimensions.  To the uninitiated "umediated" and
> "carrier" mean little.
>
> Have you passed all this by public services, as did Sevim at KSU?
>

Thomas is merely listing these using "fill in the blanks" RDA element
names; it has nothing to do with display.  It's equivalent to writing:

AACR2 2.5B: 128 p.
AACR2 2.5C: ill.
AACR2 2.5D: 23 cm.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Duets

[M. E.]

Maliheh Dorkhosh  wrote:

> For a musical work, "Duets" is as a preferred title?
>  Or
>  "Duets" is used after a Preferred title?
>

If the work has only a generic title like "Duos" or "Duets", then "Duets"
is the preferred title (see RDA 6.14.2.6 and 6.14.2.4).  Here's one example:

 Danzi, Franz, $d 1763-1826. $t Duets, $m viola, cello, $n op. 9 (Schott)
 

I'm not aware of any titles with "Duets" appearing after the preferred
title.  The $m includes names and number of instruments, not terms like
"Duets".  It's possible such a term would only appear (in parentheses) to
break a conflict with another title.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Dagger symbol

[M. E.]

Dana Van Meter  wrote:

> I have a question about the dagger symbol signifying death and RDA.  From
> the examples under the LC-PCC PS for 1.4 i.e., 1.7.5], it seems that in the
> 245 we should ignore the dagger and transcribe the title as if it is not
> there, and provide 246s with died (or gestorben, etc.) in [  ], and have a
> note stating that in the title the date is preceded by a dagger.
>
Your 245 should represent the title as found on the piece as closely as
possible, in my view.  This sometimes means replacing symbols with short
descriptions.  The 246/500 can handle any variations on the title.  So
taking your example, I'd go with:

245 14 ... (gestorben] 1202).
246 3- ... (1202)
246 xx Any others (the German word for "dagger"?)
500 -- In the title "[gestorben] appears as a dagger symbol.


-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication

[M. E.]

J. McRee Elrod  wrote:

> >I don't understand how you arrived at this conclusion.  Under 2.2.4, among
> >your choices are "b) other published descriptions of the resource" and "d)
> >any other available source (e.g., a reference source)".  Nothing here says
> >to me that these sources must be in print.
> An e-mail to and from the author or publisher is not a "published
> resource".
>
> While e-resources are considered "published", the paragraph you quote
> seems print centric to me.
>

The "published" option strikes me as one which involves reviews, lists,
commentaries, other catalogs, and so on.  Something with a rather closer
assocation with the thing being cataloged.

It's option "d" that covers everything else under the sun, including
e-mails from those who know what's going on.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication

[M. E.]

J. McRee Elrod  wrote:

>
> Mark, I notice you did not question my "poorly written" comment :-{)}.
>

Yeah, there are only so many hornets' nests I want to poke a stick into on
a Friday afternoon.  :)

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Date of publication

[M. E.]

Gary Oliver  wrote:

>  I have a book about a cemetery which was published by the author.  There
> is no date of any kind.  There is a list of people with their years of
> birth and death interred in this cemetery.  The latest year of death in
> this list is 2011.
>

Noted.


> I emailed the author and asked when the book was published.  He answered
> 2013.
>

Okay.


> RDA 2.8.6.2 instructs me to use as sources of information for publication
> date a) the same source as the title proper (see 
> 2.3.2.2),
> b) another source within the resource itself (see 
> 2.2.2),
> c) one of the other sources of information specified at 
> 2.2.4
> .
>

These refer to sources for *explicit* dates of publication.  The latest
death year found on a list isn't a date of publication, though it could be
used as a basis for a guesstimate.  It's after you've exhausted the 2.2.4
stuff that you go through the date-conjuring exercises mentioned in 2.8.6.6
and 1.9.2.
As Mac wrote, I'd go with the author's word on the matter, especially since
it's a self-published thing.

Mac wrote:
> Stop trying to slavishly follow poorly written and already out-of-date
rules

How is it outdated?

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

<>

Re: [RDA-L] recording on unnumbered plates

[M. E.]

Sian Woolcock  wrote:

>  We are currently having a discussion about recording the number of
> unnumbered plates in the extent field (MARC 300). The RDA toolkit has us
> confused on this.
>
> **
>
> ** **
>
> Previously under AACR2 rules, if we had a book with unnumbered plates we
> would transcribe it like this:
>
> ** **
>
> *300 - - ‡a 202 p., [16] p. of plates : ‡b ill. ; ‡c 21 cm.*
>
> ** **
>
> Under RDA rules we have now been transcribing books with unnumbered plates
> like this
>
> ** **
>
> *300 - - ‡a 202 pages, 16 pages of plates : ‡b ill. ; ‡c 21 cm.*
>
> ** **
>
> We thought this was the right thing to do but upon closer inspection of
> the RDA toolkit at rule 3.4.5.9 we are not sure if this is correct.
>
> ** **
>
> At the beginning of the rule it states:
>
> ** **
>
> *“**If the leaves or pages of plates in a resource are not included in
> the numbering for a sequence or sequences of pages or leaves of text, etc.,
> record the number of leaves or pages of plates at the end of the sequence
> or sequences of pagination, etc. Record the number of leaves or pages of
> plates after the pagination, etc., whether the plates are found together or
> distributed throughout the resource.*
>
> * *
>
> * EXAMPLE*
>
> *246 pages, 32 pages of plates”*
>
> ** **
>
> However once you get to the end of the chapter it states
>
> * *
>
> *“**Exception*
>
> *Early printed resources. For early printed resources, if the leaves and
> pages of plates are numbered, or if there are both numbered and unnumbered
> plates, record each sequence of leaves and pages of plates in the
> appropriate terms.*
>
> * *
>
> *EXAMPLE*
>
> *246 pages, 38 leaves of plates, 24 pages of plates*
>
> * *
>
> *Disregard unnumbered sequences of plates**,*”
>
> **
>


As Thomas mentioned, that's a continuation of the general instruction, not
the early book instruction.  There's the prescribed "unnumbered" instead of
brackets as well.

I'll take this opportunity to point to a cock-up between the first half of
3.4.5.9 and the last half if comparing practices between RDA and AACR2 (and
earlier).  The first half says to give a mention to plates found in the
piece.  Good enough.  The back half, however, after the early printed
resources section, tells us to only give unnumbered leaves/pages of plates
when they are a substantial part of the piece or are mentioned in a
note--just like for text (RDA 3.4.5.3.1).  So in a 300 page book we're not
supposed to give "8 unnumbered leaves of plates"?  Or give it and add a
note?

I figure this stems from someone taking AACR2 2.5B3 and applying it under
RDA both to texted pages/leaves and to plates, when I and I believe a
majority of catalogers only applied that AACR2 rule to texted pages/leaves.

If that's the way RDA's intended to be written--which would be a big change
in practice judging from the large number of "plated" books that contain
only a few plates--I'd welcome confirmation.

>
-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] initials in 378 $q

[M. E.]

Corey O'Halloran  wrote:

> I'm wondering if it's good practice to add initials for personal names in
> 378$q.
>
> For example,
>
> 100  $aJohnson, John,$d1886-1962
> 378  $a [i.e., q] John S.
> 670  $aApples and oranges, 2012:$bcover (John S. Johnson)
>
> In this case the initial for the author was discovered long after the
> heading was established.  I would definitely add 378$qJohn Samuel if I knew
> the S stood for Samuel.
>


Yes, RDA 9.5 says adding a forename + middle initial is fine as in your
example above.  I'd count doing so to an existing authority record is a
good move to boot.  If you're a PCC library, there are a couple nuances to
consider under LC-PCC PS 9.19.1.4:
<
http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=lcpschp9&target=lcps9-237#lcps9-237
>

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] honouree vs. honoree

[M. E.]

