Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designators, LC and PCC Core
I don't know either, but in the LC original cataloging we're getting here (at least for monographs), it seems like it's rare for there not to be at least one relationship designator for every contributor, no matter what the contributor's role(s). Mike Chopey University of Hawaii at Manoa Library On 10/2/2013 8:24 AM, Adam Schiff wrote: The last time I looked at this LC-PCC PS (a few days ago), it had not yet been changed. I don’t know if LC plans to follow the rest of the PCC on this. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries From: Panchyshyn, Roman Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 6:01 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Relationship designators, LC and PCC Core Folks, I am looking to corroborate some information about relationship designator use, and this disgraceful government shutdown is giving me problems accessing information from LC. Regarding the use of relationship designators, right now the LC-PCC-PS for 18.5.1.3 states that their use at LC is only mandatory for use for illustrators of children’s materials only. Earlier this year, a task group called the PCC Relationship Designator Task Force issued guidelines that were accepted by PoCo, that stated: “Include a relationship designator for all creators, whether they are preferred access points or added access points. If the 1XX is not a creator, the addition of a relationship designator is optional.” I believe a decision was made that LC was going to change the LC-PCC-PS and adopt this PCC recommendation, and I’m just looking for confirmation that this is so. Thank you. Roman S. Panchyshyn, MLIS Catalog Librarian, Assistant Professor University Libraries Kent State University tel: 330-672-1699 e-mail: rpanc...@kent.edu -- Michael A. Chopey Cataloging Dept. Hamilton 008 University of Hawaii at Manoa Libraries Honolulu, HI 96822 phone (808) 956-2753 fax (808) 956-5968
[RDA-L] Unknown begin and end dates for multipart monograph
I'm assuming that this instruction in 2.8.6.5 (recording dates for multipartmonographs, serials, and integrating resources): If the date or dates cannot be approximated for a multipart monograph, serial, or integrating resource, do not record a date of publication. means do not include $c at all in the 264 publication statement, as is often done in AACR2 cataloging of serials and integrating resources. Is my understanding of that correct? If so--considering that there will be no 362 data to base the fixed field date fields on as there would be in a serial or integrating resource record--how do we code the unrecorded date in the fixed field for a multipart monograph. Like this, perhaps? DtSt: n Dates: , There was a question on this list in October of last year about how to code the fixed field when [date of publication not identified] is recorded in 264 $c, but as far as I can tell, that question never got answered ... all of the answers were suggestions on how to avoid using [date of publication not identified], and I think some may have been suggesting in that discussion that it is never OK in RDA to record [date of publication not identified] in 264 $c. My question is a little bit different in that /I think/ (but am not 100% certain) that the instruction in 2.8.6.5 is to eschew the 264 $c altogether when the date or dates cannot be approximated for a multipart monograph, rather than to record [date of publication not identified].And the instructions and examples in the LC-PCC-PS for 2.8.6.6 seem like they might not be applicable inasmuch as the rule they are attached to is labeled Date of Publication Not Identified in a Single-Part Resource. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Mike Chopey -- Michael A. Chopey Cataloging Dept. Hamilton 008 University of Hawaii at Manoa Libraries Honolulu, HI 96822 phone (808) 956-2753 fax (808) 956-5968
[RDA-L] Question about examples in 2.5.6.3
I'm confused about the capitalization of the examples in 2.5.6.3 (Recording Designations of a Named Revision of an Edition). This rule and its examples came over from AACR2 mostly untouched (the phrase designation of replaces AACR2's statement relating to ... and that's about it), except that in AACR2, the first word of the statement relating to ... was capitalized, whereas in RDA it is not capitalized in two of the four examples (in another of the four, the first word *is* capitalized; in the other, there's no way to tell because because the designation of edition and the designation of a named revision to it are both ALL-CAPS). To the extent that examples are prescriptive for capitalization, here's what AACR2 prescribed compared to what RDA seems to be prescribing: AACR2 (1.2D1): World's classics ed., New ed., rev., reset, and illustrated. RDA (2.5.6.3): World's classics edition, new edition, revised, reset, and illustrated. AACR2 (1.2D1): 4th ed. ..., Reprinted with corrections. RDA (2.5.6.3): 4th ed., reprinted with corrections. In the one example that is new to RDA and that's not in ALL CAPS, the designation *is* capitalized: RDA (2.5.6.3): 4th ed., Roads revised. Does anyone know whether it's the case, as the first two examples imply, that we no longer capitalize the first word of a designation of a named revision, or is it the case, as the third example implies, that we continue to capitalize the first word? If there were no examples at all in 2.5.6.3, I would capitalize the first word based on the instruction in the rule to Apply the instructions on recording designations of edition (see 2.5.2.3), but the examples are making me wonder now. Any help would be much appreciated. Aloha, Mike Chopey -- Michael A. Chopey Head, Cataloging Dept. Hamilton 008 University of Hawaii at Manoa Libraries Honolulu, HI 96822 phone (808) 956-2753 fax (808) 956-5968
Re: [RDA-L] Relator code and term punctucation
Each of the X__ Headings--General Information sections (i.e., X00,
X10, X11, X30) in MARC Bibliographic has the instruction about the
ending punctuation. Each one says in the punctuation section at the bottom:
Fields 100, 600, 700, and 800 [e.g.] end with a mark of punctuation or
a closing parenthesis. If the final subfields are subfield $0, $2, $3,
$4, or $5, the mark of punctuation or closing parenthesis precedes
those subfields.
That covers why there's a full stop after the final $e and not after $4.
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.
--
Michael A. Chopey
Head, Cataloging Dept.
Hamilton 008
University of Hawaii at Manoa Libraries
Honolulu, HI 96822
phone (808) 956-2753
fax (808) 956-5968
On 3/8/2013 12:57 PM, Kadri, Carolyn J wrote:
I have been putting a comma after the name and a period after the relator code
and no period after $4.
Example:
Smith, James, $e publisher. $4 pbl
Don't know that any one way is better than the other, but in the absence of any
instructions anywhere, I defaulted to this pattern because it seems logical to
me.
Carolyn Kadri
Special Collections Cataloger
University of Texas at Arlington
Arlington, Tx 76019
*
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 3:42 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Relator code and term punctucation
RDA Listers:
Do I have this right?
Both $4 and $e replace the ending period of the name (unless it ends in an abrevations
like Ltd.? There is no period at the end of the relator code or term?
A comma precedes each $e, but $4 has no punctuation?
Thanks, Mac
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Michael A. Chopey
Head, Cataloging Dept.
Hamilton 008
University of Hawaii at Manoa Libraries
Honolulu, HI 96822
phone (808) 956-2753
fax (808) 956-5968