I'll quickly add that there's a "watercolour" under 3.7 (Applied Material)
that might pop up now and again for art works.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Publication Date

[M. E.]

Greta de Groat  wrote:

> Mark, you and i talked a little bit on the PCC list on June 13 about how
> to tell the difference between a transmittal date and publication date,
> with no practical conclusion that i could see.  Did your GODORT contact
> ever get any guidance?  Looking at RDA 2.8.6.3, the definition of
> "published" at 2.8.6.1, and the LC-PCC-PS 2.20.7, i do not see reasonable
> guidance.
>

My contact told me that she brought this up to someone in GODORT, who in
turn expressed an interest in passing this along to the larger group.  It's
still making its way through committee(s) for discussion last I heard.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Leaf (new RDA glossary term and definition)

[M. E.]

Kevin M Randall  wrote:

> But then don't the words "leaves" and "pages" also constitute
> Anglocentrism???
>

p. = pagina/paginae
ed. = editio
ill. = illustratio/illustrationes

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Change to option in 2.4.1.5 (Statement of responsibility naming more than one person, etc.)

[M. E.]

On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 5:45 PM, M. E.  wrote:

> This is a continuation of AACR2's "rule of three," at least as far as the
> number of names to post go.
>

Mea culpa.  "...at least as far as the number of names that should appear
before invoking."

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex
<http://www.minitex.umn.edu/>

Re: [RDA-L] Leaf (new RDA glossary term and definition)

[M. E.]

For those interested, there was conversation on some of these points last
summer.


Parts of the commentary on the wiki came from a thread or two on the
PCCLIST last summer.  See the thread with subject line "6JSC/LC/21" at:


The RDA proposal, follow-up comments, and final version(s) of the text as
submitted last year through this year:


-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Change to option in 2.4.1.5 (Statement of responsibility naming more than one person, etc.)

[M. E.]

J. McRee Elrod  wrote:

> SLC will give at least three from each category.  Giving only the
> first would be less access than AACR2 in some cases.
>

Read it again.  "If a single statement of responsibility names MORE THAN
THREE persons, families, or corporate bodies performing the same function
(or with the same degree of responsibility), omit any but the first of each
group of such persons, families, or bodies."
Halfway down page 2 at 

This is a continuation of AACR2's "rule of three," at least as far as the
number of names to post go.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Author affiliations

[M. E.]

Stan Allen  wrote:

> Does RDA expect us to add more than author names to the 245, such as Esq.,
> PH.D., Dr. and even the law firm lawyers are members of at the time the
> book is written?
>

If the info is part of the statement of responsibility as found on the
piece, the default RDA rule is to write out what's on the piece.  RDA also
offers the option to cull the herd and post an abridged SOR (a la AACR2).
Instructions under RDA 2.4.1.4 if you have the rulebook.


> An example of a record that has caused me confusion is a pcc record
> cataloged by LC in OCLC, Trial techniques & trials.  I have seen similar
> records and am now unsure what is proper procedure.  Is the general
> practice to enter authors in the 245 much as we did in AACRII?
>

Whereas RDA's fine with either approach, LC and the PCC have the policy:
"Generally do not abridge a statement of responsibility."
http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=lcpschp2&target=lcps2-91187#lcps2-91187

Note the wiggle-room with "Generally".

Whether you want to follow their lead for your own (original) cataloging is
a local decision.  I've seen roughly 50/50 split in records between those
who fully transcribe and those who abridge.

By the way, OCLC #825648041 has a fine example of an unjustified related
title added entry.  No note, no designator explaining why the 700 is
around, though I guess it's the title of earlier editions.  Someone
in-the-know could invoke RDA 25.2/26.2 or clear up the matter in some other
way.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Unsubscribe help

[M. E.]

Stephen Early  wrote:

>  Maybe the listowners could set things up so that a footer with
> subscription information appears in each email? This is what the OCLC-CAT
> list does. As it is, finding the proper up-to-date commands to answer this
> question involves web searching and searching the list archive.
>

And this link to a recent message to this list:
http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca/msg09997.html


-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] BL Guide to RDA Name Authority Records - July 2013 changes

[M. E.]

Gene Fieg  wrote:

> What is the *BL *in the guide?
>

British Library.


> And will this be in the toolkit
>

Not only "will," but "is."  Read the first paragraph of the announcement
again.


-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Publication Date

[M. E.]

DeSio, Sandra  wrote:

> RDA 2.8.1.4 says to record dates of publication as they appear on the
> source of information.
>

And further states that any words that are part of the date get transcribed
(that reference to 1.7).  RDA gives 3 options for the number half of the
date (reference to 1.8, detailed under 1.8.2): do it your way; transcribe
it in the form found; transcribe it and also give a preferred form if the
transcribed form doesn't float your boat (e.g., roman numerals).  LC
follows option #2 and most folks follow their lead, so let's go with that
for now.


>   RDA 2.8.6.3 specifically gives "May 2000" as an example of a pub date.
> A lot of the bestsellers I get (both fiction and nonfiction, all
> monographs) say something like "First Edition May 2013."  As near as I can
> tell, RDA is telling me to record the pub date as May 2013
>

Yup, that my take-away too.


> ...yet I've never seen an RDA bib record with the date recorded that way.
>

It's difficult to find examples due to indexing.  Here are a few that I've
encountered in WorldCat, with LCCNs for any in LC's catalog:
#851870526
#818818841 (LCCN 2012587690)
#849318175
#837883777
#851642189 (LCCN 2012314825)
#825554741 (LCCN 2013361252)



> Am I missing another rule or policy statement?  Or does "record" instead
> of "transcribe" give me leave to use cataloger's judgment to leave off the
> month?
>

The "record" there, by my reading, is a broad term that applies to the
situation when transcribe words + option #1 to just record numbers are
employed.  The same broad term applies to the transcribe words + transcribe
numbers scenario too.  I agree it could be better worded; maybe resurrect
AACR2's "give" in these kinds of situations.

To further comment on the expansion of these date forms, the RDA
"re-wording" project clarified the addition of words (e.g., months) to the
publication date element.  And other date elements too, though the
copyright date instructions (2.11) imply that years alone--the reference
only to RDA 1.8's posting of numbers--are given for that one.  Mistake or
design?

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Photocopy of a thesis in RDA?

[M. E.]

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 2:44 PM, M. E.  wrote:

> N.B.: There's a disconnect between the sources--including outside the
> resource--from which the producer's name may stem as found under 2.7.4.2
> (and 2.2.4), and the instructions under 2.7.4.7, which jump right into
> "producer not identified" if the name isn't found on the piece.  We'll
> wait and see if this get rectified with today's RDA update.
>

And it has been rectified.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex
<http://www.minitex.umn.edu/>

Re: [RDA-L] Photocopy of a thesis in RDA?

[M. E.]

J. McRee Elrod  wrote:

> Field 502 is not in brief display.
>

There are no absolutes in cataloging.  See attached.  The same formatting
appears in the search results list.

 --

Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

<>

Re: [RDA-L] Photocopy of a thesis in RDA?

[M. E.]

Jack Wu  wrote:

>  Thank you for the clarification. May I ask a follow up question. If a
> thesis is produced but unpublished, we would have only a 264 0 and no 264
> 1. Would the 264 0 have $a Place $b [Producer not identified] $c Date, or
> could the 264 0 have only $c but missing $b since only the date is now core?
>

A quick thought experiment.  Here are all of the possible combinations of
elements for the 264 -0 (putting aside parallel place-names and producers'
names):

- 264 -0 $c date
- 264 -0 $a + $c date
- 264 -0 $b + $c date
- 264 -0 $a + $b + $c date

Since date of production (RDA 2.7.6) is core, something of this sort must
appear in the statement, whether transcribed as found on the piece,
supplied as a known entity from elsewhere, concocted by the cataloger,
or recorded with that shrug of the shoulders "[date of production not
identified]."  The other elements are optional (RDA 2.7).  (My earlier
message referred to not recording a known producer of the thesis; thinking
further over that, I suppose I could add the person's name to the $b while
leaving out the $a.)

You could go with the last option above and *explicitly* post all three
slots, adding the [...not identified] qualifier(s) to fill them out.
Or one of the first three options, posting names, places, [..not
identified] as you choose.  The first statement pattern, of course, follows
AACR2 for manuscripts--as much as a date by itself qualifies as a statement
here.

Please take what I write above with this caveat: I'm assuming a catalog
system that only knows how to play the "monkey see, monkey show" card.
That is, if library staff prefer, say, dates alone when displaying
manuscript records, the system isn't smart enough to see a Type code "t"
and understand that it should then display only the 264 -0 $c while
hiding other 264 -0 subfields if present.  Instead, manual intervention
into the guts of the MARC record is necessary.

N.B.: There's a disconnect between the sources--including outside the
resource--from which the producer's name may stem as found under 2.7.4.2
(and 2.2.4), and the instructions under 2.7.4.7, which jump right into
"producer not identified" if the name isn't found on the piece.  We'll
wait and see if this get rectified with today's RDA update.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Photocopy of a thesis in RDA?

[M. E.]

Jack Wu  wrote:

>  I interpret this to mean there would be no place in fixed country code
> if in 264 1 Publication field there's no $a, no $b but only $c;
>

A publication statement would always include a $a and $b and $c, following
RDA's core instruction.  Question is what you use to fill in those blank
lines; "[Place of publication not identified]" would yield a Ctry: xxb.


> but a place is entered in fixed field  if 264 0 is used and has $a
> with a place.
>

By my reading, yes.


> A thesis can be considered produced (even if only by the student) but not
> published, right?
>

I'm waiting for a higher power to make a blanket statement about that.
(Less wrestling with the cataloging theory gods and more getting the stuff
on the shelf.)

For now, I'm treating print theses as old-fashioned manuscripts and
employing 264 -0 $c (since the date of production is the only core element
necessary in a production statement, unlike that for publication, etc.).
For place of production, there's no guarantee where the thesis was
produced.  For all I know, a University of Minnesota Ph.
D. candidate produced it overseas in Germany, Brazil, or Japan.  I consider
the student to be the producer of the thing: they type it up, they print it
out (for print versions, of course), they probably shell out cash to get
the thing handsomely bound too.  That falls under the RDA definition of
"production."  But I don't consider that fact important enough to post in
the 264; in fact, it could be considered one of those "obvious" facts about
a thesis that doesn't have to be written down.

As far as the degree granting institution goes, they're just passing out
grades, not making the thesis.  They can live in the 502 field.

As for the 264 -0 more broadly, I would generally employ all three $a, $b,
and $c when I'm cataloging a one-off thing that is more clearly made by
someone from somewhere, like a work of art or a photograph.  Or a
building.  In that respect, I'm moving beyond AACR2's prohibition against
giving places and names in the publication area of records for unpublished
graphic materials, artefacts, and some realia.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Photocopy of a thesis in RDA?

[M. E.]

Jack Wu  wrote:

>  Just a follow-up of questions on thesis for Country of Publication, etc.
> (008/15-17):
> In BibFormat&Standards it says to use production information, but for
> Theses to use code xx blank for original and reproduced theses. In AACR2 it
> usually is 260 $c date, fixed code xxblank.
> In RDA if we use 264 0 Place, Institution, date to indicate production,
> since a place is then provided, would that then be translated into same
> place being recorded in fixed code, or still be xx/b?
>

The Ctry (008/15-17) area is defined on the MARC site for "place of
publication, production, or execution"; I read "production" in the
cataloging sense here.  It also looks like the Ctry page in the BF&S has
been updated to include some RDA info, which follows on the MARC definition
above (e.g., "Use *Ctry* code *xxb* if: No place of production is
applicable in field 245, field 260, field 264 or in notes...":
http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/fixedfield/ctry.html

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Recording (large print)

[M. E.]

J. McRee Elrod  wrote:

> What is core for RDA, and what is core for patron needs, are two
> *very* different things!  AACR2 had a qualified GMD: "text (large
> print)" which worked very well.  This is but one example of AACR2's
> superiority over RDA in terms of meeting patron needs, as opposed to
> conforming to theory.
>

To be fair, AACR2's GMDs are marked as optional and don't appear at all
under 1.0D's first level of description (which is on par with RDA's core
cataloging--RDA for the most part follows in AACR2's footsteps).

If it's a matter of why 30-some years of GMDs and AACR2 practice never
resulted in more elements being added to the "must have" pile irrespective
of levels of description, I can't say.

--

Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Recording (large print) in the 300

[M. E.]

Northrup, Kristen D.  wrote:

>  I just hit three consecutive RDA records that don’t include “(large
> print)” in the 300. Usually RDA large print records include this, and
> 3.13.1.3 seems to imply that they should, but the fact that I hit several
> in a row is making me wonder if there has been a recent change. They’re all
> pcc and we’re only enhance, so I’m only submitting error reports, not
> changing anything.
>

Was "large print" (or "giant print" or...) mentioned in the 340 $n?  That's
another slot in the record where this phrase could be posted.  Or (my
preference for some systems) both here and in the 300 field--the 340 hidden
for indexing/faceting and the 300 for display.

And was the code "d" posted in the "Form" area of the fixed field?  It's
possible someone thought that was good enough, though RDA would expect a
distinction between giant print, large print, larger print, and so on.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Abbreviating place of publication (was 264 question)

[M. E.]

Northrup, Kristen D.  wrote:

> One thing we're regularly coming across in our copy cataloging is someone
> changing transcription to postal codes. For example, we get many records
> from Thorndike Press. It says Waterville, Maine on the item. DLC does a
> pre-pub with the transcription and that's how it stays in their catalog.
> But by the time it reaches us, and has alphabet soup in the 040, it's
> always Waterville, ME. Which isn't even the version in the RDA Appendix, of
> course. I change them back whenever allowed but is there a way to identify
> which library is doing that and clarifying things?


OCLC might be able to pin down the who if you're using their database.
There's no equivalent to "Show... > LC Superseded Versions" command for bib
records in WorldCat, unfortunately.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] "approximately" in access points

[M. E.]

J. McRee Elrod  wrote:

> A hyphens replacing "b." or "d." is fine with me, as as a question
> mark replace "ca."  (or approximately).


RDA's question mark is the same AACR2's.  It's AACR2's "ca." altering to
RDA's "approximately" that evokes consternation.  Or do you see collapsing
the separate "?" and "ca." practices (and RDA equivalents) into a single
"somewhere around this date" approach?

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Publication date including month or exact date: examples?

[M. E.]

Heidrun Wiesenmüller  wrote:

> In 2.8.6.3 (Recording date of publication) there is an example "May 2000".
> This shows that not only the year, but also the month and presumably even
> the exact date of publication is to be recorded in this element, if it is
> given in the source of information.
>
> I'd like to see some "real live" examples for this in actual cataloging.
> Has somebody already come across such a case and could point me to the
> corresponding title record?


For books, I recall seeing a copy of Julian Barnes' "The Sense of an
Ending" that clearly gave an exact publication date on the title page
verso (something like "Published October 11, 2011"--I believe it was a
first printing too).  If I can retrieve the book, I could post a scan of
the verso as an example of a source for such dates.  The records in
LC's catalog and in OCLC are both AACR2, however.  I also have an old book
from the early 20th century that gives a month + year date of publication.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Photocopy of a thesis in RDA?

[M. E.]

Joan Wang  wrote:

> Do we still consider theses as manuscripts under RDA? If look at the
> definition in RDA Toolkit, they are not.
>

"...typescript copy of a creator's work" might qualify.  A stretch though.



> But if look at OCLC special cataloging guidelines, they are.
>

"Bib Formats & Standards" is still under the influence of LCRI 1.11A.  Note
the directions and example in that section of BF&S use the forward-looking
533 field.  If cataloged under RDA, the piece in hand would be described in
the record with the option of using the 534 to look back at the original.
Or even just a 500 note.  Or the 775/776 field.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Photocopy of a thesis in RDA?

[M. E.]

 J. McRee Elrod  wrote:

> Yes, but all it affects in 264 2nd indicator.  You provide 264  0
> $aPlace, Jurisdiction :$bDegree Granting Institution,$cyear.


Does the "Degree Granting Institution" produce the thesis?  Or the student?

...


> >My 502 for the thesis is: $b Th. D. $c Theological Seminary of the
> >Presbyterian Church $d 1948.
>
> I would add $aThesis, since legacy records have that.


502 $a is defined as "Entire text of the note".  The $g is better for
prefixes like that; it's what we'll be using once we start cataloging
theses under RDA.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] "Translated from" notes and code for original language

[M. E.]

Joan Wang  wrote:

> I initially thought that RDA does not involve encoding. MARC encoding is
> another thing and technique. But it is hard, at least so far, to completely
> distinguish RDA, a resource description rule, from MARC encoding. We still
> can see shades of MARC encoding in RDA rules. For example, the optional
> addition of the function of distribution and manufacture in the statement.
> It seems to be carried over from using 260 fields.
>

There's that.  But if I want to qualify the function of the distributor or
manufacturer to a finer level in these transcribed elements than that of
merely "distrbutor" or "manufacturer" (e.g., printer), then RDA allows me
to do that.  This refinement may be duplicated for machine processing with
the relationship designator linked to the distributor's or manufacturer's
heading.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Jurisdiction in imprint

[M. E.]

On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:05 AM, M. E.  wrote:

> I don't see that portion of the 008 field listed here (<
> http://bibframe.org/vocab/Instance.html>), which is odd since I think it
> would square pretty easily with the 260 $a/264 -1 $a given on that list.
>

I should add that the BIBFRAME group is probably still working on this
point.  With multiple place-names possible with the imprint and the first
one listed coded in the 008, there may be other issues to tackle, like
matching the codes in the 044 with the list in the 260/264.


Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex
<http://www.minitex.umn.edu/>

Re: [RDA-L] Jurisdiction in imprint

[M. E.]

J. McRee Elrod  wrote:

> In addition to the advantage of transcribing or supplying jurisdiction
> in a form patrons can read, we do not know (do we?) that Bibframe will
> have an equivalent to 008/15-17 Place of jurisdiction.  Might having
> that data in imprint be even more important with Bibframe?
>

I don't see that portion of the 008 field listed here (<
http://bibframe.org/vocab/Instance.html>), which is odd since I think it
would square pretty easily with the 260 $a/264 -1 $a given on that list.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Can "Lecturer" be used as a valid relator term and do you have a good example of a DVD + Book RDA record?

[M. E.]

Dana Van Meter  wrote:

> In the case of the $4 code, you’re saying you would use just the $4 code,
> right? (And not a combination of $4 plus $e using the terminology
> accompanying the code in the MARC Code List for Relators?).  I don’t have a
> problem with using just the $4 code, I just wanted to be clear that you are
> saying you would just use the $4 code alone in cases where a term doesn’t
> yet exist in the text of RDA.
>

Yes, I just use the code alone.  I toyed around with employing both $e/$j
terms and $4 codes with name headings, but I came away not seeing
any advantages to it.

As a side note, my general pecking order for these name heading designators
is: RDA's appendix; if none are found there, look in the MARC relator code
list; if none are found there, I go back to RDA and use one of its
high-level terms (e.g., creator).  There are a few exceptions to this
pattern; the high-level term "publisher" is one I go to right if I'm
tracing one of those in the record.  And I realize that I could look at
other lists too, but I have neither the time or energy for that nor is
there any good way in MARC to point at the $4 or $e/$j and say, "Hey, this
code/term came from that list way over there."

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Can "Lecturer" be used as a valid relator term and do you have a good example of a DVD + Book RDA record?

[M. E.]

Dana Van Meter  wrote:

> 1.  Are we allowed to use, then, the more specific terms indented
> underneath the relationship designator performer (which is in bold), or
> are we to use performer only, to cover all those types of situations
> represented by the more specific indented & not in bold terms?


The indented terms are also available for use: so for an actor, you can use
"actor" or the broader term, "performer".


> If we can
> use the more specific indented terms, how were we supposed to know that? I
> wasn't sure if we are allowed to use these indented terms, or if they're
> just further (and more specific) examples of what is meant by the bold
> faced code. If we can use these more specific indented terms, I think it
> might be helpful if RDA specifically said that following the definition of
> a bold faced term ("or you can use these more specific terms", or
> something to that effect).


I agree these could be formatted better for scanning: bold's easier to see
than italic.  But as to the last point, there's this paragraph under I.1:

"Use relationship designators at the level of specificity that is
considered appropriate for the purposes of the agency creating the data.
For example, the relationship between a screenplay and the screenwriter
responsible for the work can be recorded using either the specific
relationship designator *screenwriter* or the more general relationship
designator *author*."


> Are we able to use relationship designators or terms such
> as "music copyist" in a |e if they have a MARC 3-letter code, even if the
> term does not appear in RDA?
>

Terms can come from outside of RDA (quoting I.1 again: "If none of the
terms listed in this appendix is appropriate or sufficiently specific, use
another concise term to indicate the nature of the relationship").  My
opinion on code versus spelled out form: if using something from the MARC
relator term list, add to the record as a $4 code.  RDA 0.12 says that is
using a list of terms from outside of RDA (like for relationship
designators), these may be given "provided the encoding scheme is
identified."  Codes in $4s are as close as you can get to a flashing neon
sign telling folks where the term (i.e., code) came from.


> 2.  I have a print series which contains lectures, can |e performer be
> used for lecturers/speakers when the lecture is in print form?
>

I tend to think of performer as limited to someone we can see and hear
doing their craft.  Words on a page don't cut it in that respect; the
lecturer performed an authorial role to create the text.


-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] another (basic) 264 query

[M. E.]

Karen Nelson  wrote:

>  But I am still wondering about the issue of the author holding copyright
> … does her name go in the second 264, if a second one is kept? Haven’t seen
> it done so far.
>

The 264 field dedicated to copyright is for the date alone--that's it.  So
all you'll get is:

- 264 -4 $c ©2013

See RDA 2.11 for the instructions, if you have a copy.

If you want to get into the copyright weeds, there's the 542 field:
http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd542.html

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] 260 and 264 Fields

[M. E.]

 Myers, John F.  wrote:

>  This issue was explored thoroughly in discussion paper and proposal
> submitted to MARBI.
>

Links to said discussion paper and proposal (which have links of their own
pointing to a couple earlier documents).
Discussion paper: 
Proposal: 

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] 264 dates

[M. E.]

J. McRee Elrod  wrote:

> John F, Myers posted:
>
> >EXAMPLE
> >  [between 1846 and 1853?]
> >  [between 1800 and 1899?]
> >  [between 1970 and 1979?]
> >  [between 1400 and 1600?]
>
> These Anglo centrc phrases will not fly for non English languge materials
> in non English language catalogues.


They have the option of using the phrasing found in translated versions of
RDA.  For instance, in French, there's "[entre 1846 et 1853?]."


>  The AACR2 [194-?], [18--], [197-],
> -15--?], work much better.
>

How would you handle a "between year1 and year2" situation that doesn't
fall under AACR2's decade-/century-specific hyphen method?

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing

[M. E.]

Jack Wu  wrote:

>  You did say broad feedback, right? For 1st example I would use 2012
>

At the risk of "me too-ing"...  Ditto Jack's response.  I'd also add the
copyright date since it's different from the publication date.


> , for 2nd example I would use 2008 if a record just for the paperback is
> made.
>

Ditto, along with the copyright date in the paperback-only record.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points

[M. E.]

Don Charuk  wrote:

> From my readings and the reading other's comments it has been said that
> RDA no longer requires you to justify your additional access points. Is
> this a valid interpretation of people's comments? If, so is there a
> specific rule that states this or is it implied? Thank you.
>

In addition to what others have written, compare AACR2 21.29F with RDA 18.6
and 25.2 and 26.2.  None of the RDA instructions are labeled "core," either
at the locations mentioned or in the introductory material in chapters 18
and 24.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Use of Headings for Fictitious Characters

[M. E.]

J. McRee Elrod  wrote:

> 100 __|a Stilton, Thea (Fictitious character)
>
> If the resource says "by Thea Stilton", this is fine with me.  Ditto
> Geronimo Stilton.  we should describe resources as they present
> themselves.  (I would not object to a subfield code for the
> qualifier.)


The qualifier would appear in the $c.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] GMD Designator Searching with RDA

[M. E.]

Payne, Ophelia (omp2w)  wrote:

>  I know there was a long discussion last week about the 336, 337 and 338
> fields for RDA and I was trying to see if my question was addressed.  My
> question is--- with the elimination of the GMD designator for
> videorecordings, sound recordings, etc., how would you limit your search if
> you wanted to get only DVDs?  In the MARC world we have this capability but
> I haven’t been able to figure this out with RDA.  Any suggestions?
>


Maybe something like the following in combination (assuming that Extent
terms are potentially so variable that they can't be trusted alone):

  3.3 (Carrier type): videodisc
+ 3.5.1.4.4 (Dimensions of disc): 12 cm (this can vary)
+ 3.19.2 (File type): digital
+ 3.19.3 (Encoding format): DVD video (for a generic DVD; encoding terms
can vary)
+ 3.19.6: region 1 (or some other filler to turn this element "on"; this is
optional gravy)

Adding these up, we have a digital videodisc about yea round that has DVD
video-encoded stuff that may only run on region 1 players.  Plus whatever
shows up under Extent.

All of this probably equals "DVD".

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] German and French texts of RDA

[M. E.]

Heidrun Wiesenmüller  wrote:

> Actually, I had hoped for an easier way to switch between languages. Even
> better would have been a possibility to directly compare e.g. the English
> and the German version (perhaps by having both texts in two different
> windows at the same time). As the translations naturally can never be quite
> up-to-date, I think it's important to use them in combination with the
> current English text.


There's the option to save both versions in PDF format and display both
versions side by side using some PDF viewer.  Awkward, but doable.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Initials in names of persons

[M. E.]

Gene Fieg  wrote:

> Heidrun, as to the "why", I have no idea.  Perhaps, it had to do with way
> computers read letters only, and by putting a space between them, it could
> read better.
>

It might even go further back than that, to card filing rules--at least for
the spacing in headings.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Spelling of Qur'an

[M. E.]

Dana Van Meter  wrote:

> This may not be at all relevant here, but I have been noticing for at least
> a year now that I have difficulty searching anything with an apostrophe in
> LC's authority file.  If I copy a heading which contains an apostrophe from
> the body of a record in LC's online catalog, and then search the heading in
> the authority file I get no results.  But if I delete the apostrophe, and
> type in a new apostrophe, I pull up the heading in the name authority file.
>

Speculation on my part, but you may be copying a "smart apostrophe" or the
HTML equivalent as part of the string.  That may be messing up the search
operation.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] New format reproductions and RDA

[M. E.]

J. McRee Elrod  wrote:

> RDA has WEMI; Bibframe has W/I.


My limited grasp of the BIBFRAME discussion suggests that it doesn't have
to be structured as WEMI.  Since it's trying to be all things to all
people, it only has to accommodate it.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Relationships and comic books/graphic novels

[M. E.]

Baumgarten, Richard, JCL  wrote:

>  If we use the MARC relator code list, do we need to add a subfield 2 to
> tell what thesaurus that we used?
>

I read the $4 as self-defined in that regard--source from only the MARC
relator codes list.  For instance:


-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] recording production statements

[M. E.]

Fox, Chris  wrote:

> I'm fine with going with just the date, if there's agreement that it isn't
> published
>

I was going to comment on this point up-thread, but was waylaid till now.
Is the choreographer creating DVDs of the performance for whomever asks for
it?  If so, this sounds like a print-on-demand scenario, which would lead
me to consider this DVD as published, though for a very select audience.  I
guess if you're not sure, stick with unpublished and catalog the disc as a
one-off.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator and "in cooperation with"

[M. E.]

Alison Hitchens  wrote:

> Thanks Mac, I may have missed it on the list if there was a discussion
> that we could use element names as relators. I had RDA-L set to no mail
> while I was away!
>
> I've been going by the LC RDA training modules and they give the example
> of  publisher: "Publisher" isn't used as an RDA relationship  designator
> because that relationship is an element" although in the notes for the
> slide it says " However, there are no RDA police who would object if you
> used a different vocabulary and added a term such as "publisher.""
> (this is from slide 31 of the Relationships module)
>
> But those modules were created in the summer so things may have changed
> since then!  Using $e contributor seems clearer than not including a
> relator term at all since the 700 tag can contain many types of
> relationships
>

Another way to think of the Appendix I designators is that they are the
more specific forms of relationships depicted in Chapters 19-22.  Note the
headings for each portion of Appendix I and how they link up to the
elements in those chapters, e.g.:

RDA 21.4 (Distributor) <=> RDA I.4.3 (Relationship Designators for
Distributors)

Our use of "$e publisher" is based on this, rather than the term
originating from the relator code lists or elsewhere.

So I agree with the practice that if there is no suitable term in Appendix
I and/or none can be conjured up from elsewhere (e.g., $4 relator codes) or
made up, then bump up one level to the Ch. 19-22 elements.  (I've written
before about using "other (work)", etc., designators for those "other "
elements.)

The same sort of thing for the Appendix J designators: we've used "related
work" in added entries once in a while.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization of approximately in 300

[M. E.]

Amanda Sprochi  wrote:

> I'm working on a shorthand cheat sheet for RDA. My question: in the extent
> element [300 field in MARC], it says to use the word approximately with an
> estimation of units if the number cannot be easily ascertained. All of the
> examples have approximately in lower case:
>
> approximately 60 slides
> approximately 600 pages
>
> Granted that RDA doesn't give things in MARC format, but as the first
> element shouldn't the approximately be capitalized?
>
> 300 Approximately 60 slides : $b etc.
>

I agree.  Whether separately paragraphed or coming after the publication
statement, it is the first word in the area.  I should double-check my
cheat sheets too.

I've found several issues with capitalization in the RDA examples.  See
also the Place of Publication transcription with opening preposition (near
the end of RDA 2.8.2.3) and statements of function for Distributor's Name
(RDA 2.9.4.4).  Then, compare to the lack of any instruction on
capitalization for either of these elements in Appendix A, which
I interpret as "follow the capitalization rules of the language you're
writing in."  The ISBD uses uppercase for the former and lowercase for the
latter.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization of approximately in 300

[M. E.]

Arakawa, Steven  wrote:

> Curiously, in AACR2 2.5B7, the initial term in the extent examples is
> "ca." which is now "approximately" in RDA, but it's "ca." not "Ca." Was
> AACR2 being inconsistent with ISBD in the examples?
>

Looks like it.  And there are also "leaves 81-149" and "p. 713-797" under
AACR2 2.5B6.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] 2.4.3.3 Parallel statements of responsibility

[M. E.]

Heidrun Wiesenmüller  wrote:


> But be that as it may: There is indeed an example for a grammatically
> incomplete s-o-r in the ISBD (which was news to me), and this must give us
> cause to think again (although of course we know that RDA deviates from the
> ISBD sometimes).
>

There is also this instruction to consider under ISBD A.3.2.9: "When a
single statement (e.g. a statement of responsibility) is given partly in
one language or script and partly in more than one language or script, the
several linguistic forms are transcribed together; equals signs or other
punctuation symbols are used as appropriate."



>  Also, I believe there is no counterpart for RDA 1.7.7 in the ISBD (at
> least I couldn't find one in the general chapter).
>
>

I had no luck too.  ISBD 1.1.5.1 describes transcribing titles "exactly as
to wording," so there is likely no equivalent to RDA 1.7.7 to be found
there.

--
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] 2.4.3.3 Parallel statements of responsibility

[M. E.]

Heidrun Wiesenmüller  wrote:

>Well, let’s wait and see what Chris Oliver has come up with. I
> gather the rest of the reworded chapters should appear soon in the Toolkit
> (by the way, wasn't it announced that chapters 2 and 3 should be published
> in February?).
>

They were indeed scheduled to come out in February.
http://www.rdatoolkit.org/blog/488

These and remaining chapters are delayed until May.
http://www.rdatoolkit.org/blog/526


-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] 2.4.3.3 Parallel statements of responsibility

[M. E.]

Benjamin A Abrahamse  wrote:

>  When a resource has parallel statements of responsibility on its chief
> source of information, but only the "connecting words" are parallel, not
> the names themselves, how does one treat this under RDA?
>
>
>

Monkeywrench.

An example from ISBD 1.4.5.10.2:

8 capriccios : hegedüre, második hegedii kiséretével = für Violine, mit
Begleitung der zweiten Violine / Henryk Wieniawski ; átnézte és ujjrenddel
allátta = revidiert und mit Fingersatz versehen von Jenö Hubay

Note Wieniawski is mentioned only once, and Hubay only in the parallel SOR,
the primary SOR left incomplete.  ISBD's transcription instruction
(1.4.5.1) simply reads: A statement of responsibility is transcribed in the
terms in which it appears on the resource.

Is doubling up on the names in the various SORs an application of RDA
1.7.7's "intended to be read twice" instruction?

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

[M. E.]

Ian Fairclough  wrote:

> I have been wondering how and why this situation concerning publication in
> a year yet to come arose, and why LCPCCPS was written the way it is.
> Perhaps the situation developed from an attempt in LCPCCPS to make RDA
> easier to use while fulfilling the instruction to supply a missing
> publication date, something not required in AACR2 nor LCRI, as in the
> following.
>
> Here are instructions from AACR2: 1.4F6: "If the dates of publication,
> distribution, etc., are unknown, give the copyright date or, in its
> absence, the date of manufacture (indicated as such) in its place." LCRI
> 1.4F6 says "If the item contains only a copyright date, give the copyright
> date."
>
> The corresponding instruction in RDA 2.8.6.6: "If the date of publication
> is not identified in the single-part resource, supply the date or
> approximate date of publication. " LCPCCPS 2.8.6.6 has "If the copyright
> date is for the year following the year in which the publication is
> received, supply a date of publication that corresponds to the copyright
> date."
>

To fill out the quotations in this thread, there are also the following in
the LCRI:

LCRI 1.4F1: "Later Publication Dates: ... If a U.S. trade publication has a
publication date that is in the year following the year in which the
publication is received, accept the later publication date as the date of
the edition being cataloged.  For example, if '2002' appears as the
publication date on a publication received in 2001, give '2002' as the
publication date."

LCRI 1.4F6: "Later Copyright Dates: ... If a U.S. trade publication lacking
a publication date has a copyright date that is in the year following the
year in which the publication is received, accept the later copyright date
as a substitute for the publication date.  For example, if '©2002' appears
on a publication received in 2001, give 'c2002' as the publication date."


-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

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

[M. E.]

Harden, Jean  wrote:
> The mappings haven’t been updated yet. Once they are, 264 will appear where
> appropriate.

And to follow on Jean's response, if you scroll to the very bottom of
the MARC-to-RDA and RDA-to-MARC pages, the latest update date is
given.  These were last touched in mid-2010 and -2011.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Question about edition statements

[M. E.]

Aaron Smith  wrote:
>
> For OCLC users, the "future optional addition" will continue to be absolutely 
> necessary to avoid inadvertent record mergers via OCLC's Duplicate Detection 
> and Resolution algorithm; notes don't have adequate weight to avoid the 
> merger.
>

And I believe it was OCLC that submitted the RDA proposal in the first place.

--
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Question about edition statements

[M. E.]

Michael Borries  wrote:

>  A quick question.  RDA 2.5.2.2 states that the sources of information
> for an edition statement are:
>
> ** **
>
> 1. the same source as the title proper
>
> ** **
>
> 2. another source within the resource itself
>
> ** **
>
> 3. one of the other sources of information specified under 2.2.4
>
> ** **
>
> Under 2.2.4 we find that the sources of information for identifying
> manifestations and items includes “any other available source (e.g., a
> reference source).”
>
> ** **
>
> So, between these two instructions, am I allowed to supply an edition
> statement if there is none in the resource itself, as was allowed under
> AACR2 1.2B4?  Or should I instead give the information in a note?
>
>
>

Is this a "Can I make up an edition statement" question?  By my reading,
no.  I don't think "any other available source" includes the
cataloger's brain.  To get around this stricture--and toeing the RDA
line--I'd give the information in a note.

On the other hand, jump the gun and apply the future optional addition to
2.5.1.4--I won't tell anybody:
http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ALA-10-Sec-final.pdf


-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] RDA and the Title Proper

[M. E.]

Kevin M Randall  wrote:

>  This touches on one of my "favorite" cataloging pet peeves, which is the
> tendency of many catalogers to treat as "other title information" things
> that really should be seen as essential parts of the title proper.
>

Another example came up on AUTOCAT a few years ago.  If memory serves, the
title page of the book was laid out in this way:

 Historical Israel: Biblical Israel
 Studying Joshua to 2 Kings

And the 245 read:

 245 10 Historical Israel : $b biblical Israel : studying Joshua to 2 Kings
/ ...

The cataloger read too much into that colon.

Then we have those situations where 245 $b other title information should
instead be part/section/supplement titles (245 $n/$p).

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Exact unit names

[M. E.]

J. McRee Elrod  wrote:

> Pam said:
>
> >The Toolkit states "Record the extent of the resource by giving the number
> >of units and an appropriate term for the type of carrier as listed under
> >3.3.1.3."
> >
> >Therefore, wouldn't we use "1 videodisc" rather than "1 DVD"?
>
> RDA also has the option of using a more exact unit name.  Why repeat a
> term already in 338 in 300, when there is a more patron friendly one,
> e,g, 338 object, and 300 Playaway?


Assuming both 338 and 300 $a are displayed.


>   Surely you would not use "object"
> as unit name?


No, since RDA tells you not to.  See the exceptions list under 3.4.1.3, for
instance.  Not to mention 3.4.1.5 in its pre-April form.


>  We would say "rock" for example, if the object is a rock.
>

So would RDA.


> While the too many RDA options will result in too great variety, we
> should take advantage of options which will better serve our users.
>

Indeed.


>
> In the absence of GMD, an exact unit name is even more vital than
> before.  Most icons are generic, and media term display is still in
> flux.  Sometimes a media is is no help, e.g., "other".  How would that
> be as a unit name?
>

It wouldn't be.


>
> I add "if the most exact and popular" to your quoted Toolkit provision
> above.   How often to you hear people say "videodisc" for a DVD?
>

I did, the other day.  But then again, I was drinking.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Technical report dates and publication

[M. E.]

Deborah Fritz  wrote:

> It is also very interesting that Mark indicates that there **was**, at
> one point, an LC PS for 2.8.6.1 (Scope for Date of Publication) that
> continued the practice of using a date of release to supply a publication
> date, but that LC PS also did not survive as an LC PCC PS.
>

That PS was deleted with the October 2012 update to the rule
interpretations.  I couldn't find any stated reasone why this was done; the
change list only gives "Deleted policy statement for PCC harmonization,"
whatever that means.
http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/pdf/LCPS_changes_2012_Oct.pdf

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Technical report dates and publication

[M. E.]

Arthur Liu  wrote:


> I am unsure how to handle dates of publication for technical reports.
> Generally, technical reports bear a date in the format "Month Year" (e.g.
> December 2012) on the cover and/or technical report documentation page.
> (Many reports do not have a title page.)  On the report, this bit of info
> is often labeled "Report Date."
>
> In the past, most records I've seen handle this by putting the year in
> square brackets in the 260$c.  I'm not sure if the square brackets were
> meant to indicate that the year was taken from an outside source (the
> prescribed sources for the publication area in AACR2 2.0B2 included "other
> preliminaries") or if it was to indicate that the month was not included.
> AACR2 1.4F1 specifically says publication date means year.  The month and
> year is often transcribed into a 500 instead.
>
> In RDA however, one of the examples in 2.8.6.3 is "May 2000".  I don't see
> any rule specifying year only.  On the other hand, I also don't see any
> examples on the OCLC MARC website of the 264$c having a month, nor on the
> OCLC or MARC websites of the 260$c having a month.  But does the example in
> 2.8.6.3 mean I can start putting a Month  into the 264$c ?
>
>

I don't catalog many technical reports, so I can only make a couple of
points.  First, you're correct that RDA does not limit dates of
publication, etc., to only years, as AACR2 does.

And second, there's a now-moribund LC policy statement for 2.8.6.1 that
read: "Do not consider a date of release or transmittal to be a publication
date. If a publication date is not available for a resource, the date of
release or transmittal may be sondered with other information (e.g., date
of distribution, date of manufacture, copyright date) to supply a
publication date. Record the date of release or transmittal in a note if it
helps to identify the resource (see RDA 2.20.7)."

This is a follow-up to LCRI 2.7B9:

When a publication has a date of release or transmittal in a prominent
position, include it in the bibliographic description.  Typically these
special dates consist of month or month and day as well as year and appear
on the title page or cover.  If the date is in a phrase that is being
recorded as an edition statement, so record it.  If an edition statement is
not appropriate, quote the date in a note, including with it any associated
words.

"May 1979"
"May 1, 1979"
"Issued May 1979"

Note that a date of release or transmittal is not a publication date.  If
the publication lacks a copyright date or a date of manufacture (cf. LCRI
1.4F6), the publication date may be inferred from the date of release or
transmittal.  Then, give the inference in brackets in the publication,
distribution, etc., area and follow the above instructions for the date of
release or transmittal.

In case of doubt as to the character of the date, treat it as a date of
release or transmittal.

As someone who has worked in institutions that followed the LCRIs, I've
considered the expanded dates appearing on technical reports and other
kinds of reports to be release dates rather than dates of publication.
Hence the brackets in the 260 $c date.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] RDA instructions for accompanying material?

[M. E.]

Ian Fairclough  wrote:

> Kevin Randall said "I'm not understanding what the difficulty is." The
> difficulty was a couple of missing links in RDA Toolkit.  I was not
> succeeding in getting to the right part of RDA (and in this case, LC PCC
> PS), namely 3.1.4.  The redirects from AACR2 1.5E and from RDA Appendix
> D.2.1 both take you to 27.1.1.3.
>

You'll find in the third paragraph under 3.1.4 that you're going right back
to 27.1 for accompanying material: "For instructions on recording
information relating to the carrier for accompanying material, see 27.1."

RDA 3.1.4 has a closer relationship to AACR2 1.10C2 (e.g., kits).  Note
that when invoking the RDA instructions--at least by my reading and in its
current pre-worded state--you select only one of the three options for
describing the carriers of the whole resource.  This, instead of mixing and
matching, e.g., full details for one part of the resource (300 $a), just
bare-bones for the other (300 $e).

I've always read RDA's opaque accompanying material instructions with ISBD
colored glasses.  Accompanying material can be described either with a
brief material description in the 300 $e, or in a note, or a combination of
the two; putting aside cataloging these separately, I usually prefer the
first option.  (I'm even tempted to do so for sound recordings.)  Putting
it there is more in the user's face.  With that, I double back to RDA
chapters 3 and 7 to fill out that slot.

In this respect and in others too, I view RDA providing a big picture,
principle-based approach over holding my hand--a real pain in the butt when
trying to learn this thing, frankly.  I guess that's what
community-specific best practices are for.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] RDA instructions for accompanying material?

[M. E.]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 9:56 AM, M. E.  wrote:

> I for one welcome the strawman proposal instruction 27.1.1.3.2.3 on page
> 23.  As RDA stands now, book-ish accompanying material isn't handled well.
>
>

I should clarify that last sentence: if following one of the ISBD options
and recording a material description statement in the 300 $e.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex
<http://www.minitex.umn.edu/>

Re: [RDA-L] S-o-R/RDA 2.4.1.4

[M. E.]

Joan Wang  wrote:

> If data can be transcribed as elements in categories, such as Author,
> Name:   Date:  Affiliation: , and then authority records could be
> automatically created. Is that right? Just my imagination :)
>
>

Could be.  So far in MARC, the 38x fields populate both bib and authority
records; the 37x's only the authority.  There's the issue too with how
the authority's 6xx's map over to the bib side.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] eBooks & Playaways

[M. E.]

Ian Fairclough  wrote:

> Granted that a Playaway can be judged as unmediated.  But nevertheless,
> something that arose earlier in this discussion caught my attention: the
> suggested use of "other" with media type "audio."  Surely "other" is only
> established as controlled vocabulary for use when 338 = unmediated?  I do
> not see "other" listed under other media types, unless I missed something.
>

Look at the penultimate sentence under 3.2 (after the table).  And under
3.3 and 6.9, for that matter.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] RDA instructions for accompanying material?

[M. E.]

JOHN C ATTIG  wrote:

> I proposed this issue as a project to CC:DA, and there is a Task Force
> working to draft appropriate instructions for recording both contents notes
> and accompanying materials statements (and perhaps other things); a
> preliminary report of this Task Force (which includes a strawman proposal
> for such instructions) is available at
>
> http://alcts.ala.org/ccdablog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/TFrelationships201301.pdf.
>
>

I for one welcome the strawman proposal instruction 27.1.1.3.2.3 on page
23.  As RDA stands now, book-ish accompanying material isn't handled well.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Numbered and Unnumbered Sequences

[M. E.]

Ian Fairclough  wrote:

> I found this as a pagination statement:
>
> [xvii], 219 pages
>
> The source has no initial sequence with roman numerals.  I have not found
> instructions for use of brackets with supplied page numbering.  Nor does
> the bibliographic record refer elsewhere to unnumbered preliminary pages.
> Please tell: is use of a supplied and bracketed-in sequence such as this
> covered in any RDA documentation?  I'd expect it to be found here:
>
> 3.4.5.3.1 Numbered and Unnumbered Sequences
>

That's as close as you'll get.  The instructions are like AACR2 2.5B3 as
far as "justifying" the pagination goes.  I've seen these kinds of supplied
preliminary pagings under AACR2 and expect to see them under RDA, despite
the lack of direction on this point.  It could be local practice.

Or maybe someone's interpreting the "substantial" in both rules
as qualitative in addition to or rather than quantitative.

Regardless, I think supplying preliminary paging to a record is worth
doing, at least on occasion, as it gives folks an idea that something's
happening at the beginning of the book.

As far as bracket use goes, RDA avoids them here as outlined under the same
instructions.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Relator code and term punctucation

[M. E.]

Deborah Fritz  wrote:

> For preceding the $e with a comma, see the LC PCC PS for 1.7.1 Access
> Points in Name Authority and Bibliographic Records (General)
>
>
> http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=lcpschp1&target=lcps1-223#lcps1-223
> 
>
> ** **
>
> 1. Punctuation/spacing within access points. Use internal punctuation to
> set off unambiguously the units of access points (including name/title
> portions of name/title fields). The marks of punctuation for this purpose
> are a period ( . ), *a comma ( , )*, a quotation mark ( " ), a question
> mark ( ? ), an exclamation mark ( ! ), and a *hyphen ( - )*.
>
> ** **
>
> What other mark of punctuation would you use for a relationship designator?
>
>
>

That may be LC's intention.  Playing devil's avacado, though, is a
relationship designator "within [the] access points"?  I've contended for a
long time--based on nothing more than my gut feeling, really--that
designators are outside the heading/access point proper.  They're something
else; "spelled out codes," I sometimes call them.

**

> And see the examples given in MARC 21 Format for Bibliographic Data at:***
> *
>
> http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bdx00.html
>
> ** **
>
> Under:
>
> *e - Relator term*
>
> Designation of function that describes the relationship between a name and
> a work, e.g., ed., comp., ill., tr., collector, joint author. 
>
> 700
>
> 1#$aSmith, Elsie,$d1900-1945,$eillustrator.
>
> 700
>
> 1#$aHecht, Ben,$d1893-1964,$ewriting,$edirection,$eproduction.
>
> **
>

I'd be happier with explicit instructions over a handful of examples.

Our shop works with OCLC, and Connexion forces the comma-and-full stop
pattern mentioned above.  My preference means nothing at the end of the
day.  We use what we get.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] eBooks & Playaways

[M. E.]

Robert Maxwell  wrote:

>  In my opinion a Playaway is unmediated. You don’t need anything other
> than the object itself (and a source of electricity) to get the
> information, in contrast to, say, a CD, which you need to put in a machine
> in order to use.
>
>
>

Good point.  I had my media type flipped on its head--thinking of the audio
file in the Playaway rather than the Playaway itself.

--
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Relator code and term punctucation

[M. E.]

Michael Chopey  wrote:

> I don't know where the instruction for preceding the $e with a comma is to
> be found, nor the instruction not to include the comma when the field
> preceding the $e ends with a hyphen.



The closest I ever got: "A comma is used ... to separate date, number,
place, or designation from the name or heading..." (AACR1, North American
edition, p. 369).  Page 10 refers to "comp.," "ed.," etc., as designations
of function.


-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] eBooks & Playaways

[M. E.]

Pam Withrow  wrote:

> Playaway Audio
> 336 - spoken word
> 337 - audio
> 338 - audio cartridge
>

In my opinion:

336 -- spoken word
337 -- audio
338 -- other
A Playaway Audio doesn't quite fit under the definition of an audio
cartridge ("a cartridge containing audio tape").

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles

[M. E.]

Ian Fairclough  wrote:
> RDA does not give instruction on using [sic] (in contrast to AACR2 1.0F1)

It allows it (obliquely).

Quoting from RDA 1.7.1:

When the instructions in chapters 2–4 specify transcription of an element
as it appears on the source of information, apply the general guidelines on
capitalization, punctuation, symbols, abbreviations, etc., given under
1.7.2–1.7.9. ...
*Alternatives*
If the agency creating the data has established in-house guidelines for
capitalization, punctuation, numerals, symbols, abbreviations, etc., or has
designated a published style manual, etc., (e.g., *The Chicago Manual of
Style*) as its preferred guide, use those guidelines or that style manual
in place of the instructions given under 1.7.2–1.7.9 and in the appendices.
...

And what is 1.7.9?  "Inaccuracies."

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Use of ISBD punctuation with RDA. And a workshop.

[M. E.]

Fox, Chris  wrote:
> I had forgotten the whole "double punctuation" thing, and hadn't been doing 
> that up to now.  It still looks weird to me.  If our patrons even notice, I 
> imagine it will look even weirder to them.

A bit of context: I created the cheat-sheet to give copy catalogers an
idea of what they might encounter with RDA records rather than to
provide a "how to" for original catalogers.  As I mention during
training, I don't worry too much about the double-punctuation.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Use of ISBD punctuation with RDA. And a workshop.

[M. E.]

Deborah Fritz  wrote:
> I *think* that you can get to the LC PCC PS in the Toolkit, without a
> subscription to it.

Correct, it's open and free on the web.  Ditto the MARC-RDA mapping
documents under the Tools tab (a more recent and welcomed change).

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Use of ISBD punctuation with RDA. And a workshop.

[M. E.]

Joan Wang  wrote:

> Punctuations are included in RDA Toolkit Appendix D.1.2 and LC-PCC PS for
> 1.7.1
> GENERAL GUIDELINES ON TRANSCRIPTION
>
> In the LC-PCC PS general guidelines, you can see "Punctuation at the End
> of MARC Fields 245, 246-247, 250, 264, 300, 310/321, 362, 490".
>
> Are there other references about punctuations in RDA Toolkit?
>

There are Appendices D (ISBD for bib records) and E (punctuation for
headings), of course.  And under RDA 1.7.  There are occasional references
in the body of RDA's text outside of Chapter 1: part/section titles in the
245 (2.3.1.7), dimensions (3.5.1-3.5.3), title and name headings,
cartographic coordinates (7.4.3.3).  A search on terms like comma, full
stop, semicolon, and colon will bring up some hits.


-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] Relators for contributors and consultants (fwd)

[M. E.]

M. E.  wrote:
> 19.3: Other Person, Family, and Corporate Body Associated with a Work
> Designator: other (work)
> Example: 700 1- Doe, John, $e other (work)
>
> 21.6: Other Person, Family, and Corporate Body Associated with a Manifestation
> Designator: other (manifestation)
>
> 22.4: Other Person, Family, and Corporate Body Associated with an Item
> Designator: other (item)

And one more that I failed to list last night:

21.2: Producer of an Unpublished Resource
Designator: producer (manifestation)

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex
<http://www.minitex.umn.edu/>

Re: [RDA-L] Use of ISBD punctuation with RDA. And a workshop.

[M. E.]

Ian Fairclough  wrote:
> Will they need to know about periods at the end of fields, and ISBD
> punctuation?  I doubt it.

I agree.  However, I still mention this to folks since I can't judge
who does or who doesn't care about this sort of thing.  On the double
punctuation point in particular, I add that I don't lose any sleep if
there's a missing period.

Below is a link to the cheat-sheet I created summarizing what
end-of-field punctuation looks like in RDA records, limited to the 245
through 5xx fields.  It's based on LC/PCC/MARC practice and colored by
the current edition of the ISBD.



-- 
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex