Re: [RDA-L] I'm taillights
>Roman sandals after knee surgery? Hmmm... :) Well, of course the full Merle Haggard reference to them was "Beads and Roman sandals won't be seen." And then again, it's highly unlikely I'll ever be in Muskogee, Oklahoma, at least not willingly. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com Wearing the sensible shoes for one more day, then it's back to Spanish boots, Roman sandals, and brogans (thanks to Jeff Beck, Merle Haggard, and Bo Diddley) -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Lisa Hatt Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 1:07 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] I'm taillights On 11/30/2012 8:34 AM, Mike Tribby wrote: > Today is my last day in the QBI Cataloging Bunker. Wow. Will certainly miss your postings! > Wearing the sensible shoes for one more day, then it's back to Spanish > boots, Roman sandals, and brogans (thanks to Jeff Beck, Merle Haggard, > and Bo Diddley) Roman sandals after knee surgery? Hmmm... :) -- Lisa Hatt Cataloging De Anza College Library 408-864-8459
[RDA-L] I'm taillights
Today is my last day in the QBI Cataloging Bunker. As perceptive readers may have inferred from my postings here and on Autocat, I'm not exactly the most enthusiastic backer of RDA, but before drawing the conclusion that I'm quitting to avoid having to implement RDA, please consider that QBI has already begun to implement it with no real problems so far. In fact, Bryan and the rest of the cataloging staff here will be updating QBI's name authority capabilities and authorization to RDA standards in the near future, and converting the PCIP program to RDA is under consideration. I'm facing imminent knee replacement surgery and at my advance age and crappy physical condition the extensive re-hab I'll be undertaking is not a good fit with my 170-mile per day round trip commute. Besides, I have a 7-month-old puppy who desperately needs to have one of his owners at home everyday so that he doesn't spend most of his puppyhood in his kennel. We still haven't heard from any customers one way or another about preferring RDA records, and I only recently discovered that QBI is hardly the last vendor in OCLC to accommodate RDA, which surprises me a little, but probably shouldn't. I think that for a lot of libraries RDA is a matter of overkill, introducing complications into the process of cataloging titles that may never have more than one manifestation, expression, etc. That being said, and to address James Weinheimer's frequently asked question about a business case for RDA, I don't think there is a business case for it for smaller libraries other than the perceived need to be in step with the national libraries. But for LC (and likely the British Library, LAC, the Australian National Library, etc.), it seems to me the business case is that it will allow them to focus more on important endeavors like classification and subject access rather than the housekeeping aspects of descriptive cataloging. For instance, being allowed to accept inputs like ONIX "as is" means their professional staffs need not concern themselves with converting ALL CAPS fields and similar matters. The national libraries have as much right as any other institutions to set their own policies, and I don't see how they can go forward in a time of diminishing funding and staffing without making major changes. If cataloging is truly a cooperative effort, records with nonsensical machine-generated contents notes and all caps title fields can be upgraded by other members of the bibliographic utilities that house records. If I were working in an end-user situation (like the persistent dream job of a small liberal arts college library located in a picturesque setting), I would likely make use of Mac and Michael Gorman's creation and resist RDA implementation until faced with a situation where RDA's purported benefits would come to the fore. If the MARC replacement and infrastructure that will magically make RDA fully realizable come to fruition, that might change my outlook, but frankly I don't have much faith in the certainty of that happening anytime soon. How long did it take cataloging software vendors to start utilizing non-filing characters rather than using stopwords, and when will they introduce autofil into most cataloging software packages? Probably about the time the paperless society we've been preparing for since the 1970s arrives. My last helpful suggestion to the list (which I realize might constitute my first helpful suggestion to many list members) is this: your discussions might be more fruitful if you managed to keep in mind that just because other list members disagree with you it doesn't mean they are drooling incompetents or arbitrary obstructionists. They might simply disagree with you. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com Wearing the sensible shoes for one more day, then it's back to Spanish boots, Roman sandals, and brogans (thanks to Jeff Beck, Merle Haggard, and Bo Diddley)
Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors
"To make a parallel between Clint Eastwood and Ox Eckhardt, your desire to find out that Ox Eckhardt hit .371 in 1932 for the Mission Reds to win the Pacific Coast League batting title would be akin to finding out that Clint Eastwood took "x" number of days to direct the film UNFORGIVEN, or worked "y" number of dollars on his role in THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY. Just like the case with Eckhardt, these facts about Eastwood--whether or not anyone finds them interesting or important--are bibliographically insignificant. They would not belong in the OPAC." If you frame it that way, sure, but if my curiosity about the PCL batting titles in the 1930s related to a sabremetric study of batting averages across the minor leagues during a time when the major league batting averages were at alltime highs, it might still be trivia to Clint Eastwood fans, but not to baseball statisticians. "I think most catalogers would have no trouble seeing this line." Of course you do. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors
Ox Eckhardt hit .371 in 1932 for the Mission Reds to win the Pacific Coast League batting title. But where, if anywhere, do you draw the line? My need to know about and do research on oldtime minor league baseball doesn't measure up to the frequent examples of OPAC users starved for information about Clint Eastwood? I don't think Ox Eckhardt ever appeared in national media talking to an empty chair (but maybe he should have). Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 11:33 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors I think the point of Thomas Brenndorfer's IMDb example is not to say that the OPAC should be a way to find out what types of jobs that Clint Eastwood has had. Certainly there are other places more appropriate to find that information. Rather, it is to say that the OPAC should be able to help a user find resources based on certain criteria, e.g. Clint Eastwood as actor, Clint Eastwood as director, Clint Eastwood as writer, Clint Eastwood as producer, Clint Eastwood as music composer, Clint Eastwood as music performer, etc. Having the specific nature of the relationship unambiguously tied to the access point or identifier will greatly enhance the ability of the user to find the resources sought. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! > -Original Message- > > Wotta boon! (The fact of IMDb already existing notwithstanding). And > let's extend this fantastic accomplishment to other areas of interest > and inquiry, too. How long until I can consult my local OPAC to find > out who won the batting title in the Pacific Coast League in 1932? > > Mike Tribby > > -Original Message- > > As an option for navigating the relationships people have had to > creative works, there is the possibility of very user-friendly > approaches, as in this IMDB example for the many job types Clint > Eastwood has had in relation to films: > http://www.imdb.com/name/nm142/ > > Current library catalogs do not come close in helping users in ways > that are now commonly found across the web. > > Thomas Brenndorfer
Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors
Wotta boon! (The fact of IMDb already existing notwithstanding). And let's extend this fantastic accomplishment to other areas of interest and inquiry, too. How long until I can consult my local OPAC to find out who won the batting title in the Pacific Coast League in 1932? Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Brenndorfer, Thomas Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 10:35 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors As an option for navigating the relationships people have had to creative works, there is the possibility of very user-friendly approaches, as in this IMDB example for the many job types Clint Eastwood has had in relation to films: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm142/ Current library catalogs do not come close in helping users in ways that are now commonly found across the web. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library > -Original Message- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and > Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Laurence S. > Creider > Sent: November 26, 2012 11:27 AM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors > > And all this helps the public how? > > -- > Laurence S. Creider > Interim Head > Archives and Special Collections Dept. > University Library > New Mexico State University > Las Cruces, NM 88003 > Work: 575-646-4756 > Fax: 575-646-7477 > lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu > > On Mon, November 26, 2012 9:19 am, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote: > > The distinction between “artist†and “illustrator†currently > > exists in the choices for main entry heading. Catalogers have to > > know that an artist can be a main entry heading, and an illustrator > > can only be an added entry. The distinction comes down to knowing > > what is the work and what is the expression (that is, in knowing > > that an illustrator has only contributed to the realization of a > > work, but is not responsible for the primary intellectual or > > creative content of the > work). > > These categorizations may seem arbitrary, but they are still the > > basis for traditional cataloging, and reappear as > > entity-relationships in RDA. RDA does go a bit further in > > recognizing that there may be more types of relationships beyond the crude > > main/added entry distinction. > > For example, a Creator may also have a Contributor role (as in > > Composer > and Singer). > > This can be seen in the second RDA/MARC example in > > http://www.rdatoolkit.org/sites/default/files/6jsc_rda_complete_exam > > pl > > es_bibliographic_jul0312_rev.pdf > > Thomas Brenndorfer > > Guelph Public Library > > > > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and > > Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jack Wu > > Sent: November 26, 2012 11:08 AM > > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors > > > > And the searcher, in order to search successfully, would have to > > know this distinction in our use of a different qualifier for the > > same person under different circumstances, as well, I presume? > > > > Jack Wu > > Franciscan University of Steubenville > > j...@franciscan.edu<mailto:j...@franciscan.edu> > > > >>>> Jenny Wright > >>>> mailto:jenny.wri...@bibdsl.co.uk>> > >>>> 11/26/2012 9:38 AM >>> > > My understanding is that: > > If the illustrations are integral to the work, the person who > > drew/painted them is a creator, or co-creator, and so the > > relationship designator should be “artistâ€. > > If the illustrations are complementary to the work, and belong at > > expression level (they contribute to the realisation of the work), > > then the relationship designator should be “illustratorâ€. > > What is more debatable is how one decides whether the art is > > integral to the work. Could another artist could draw new comic > > strips for the same story, or new pictures for a juvenile picture > > book without changing it to a new work? > > Jenny Wright > > Development Manager > > Bibliographic Data Services Ltd. > > > > > > > > > > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and > > Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC
Re: [RDA-L] AACR2 in RDA Toolkit
>AACR2 should continue to be provided among Desktop's long list of cataloging >resources instead of being singularly tied to RDA subscription, if for no >other reason than to avoid an appearance of being heavy-handed. Regardless of what one thinks about RDA or the methods of its adoption, its backers avoiding the appearance of being heavy-handed is a ship that has long ago sailed. And sunk. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
>I don't think AACR2 used to be revised through populist revolutions either ... True enough, but the cost for access to AACR2 was less than the cost of access to RDA, which, despite the constant hymns to its wonderfulness, is still too expensive for many libraries and other agencies who might like to see _all_ of the rules when undertaking cataloging. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
"You have "DVD", "Compact Disc" and "Comic Book" as GMD's in 245$h? This is curious to me, and I wonder what your data source is for records with these GMD's. None of those are on the 'standard' list of GMDs, and you won't generally find any of those used as GMD's on MARC from OCLC or LC." Perhaps they're for local use with human catalog users. Quaint, huh? Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] accompanying material
"The last I looked, there was no new way of dealing with accompanying material, and RDA had not spoken to it. So are we supposed to just keep adding these accompanying materials pieces as a 300 $e?" And dare we use that mysterious and confounding "+"? I'm asssuming that when the accompanying material is something like a spinnin' disc we render its measurment in "inches" unless some august body somewhere has defined "in" as a symbol rather than an infernal abbreviation. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16
> Perpetuating bad practice for some false premise of "less access" > based upon functionality that is entirely optional until one is ready > is incredibly bad advice. > >>Did Jim advise to stick with bad practice? No, but he had the temerity to appear to be questioning part of the sanctity of FRBR, RDA, and for all I know the genetic code of the ancient masters. The attitude that drives these responses from the true believers is as much a part of the problem with moving ahead as anything else, maybe much more. It's hard to have a useful discussion in this atmosphere. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16
>Do you apply this same thinking to any kind of authorship/creating, Mike? No. Did I indicate that I do? I thought that very clearly referring to film and music terms might be a signal that I was limiting my thoughts to those materials in this thread. "Authorship" of films and music is rather a different thing than authorship of books. With films and music, especially popular music, "authorship" tends to be a corporate thing. D.W. Griffith directed Intolerance, but others were responsible for the cinematography and other facets of the finished work (in all of the varied forms in which Griffith released it). The Ronettes are credited in sales charts and discographies with having done Be My Baby, but Phil Spector was responsible for almost everything but the vocals including composing, arranging, and orchestrating. >There's no reason for the catalog to be able to provide a list of things by >Mark Twain, because the user can consult a standard reference work to get the >list of everything by Mark Twain, and then use the library catalog to >determine whether the library has any particular already identified work by >Mark Twain? To identify works in records that _have no relator terms_ one could indeed consult a reference that covers Mark Twain so as to separate biographies from Twain's writings. How does that suggest that in creating new records I think the relator terms are not necessary? Really, Jonathan, I'm reminded of a previous posting in this thread about the foibles of questioning RDA proponents. Merely questioning some aspect of RDA, some strategy for implementing it, or its proponents' concerns is not the same as saying that some or all of RDA is pointless. Other than using the words "film" and "music" more frequently how could I have made this any clearer? Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16
"But if the library catalog can't identify which records in it represent movies directed by Clint Eastwood, then the library catalog can't answer the question of "movies directed by clint eastwood owned by the library", right? Which is why relator codes matter, which is what we're discussing, I think?" If the patron has already consulted a standard reference and has Eastwood's filmography, a search of the library catalog can answer whether the library has that particular Clint Eastwood movie whether the catalog record has the relator codes or not. This doesn't mean it's a bad idea or not helpful to have the relator codes, just that there are other resources to answer in-depth questions about Eastwood's career, so even legacy records that don't have the relator codes can be found. Having the relator codes enhances browsing and serendipitous discovery, but isn't always essential. Perhaps relator codes could be added to older records when the titles those records represent circulate. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16
>From Karen Coyle: "Why on earth, when the question is "a list of the movies directed by Clint Eastwood" would any reference librarian point to the catalog?! The catalog is an inventory of the items owned by the library, not an encyclopedia. Any decent reference librarian knows that, and I suspect that most users, while they may not know that consciously, act as if that were the case. You go to IMDB, you go to Wikipedia, you find the official Clint Eastwood site online. This reference question has nothing to do with library ownership. Which is why the library catalog is NOT the first place that users go for information -- it's where they go to find out if the library has a particular item and if it is available. So the real scenario should be: Faculty member wants list of CE movies. Goes to IMDB/Wikipedia/web site. Finds list there. In perfect world, similar to how OpenURL works today, browser would show faculty member which items in that list are available at the library. Thus faculty member gets 1) needed information 2) link to library holdings, all in one place." >From me: Yes! Exactly right. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16
"Assuming relator terms or role indicators are immensely helpful, all the more important they be consistently and inclusively applied throughout the catalog. Is LC going to retrospectively add them, OCLC? At present it's 270 million records without relator terms, how many with? Even if OCLC can add relator codes retrospectively overnight, won't we still have to re-export all records that are now in our local catalogs? I suppose, in time all will be done but I don't see any near term solutions." I don't see a near term solution either. Over time records, especially frequently-used records, will doubtless be updated, but it would seem that comprehensive updating of all records would be daunting to the point of impossibility. However, if relator terms or role indicators are consistently added to new records starting now, future searching will be facilitated. Over time records including those attributes may well come to dominate catalogs. And if not all of the legacy records get updated, might that be an indication that they weren't searched or accessed as often as other records including more recent ones? In 100 years catalog users looking for stuff by and about current film participants may be no more numerous than catalog users doing searches on D.W. Griffith are today. Not that I think that's a good thing, just that it seems probable. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16
"I did some training on MARC 21 for an adcemic institution in the South East of England. When I was getting all lyrical about the potential of the notes fields to contain the names of actors directors etc - I was politely informed that they had discussed this with the academic staff involved and the view was that the students should use the standard film reference works - online or physical to discover this information - and the use these tools was part of learning their academic subject area, not a task for the library catalogue. I wonder if there is a debate to be had about "less being more" when the quality is good?" This is a question I've had during these lengthy discussions of RDA and how it will make the world safe for enlightened civilization. It seems to me that going to the library catalog, even the great aggregated library catalog in the cloud that may manifest if and when the semantic web becomes a realty, for in-depth filmographic and discographic information seems a little like going to the Motown Records website for biographical information on Jamaican bass guitarists. There may well be some useful information there, but there are much better sources. Standard reference works and dedicated websites (like IMDb, even with the many caveats that come with their offerings) exist for a reason. Linking to these more authoritative sites seems like a better route to go than trying to recreate the information they hold and put it in the cataloging. Which doesn't mean I see no benefit in any part of RDA. In fact one of the things I enthusiastically agree with Karen Coyle about is contained in this statement from a recent posting of hers: "My gut feeling is that music and moving picture cataloging have some very interesting use cases that could show some real benefit from roles." That's my gut feeling, too, and is also backed up by my personal experience. If fully realized it would be a definite benefit for library patrons-- but it still wouldn't replace other more dedicated sources. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] RDA Music Joint Working Group
Would any of the august panelists Judy listed have at least a passing interest in the cataloging of popular music? Given the number of libraries with circulating collections populated with popular music it might be wise to include it in their deliberations. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of JSC Secretary Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 8:27 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] RDA Music Joint Working Group A joint working group has been appointed to submit music-related proposals to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA (JSC). The members of the group represent three organizations: the Canadian Association of Music Libraries, Archives and Documentation Centres; the Library of Congress (U.S.A.); and, the Music Library Association (U.S.A.). At this time, the JSC constituencies outside North America have decided not to nominate members to the working group. Members of the working group are the following: Steven Yusko, Chair (Library of Congress, U.S.A.) Rachel Gagnon (CAML, Library and Archives Canada) Cheryl Martin (CAML; Western University, Canada) Daniel Paradis (CAML; Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, Canada) Caitlin Hunter (LC, U.S.A.) Geraldine Ostrove (LC, U.S.A.) Janet Bradford (MLA; Brigham Young University, U.S.A.) Robert Freeborn (MLA; Pennsylvania State University, U.S.A.) Tracey Snyder (MLA; Cornell University, U.S.A.) Regards, Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary
Re: [RDA-L] Order of 040 subfields
"I have been following this thread about the 040. Does it really matter what order the subfields are placed in in the 040 in an online environment?" It matters greatly (at least theoretically) to those who enjoy assigning blame to specific cataloging agencies for what they perceive to be bad cataloging. It's a bad tool for doing that, but righteous sentiment about avenging cataloging "errors" seems to overwhelm that. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] AACR2 records in OCLC
I think the vanguard of the RDA Armada should try to slow your roll and wait for implementation day--if not longer--on this. Not all libraries and other users of OCLC are converting to RDA right now, and some may never do so. I admire your spirit and your desire to spread what you see as the unmitigated glories of RDA enhancement, but perhaps you could be a little patient. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 2:32 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] AACR2 records in OCLC For the same reasons we might upgrade a pre-AACR2 record to AACR2. RDA records have lots of advantages over AACR2 records. The abolishment of the rule of three is an example that comes to mind quickly. Robert L. Maxwell Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian Genre/Form Authorities Librarian 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 "We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Pat Sayre McCoy Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 1:25 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] AACR2 records in OCLC My understanding was that we would not recatalog AACR2 master records to RDA. Why would we? Authority records will be updated but why bib records? Pat Patricia Sayre-McCoy Head of Law Cataloging and Serials D'Angelo Law Library 1121 E. 60th Street Chicago, IL 60637 p-mc...@uchicago.edu 773-702-9620 (office) 773-702-2885 (fax) From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Carras, Darla Black Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 1:55 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] AACR2 records in OCLC At ALA annual, the announcement was made that the comments on the proposal to amend the policy were generally favorable and an announcement would soon be forthcoming. In the meantime, the original policy is still in place. Darla Carras Head, Catalog Management Unit University Library System University of Pittsburgh 412-648-9465 dcar...@pitt.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kadri, Carolyn J Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 2:40 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] AACR2 records in OCLC Nor have I seen anything to the contrary and I have been keeping my eyes open looking for an update from OCLC on this policy. Therefore, we are not upgrading any I level OCLC existing record to RDA as instructed by OCLC in their policy statement release in 2011. Carolyn Kadri Head Cataloger Special Collections University of Texas at Arlington From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Paige G Andrew Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 1:33 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] AACR2 records in OCLC I have not seen a change in this policy yet, so am assuming the answer is No. Paige From: "Jacqueline Jo Byrd" To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 2:14:37 PM Subject: [RDA-L] AACR2 records in OCLC I am preparing to train some of our catalogers on RDA, and I have a question: Are we now allowed to change a full-level AACR2 record to RDA and replace the master record in OCLC? I know that at one time we were not supposed to do this, but I am wondering whether this has changed. Thanks! Jacqueline Byrd Head, Area Studies Cataloging Section Technical Services Department Herman B Wells Library Indiana University 1320 E. 10th St. Bloomington, IN 47405 TEL: 812-855-4310 FAX: 812-855-7933 b...@indiana.edu
Re: [RDA-L] GMD and Content/Media/Carrier discussion [was AUTOCAT: Large print differentiation in RDA]
"I agree very much with you about the nature of the complaint, but it seems to me that with separate vocabularies for the different aspects of format and carrier, it should be emphasized that they should be able to choose where they want it to go in a user display, and indeed, whether to use the standard RDA vocabularies or one of their own devising. The problem is that they can't have that NOW, and there's no argument about that. Instead of commiserating with one another about what they're losing, they'd be better off shifting their time and energy to discussing these issues with their vendors, some of whom need a fair bit of education about RDA before anyone would trust them to do it right." I wonder who she's talking about. "They" sound pitiful. Apparently I should check my speed dial for my vendor's helpline. Oh wait, I've already talked to them. More than once. Well, I'm stumped. Gad, I love this list. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Card catalogue lessons
"Legacy data is always a problem. But if we never start doing different, we'll never have any different. If you start adding additinal info (like relator codes), there may be a reason to not have the UI expose it until a certain percentage of your data is so 'enhanced'. There can be automated as well as manual cooperative means to enhance. But if you never start enhancing, you're just making your legacy problem even bigger. Your argument still amounts to "we've never done it, therefore the catalog is the wrong tool to do it." If it's something important to our users, and we can afford to do it, shouldn't we start doing it? Arguments against might be that it's not something important to our users, or that we in fact can't afford to do it. But "we've never done it so we can't" is a poor argument, and that's what "but what about the legacy data" amounts to." Then shouldn't the cataloging rules require it? Even that won't get the information in every record, requiring it might get it in enough records to afford a decent chance of a successful search. Without the requirement of including the relator codes, it's the bibliographic equivalent of an unfunded mandate: we think it would be totally awesome to rely on the information being there, but we're not going to require it. In this case I think it is something important to users, is something we can afford to do, and isn't something that gets done presently. If the rules are silent on inclusion of something like this, many cataloging agencies, including national libraries, will not put it in. Perhaps one reason some listmembers are finding these discussions frustrating is that we don't seem to be able to easily separate theory from practice, let alone factor in reality. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Card catalogue lessons
"In addition to the RDA elements in the 3XX fields, the RDA relationship designators are being added to the 5XX fields. But the relationships are not new information, as that very same information is in a 678 free text field. It's all about making data more machine-actionable, so that functionality and display can be maximized, satisfying both end-users and systems designers. Just as there was a time when catalogers stopped typing up cards and started entering data into computers that supported MAchine-Readable Cataloging, so there will be a time when cataloger effort will go into maximizing the capabilities and efficiencies of all current and upcoming systems." None of which gets the information into the bib records that would be one likely obvious target of the patron's search. Nobody is disputing the viability of what you say, I'm pointing out that the information may not be included in many records, and, as Jim pointed out, LC's and BIBCO's rules don't require them to be. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Card catalogue lessons
>On 3/17/2012 6:42 AM, James Weinheimer wrote: >Why is the local catalog definitely not the correct tool here? Because of a >few facts: There is LCRI 21.0D where it is stipulated that LC will not put in >relator codes. They are also not required in BIBCO. Jonathan Rochkind responded: >>This is awfully circular. You started out saying that it was a mistake for >>the local catalog to try to do this, it was the 'wrong tool' for this job. >>When someone asks why, you say, basically, because the way we do things makes >>the catalog fail at this. >>Right. So, um, why not do things differently? >>Your answer looks like simply "because we never have, so we never should" Unless, Jim's point has something to do with the unlikelihood that enough records will have the relator codes included to be a really good source given LC's heavy output of records. Unless LC and BIBCO change their policies (and amp up enforcement) or there is a concerted effort by other cataloging agencies to add the relator codes to LC's and other BIBCO records, there are other, better places to find the desired information. Doesn't mean the catalog couldn't support this kind of thing, just that as currently constituted it might not be the optimum source. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 9:15 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Card catalogue lessons On 3/17/2012 6:42 AM, James Weinheimer wrote: Why is the local catalog definitely not the correct tool here? Because of a few facts: There is LCRI 21.0D where it is stipulated that LC will not put in relator codes. They are also not required in BIBCO. This is awfully circular. You started out saying that it was a mistake for the local catalog to try to do this, it was the 'wrong tool' for this job. When someone asks why, you say, basically, because the way we do things makes the catalog fail at this. Right. So, um, why not do things differently? Your answer looks like simply "because we never have, so we never should"
Re: [RDA-L] Revolution in our Minds: Seeing the World Anew
James Weinheimer wrote: > It is very difficult to maintain that > FRBR is a conceptual model for anyone besides librarians. Kevin M. Randall replied: >Of course it's difficult, and that's why I and others are not even trying to >do that. We're explicitly (and repeatedly) maintaining that it is for >librarians. Perhaps I'm missing the larger--or even the smaller, more subtle--point once again in the grand RDA discussion, but I thought RDA was supposed to somehow make our cataloging more enticing for other professions to use. I realize that in and of itself making our cataloging more palatable and useful for others doesn't imply that non-catalogers necessarily need to understand and embrace RDA as a "conceptual model," but to say that we're consistently maintaining that RDA is only for librarians seems to muddy the waters. Is this another aspect of RDA similar to how RDA is silent on display but has instructions that designate displays in some fields? Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] RDA as the collaboratively created way forward[?]; was Is RDA the Only Way? An Alternative Option Through International Cooperation
> Everything I have been reading here assumes that the public wants the FRBR > user tasks. >>No, you have been creating straw man arguments by making it seem ridiculous >>that users want to know technical terms and mechanisms to conduct searches. >>The point you have missed is that it isn't a question of "wanting" the FRBR >>user tasks, but that the tasks are being done regardless. It seems to me that no participant or side (to the extent that there are discernible "sides") in this extended discussion is doing a particularly good job of understanding or responding to the arguments that others are making. We've seen a bit of crabbiness directed toward Jim Weinheimer and we've also seen postings from people who say he is in fact speaking to points or positions with which they agree. I see some participants in this as unable or unwilling to allow the possibility that RDA has any weaknesses or faults at all, and I suppose others see much the opposite: participants who are unalterably opposed to RDA no matter what. And yes, that description might apply to me-- if I actually cared seriously what happens with RDA at this point. Ask why a certain decision was made in RDA and receive a roster of URLs for Dublin Core meetings that occurred in exotic settings in the 1990s. Ask about a business case being made for RDA and get a short bibliography of studies of mental models of the bibliographic universe. Fascinating. Ask what specifics form one's opinion that RDA is wrong-headed, unwieldy, or unworkable and get responses that approximate "I don't know." Obviously I don't know either. What I have come away with is a conviction that a lot of the bits about RDA that cause ongoing conserration were issues decided a long time ago and very unlikely to be revisited. See "ill.": vs "cm." vs "cm" for example. Whether we like it or not, the RDA discussion has moved on from simple matters of logical or arbitrary choices as far as what is being expressed. It's all about the structure of the data and how it'll be deployed. It probably should also be about infrastructure, too, but I gather from postings from those who know (and care) far more about such matters than I that the infrastructure is to a large degree still a bit of an ongoing issue. In the meantime those of us quibbling about this aspect or that risky assumption at work in RDA are wasting our breath and the 1s and 0s of our email programs. Important bodies have decided that we WILL HAVE RDA and whether it works or not, whether it can be adopted by a majority of libraries and cataloging agencies or not, and just about everything else related to the discussion is yet to be determined, but there's no turning back now. Fine. I suspect stakeholders will vote on the future of RDA by whether they adopt or not. Does anyone see a likely scenario by which RDA is widely adopted? (Actually I do, but I think it will be a grudging adoption rather than an enthusiastic one, driven by factors like all of LC's records being RDA). OTOH, for the first time in a while the RDA list is more entertaining on a post-by-post basis than VIDEOLIB. BTW-- in my experience it is ridiculous to posit that library users other than catalogers and our ilk do want to know technical terms and mechanisms to conduct searches. By and large they just want their stuff. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Showing birth and death dates
"Some AACR2-isms, like "[s.l.]", seem pretty clearly to be outside of the norm for an English-speaking person who is not a cataloger or a pedant (but perhaps I repeat myself, here ;)). But others, like "circa" or "flourished" seem less clear-cut. (They both show up in Webster's, for example.) And when we start replacing "circa" with "approximately" and "flourished 1532-1593" with "approximately 1532-approximately 1593", aren't we encroaching on IFLA's principle 2.7, "Economy"?" Not to mention our apparent assumption that the same patrons who are befuddled by "vi, 666 p. : col. ill. ; 28 cm." are not befuddled by the "cm" part with or without a period making it an abbreviation. Regardless of how we render the cm and whether or not we accept that it has been endowed by its sponsoring organization as "not an abbreviation," it _functions_ as an abbreviation in a cataloging record and saying that it is less confusing to patrons for some unknown reason is, I think, wishful thinking at best. By far the mors frequent question I field about the contents of the 300 field is along the lines of "Centimeters? Why centimeters?" Y'know the USPS two-letter codes for states of the United States are officially not abbreviations either: why not avail ourselves of them? It's not like their defining agency is any more or less a bibliographic agency than the one that rules metric names and non-abbreviations. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Showing birth and death dates
>Arguing over whether or not ca. or circa should be used, or 1978- vs. born >1978 is pointless when it comes to creating the metadata of the future. Perhaps. Many of us, however, are still stuck creating metadata to be used in the present. The distinction suggests one of Peter O'Toole's mots in My Favorite Year. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement
>If we finally get beyond MARC coding and stupid input interfaces that make >people look up codes. Sounds great. How do we get beyond those "stupid input interfaces"? And an observation: sometimes "stupid" is, if not solely in the eye of the beholder, at least subject to differing perceptions or degrees of stupidity. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 10:34 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement Quoting Billie Hackney : > But it *is* more work. Adding relator terms took a lot of extra time > while I was doing original cataloging in RDA. I know we've been > through the argument a number of times before, but I just don't > understand why the creators of RDA feel that it's necessary to make > original catalogers do *more* instead of less when nearly all of us > are supposed to get more done with fewer catalogers. I can't imagine how calling someone "artist" can be more work. It *is* more work if you have to look up a role code in order to put it into a MARC subfield, but it's only *different* work if you have: artist: [person name] illustrator: [person name] composer: [person name] conductor: [person name] rather than 100 or 700, which only tells that you're coding a name for a person, and then requires you to qualify it with a less-than-intuitive code. It must be a rare piece that doesn't tell you what role a person plays. That piece probably takes as much to catalog today, because you have to determine if the named person is worth including in the record. If the role is right there before you, using it isn't more work if we finally get beyond MARC coding and stupid input interfaces that make people look up codes. kc p.s. We really need to mock up a couple of potential new input "views" so that people can see "beyond MARC" > > > Billie Hackney > Senior Monograph Cataloger > Getty Research Institute > 1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100 > Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688 > (310) 440-7616 > bhack...@getty.edu >>>> "Brenndorfer, Thomas" >>>> 11/9/2011 7:49 AM >>> >> It is that precision (which carries forward the same amount of >> intellectual work in traditional >cataloging-- it's not really "more >> work") that makes the RDA element set more amenable to >> >modern encoding and data management methods. > > -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.454 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/4005 - Release Date: 11/08/11 19:34:00
Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement
>I just don't understand why the creators of RDA feel that it's necessary to >make original catalogers do *more* instead of less when nearly all of us are >supposed to get more done with fewer catalogers. Possibly because many of the creators of RDA don't actually do a lot of filling out of cataloging records. To many, what we do when we populate records is just typing. Their focus is more on the use of the records and other aspects of what might be characterized as the intellectual part of the work. Unfortunately, in many cases, local administrators share this view, so adding tasks that may be mischaracterized as detail work doesn't enter into thoughts and requirements as to output. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Billie Hackney Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 9:56 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement But it *is* more work. Adding relator terms took a lot of extra time while I was doing original cataloging in RDA. I know we've been through the argument a number of times before, but I just don't understand why the creators of RDA feel that it's necessary to make original catalogers do *more* instead of less when nearly all of us are supposed to get more done with fewer catalogers. Billie Hackney Senior Monograph Cataloger Getty Research Institute 1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688 (310) 440-7616 bhack...@getty.edu >>> "Brenndorfer, Thomas" 11/9/2011 >>> 7:49 AM >>> >It is that precision (which carries forward the same amount of intellectual >work in traditional >cataloging-- it's not really "more work") that makes the >RDA element set more amenable to >modern encoding and data management methods. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.454 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/4005 - Release Date: 11/08/11 19:34:00
Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement
"For fields like subject, I believe there was a convention that the most important subject (the one upon which the primary classification number was based) had the first position in the record. Since many modern systems permit or even force re-ordering tags in numerical order, that positional value can and often is easily lost. Many of us stopped lamenting this a long time ago, but was it valuable?" Yes. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Recording ISBNs for RDA records in Connexion
The ISBN for the second edition Aaron describes is likely in a subfield z because the publisher re-used the ISBN from the 1st edition. As to the conflict between RDA examples of recording ISBNs with hyphens and the OCLC Bib Formats and Standards prohibition on recording the hyphens, I'll cheerfully defer to someone who purports to understand why RDA does anything the way it does. In fact I'm surprised Thomas hasn't posted on this yet. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Aaron Killough Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 8:28 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Recording ISBNs for RDA records in Connexion All, I ran across my first RDA record yesterday. It is for the book William Eggleston, for now (OCLC #: 729389823). I have a couple of questions regarding the ISBN for this book. First, I can't figure out why it is coded as invalid. I have the book in hand and the number itself was entered correctly, but it was coded with a subfield z. Can anyone enlighten me? Second, the RDA "Basic Instructions on Recording Identifiers for the Manifestation" states in rule 2.15.1.4 to record the identifier in accordance with the format and then gives several examples of ISBNs with the hyphens present. But, OCLC's Bib Formats and Standards categorically states NOT to include hyphens. In the RDA examples I've seen, it does look like people are leaving out the hyphens. Does OCLC's inputting conventions trump RDA rules in this case? TIA, Aaron G. Killough, M.L.I.S. Coordinator of Metadata & Cataloging Services Chambers Library University of Central Oklahoma 100 N. University Drive Edmond, OK 73034 405-974-2872 akillou...@uco.edu http://library.uco.edu <http://library.uco.edu/> **Bronze+Blue=Green** The University of Central Oklahoma is Bronze, Blue, and Green! Please print this e-mail only if absolutely necessary! **CONFIDENTIALITY** -This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information. Any unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is prohibited. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3938 - Release Date: 10/04/11 18:34:00
Re: [RDA-L] Justification of added entries
Finally an RDA question I feel fully qualified to answer: >Is cataloger time important? No, though RDA is hardly the only manifestation of this phenomenon. Thank you for your time. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Billie Hackney Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 8:45 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Justification of added entries Is cataloger time important? Looking up and adding relator terms was one of the most frustrating and time-consuming tasks for me while I was creating RDA records during the test. And I've never understood how three or four of them will help the patron when the other three hundred entries for Picasso doesn't have them. Billie Hackney Senior Monograph Cataloger Getty Research Institute 1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688 (310) 440-7616 bhack...@getty.edu >>> James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com> 8/22/2011 2:40 AM >> wrote: These are great examples. I just wish someone would actually demonstrate what would be the impact on the public of adding the relator codes, plus, if the idea is to try to get other metadata creators to provide records that are useful to us (and ours to them), the ISBD statement of responsibility is easy and simple, and it will be exactly the same thing for everyone. Plus, copy and paste is possible today avoiding the old idea of double work. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3850 - Release Date: 08/22/11 06:35:00
Re: [RDA-L] [ACAT] Upper case in records
>If a few titles in all capitals is really one of the most significant problems >with RDA, then RDA is doing pretty darn good. I don't know that it's necessarily "one of the most significant problems with RDA" so much as just another "Let them eat cake"* thing. Percpetion is still important, and I guess we're debating the importance of the perception that titles in all caps is a problem. *(Apologies to Marie Antoinette. I know she didn't really say that--or at least not in the manner it's sometimes suggested. Like the way I used it.) Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Apocrypha - make a proposal!
Adam Schiff makes a fair point that it would be far more constructive to suggest improvements rather than just airing grievances about particular aspects of RDA. Still, it seems to me that, at least for some listmembers, what appear as complaints are also questions about why RDA has the provisions it has. Were altenate ways of dealing with Apocrypha discussed and discarded? If so, would airing the same alternatives that were already rejected serve a useful purpose (beyond the obvious purpose of calling the decisions reached in creating RDA into question)? It seems to me from my narrow perspective on this particular issue, that since there are widely divergent ideas about what constitute Apocrypha in the many versions of the Bible, it may well be impossible to reach a consensus. So do we want air-tight rules that will inevitably leave some feeling wronged? Do we want another area for cataloger's judgment (on this issue I would assume not, but what do I know?)? How do we deal with a situation for which there may well not be an entirely equitable solution? And, more in keeping with my history on this list, where does this issue or set of issues fall on the RDA is not a cataloging code<--->RDA is silent on display continuum? Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 5:10 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Apocrypha - make a proposal! It's frustrating to see all of the griping about RDA instructions like the ones dealing with Apocrypha, which will lead nowhere unless someone actually makes a revision proposal. If there is a problem that needs fixing, the way to get it fixed is to ask one of the JSC constituent bodies to make a proposal to change RDA. Thus the best course of action would be contact the appropriate constituent body with a summary of the problem and a concrete suggestion on the way to fix it. If the fix is not obvious at first, the body could decide to form a task group to investigate and to recommend an appropriate solution/revision. To get the ball rolling, one could contact the chairs of the appropriate bodies: ALA Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access (CC:DA): Lori Robare, Chair lrob...@uoregon.edu Canadian Committee on Cataloguing (CCC): Christine Oliver chris.oli...@mcgill.ca Australian Committee on Cataloguing: Deirdre Kiorgaard dkior...@nla.gov.au CILIP/BL Secretariat, c/o Katharine Gryspeerdt katharine.gryspee...@bl.uk See also the page on Submitting Proposals to Revise RDA at http://www.rda-jsc.org/revision.html Several of the constituents have guidelines on submitting proposals: ALA CC:DA: "How to Submit a Rule Change Proposal to CC:DA" http://www.libraries.psu.edu/tas/jca/ccda/how-to.html (hasn't yet been revised from AACR2, but the principles/procedures will be the same) CCC: "How to submit a Canadian proposal for a revision to Resource Description and Access (RDA)" http://www.lac-bac.gc.ca/cataloguing-standards/040006-3100-e.html For proposals coming from outside the RDA author countries, they would be submitted to the Chair of JSC, currently Alan Danskin alan.dans...@bl.uk ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3627 - Release Date: 05/09/11 18:35:00
[RDA-L] latin, the dead language
In the conversations that many members of this list tend to find as boring and pointless as can be, it has been suggested that abbreviations based on Latin terms are arcane and that most library patrons likely don't understand them. I have mixed feelings about this, ranging from strong agreement that few know what "S.l." or "S.n." mean to dismay that we are supposedly cataloging for library users unfamiliar with "etc.", etc. Today I'm cataloging a book about muscle development for bodybuilders, mostly weightlifters. It has a two-page glossary of Latin terms. Apparently these bodybuilders are better equipped to search our information silos than library users at large are. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Sneaky Pie and Rita Mae Brown
So Trigger will continue to be denied his rightful place among the participants traced in cataloging records for the many Roy Rogers movies and televison shows? The Hollywood animal kingdom weeps at the thought. Me, too. It's almost like not tracing Nigel Bruce for Sherlock Holmes films. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Brenndorfer, Thomas Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 2:31 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Sneaky Pie and Rita Mae Brown There does appear to be a bias in RDA towards real people, and so animals as performers (contributors to an expression) are not on. In RDA, the "Person" entity wraps into itself information about other entities, such as the "individual" (a real person), as well as a narrow pre-condition in terms of bibliographic roles or relationships. The definition for the RDA Person entity is a definition about the identity of an "individual" (that is, an individual real human being). An RDA Person can be an individual, or any identity established or assumed by an individual (or group of individuals collaboratively)-- RDA 8.1.2. Pseudonyms and "other identities" (which I take to include fictitious characters) are covered under the "alternate identity" relationship designator. (RDA K.2.1) This means to me that whatever identity is established, assumed, chosen, or borrowed, it can become an identity for a different Person, even if one biological individual is behind the scenes. I would take that to mean that the borrowed identity could even be the name of an object or concept, not just a fictitious character or non-human creature. I look at some of the examples in RDA 9.2.2.21 as ways of indicating just how far identities can go in resembling objects or concepts: 8Ball 50 Cent 3PM I wouldn't take any of this to mean that we should code all other entities in anticipation that the label might be used as an identity for a Person. A fictitious character is one entity. A Person in RDA terms that has the name of a fictitious character is a different entity. It's about how an individual uses an identity, and what the bibliographic relationships are. If the individual (that is, the real person) has an established identity, then the relationship designator, "real identity", should be used when other identities exist. If the individual (that is, the real person) does not have a separate established identity, then RDA 9.2.3.4 kicks in and the "real name" of the individual becomes a variant name. RDA 9.2.3.4 also points to how an identity is established-- it has to have a bibliographic relationship like creator or contributor. I wonder if this instruction will be expanded when RDA adds subject entities, since a Person can be the subject of a work, and so another bibliographic relationship has to be considered. There is a current example in the authority files where the name of a character is used in two different situations: One entity-- a fictitious character (a Concept): 010 __ |a sh 95003948 040 __ |a OCoLC |c DLC 150 __ |a Fletcher, Jessica (Fictitious character) 450 __ |a Jessica Fletcher (Fictitious character) 670 __ |a Work cat.: Bain, D. Rum and razors, c1995 |b (Jessica Fletcher) Another entity-- a Person, Donald Bain, with Related "Persons"-- that is, pseudonyms. The variant name Fletcher, Jessica, 1935- is already constructed as an access point for a Person, although here only as a reference. In RDA, that Person should have a separate identity, and the relationship designator from Donald Bain-- "alternate identity". 010 __ |a n 50020867 |z n 88181805 035 __ |a (OCoLC)oca00056294 040 __ |a DLC |b eng |c DLC |d DLC |d OCl |d OCoLC |d MdU 053 _0 |a PS3552.A376 100 1_ |a Bain, Donald, |d 1935- 400 1_ |a Fletcher, Jessica, |d 1935- 500 1_ |w nnnc |a Lundy, Mike 500 1_ |w nnnc |a Baker, Trudy 500 1_ |w nnnc |a Jones, Rachel, |d 1935- 663 __ |a For works of this author entered under other names, search also under |b Baker, Trudy |b Jones, Rachel, 1935- |b Lundy, Mike 670 __ |a Lake, V. Veronica, 1969. 670 __ |a His Gin and daggers, c1989: |b CIP t.p. (Jessica Fletcher and Donald Bain) 670 __ |a Contemporary authors, v. 180 |b (Bain, Donald, 1935- ; pseuds.: Mike Lundy, Trudy Baker, Rachel Jones; wrote several vols. in the "Murder she wrote" mystery novel series featuring fictional television sleuth Jessica Fletcher; has written many of his more than 75 fiction and nonfiction books on a wide range of topics as a ghost writer or under assorted pseuds.) 670 __ |a Wikipedia, July 17, 2008 |b (Donald Bain; b. 1935; author and ghostwriter) 952 __ |a &q
Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
I (further) wrote: >I worte: I realize poor spelling is unlikely to further sully my reputation on this list, but this is getting ridiculous. Good night, ladies and gentlemen! Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
I worte: >In our practice titles with copyright dates but no explicit publicating date >or distribution date constitute the majority of titles- Publicating! Now I feel as if Friday has truly begun. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mike Tribby Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 8:09 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question >And to further reiterate, they are different RDA elements because they are in >fact different things. Copyright date is a legal date that reflects the year >in which an issue is registered for copyright protection. It is not the same >thing as a publication date. No, it isn't the same thing, but insofar as usage--perhaps especially with popular rather than scholarly material--the copyright date is used by the publishers as the same thing. In our practice titles with copyright dates but no explicit publicating date or distribution date constitute the majority of titles-- and not by just a little. This seems to me to be largely a distinction in search of a difference. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3602 - Release Date: 04/28/11 06:34:00
Re: [RDA-L] RDA MARC coding question
>And to further reiterate, they are different RDA elements because they are in >fact different things. Copyright date is a legal date that reflects the year >in which an issue is registered for copyright protection. It is not the same >thing as a publication date. No, it isn't the same thing, but insofar as usage--perhaps especially with popular rather than scholarly material--the copyright date is used by the publishers as the same thing. In our practice titles with copyright dates but no explicit publicating date or distribution date constitute the majority of titles-- and not by just a little. This seems to me to be largely a distinction in search of a difference. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Sneaky Pie and Rita Mae Brown
>I don't think that all of the real-life dog and cat subjects in LCSH were >established for them as creators/contributors to works. I suspect that most >of them were established for works about them rather than by them. What about animal "actors"? Any change in tracing Trigger, Francis the talking mule, or Lassie? In the past, problems like the fact that more than one dog portrayed the character Lassie have muddied the waters on whether or how to trace them on records for moving image titles which list the animals as participants. I long to start adding Asta as a 700 to the Thin Man movie records. Of course I'd have to establish him first. And what of Toto? Should he ultimately be traced in a 700 as Terry (Dog)-- and his heading in I, Toto changed to a 600? He's billed as Toto, not Terry in Wizard of Oz... Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Where to Direct Questions about RDA Examples?
>Okay, are you laughing yet? Yes, yes I am. And not just about the detailed procedure from RDA being applied to a cartoon dog. I think that Snoopy, like Geronimo Stilton, Socks Clinton, and other non-human "authors" should be traced. And Mr. Schiff's path through the various instructions is, well, instructive. But I believe the original question was where to send questions about RDA examples that the person posting the question believes need changing. No answer on that specific question yet, but it would seem from a few recent postings in this august forum that questions about the assumptions and decisions that lie behind specifics of RDA are no longer to be questioned. At least here. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Nannette Naught Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 3:46 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Where to Direct Questions about RDA Examples? Okay, are you laughing yet? -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Deborah Tomares Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 12:53 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Where to Direct Questions about RDA Examples? I'm wondering where to send questions about RDA examples that I believe need changing. Under 19.2.1.3 (Recording Creators), in the Examples of "Two or More Persons, Families, or Corporate Bodies Responsible for the Creation of the Work Performing Different Roles" we find "Snoopy, Dr." listed as the author of a work, with Charles Schulz as the illustrator. The Snoopy choice is suspect to me for various reasons. Leaving aside the philosophical problems of creating "person" entries for fictitious characters, my problems are twofold. First, I've read that "Dr." will no longer be allowed, under RDA, to disambiguate headings. So perhaps the heading should be "Snoopy, Doctor". Except that--as a second consideration--if we're going to go ahead and create a record for Snoopy, wouldn't it make more sense to create a generic one? That way, if we have a military manual by Captain Snoopy later, or a philosophical treatise by Professor Snoopy, we won't need to create new Snoopy headings, or be forced to use the "Dr." one everywhere. Particularly since a fictitious character can't actually BE a doctor, etc., it seems foolish to qualify things this way. And if these will be replacing subject headings, as the LCPS for RDA 9.0 seems to imply, it would behoove us to make the headings as generic as possible, so that books about Snoopy don't have to be about "Snoopy, Dr." So, I would suggest the entry by changed to simply "Snoopy", as I doubt there is an authority conflict. Who do I need to send my arguments to? Thanks in advance for information and help, or for alternate opinions if there are any. Deborah Tomaras, NACO Coordinator Librarian II Western European Languages Team New York Public Library Library Services Center 31-11 Thomson Ave. Long Island City, N.Y. 11101 (917) 229-9561 dtoma...@nypl.org Disclaimer: Alas, my ideas are merely my own, and not indicative of New York Public Library policy., No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3598 - Release Date: 04/26/11 06:34:00
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
"I cannot wait for the day when (assuming we do implement RDA) instead of a blank template in OCLC that we have to encode in MARC, we get a screen which prompts us to fill in values for RDA elements. Catalogers shouldn't need to know the behind the scenes coding and communication standard, we should just have to supply the metadata. If we need the record to be output in MARC, the system should be able to do that for us. But I hope we will get to the point where we are creating records in OCLC or other systems just by recording data for each core RDA element and for other elements that our communities/cooperative programs/individual agencies/cataloger judgment deems important. Give me check boxes to indicate what types of illustrations the resource has. Let me use identifiers for entities so that I don't have to copy or key long character strings and so if the authorized form of access point for the entity changes, all my records that point to it will automatically get the revised form. Now how do we get OCLC and system vendors to develop these tools? Well we first need to make an implementation decision and then see what we can push for I think." That would all be great, and I think most of what Adam describes could be delivered by ILS vendors today or at least very soon. And that's the significant doubt I have about it: nothing has been keeping ILS vendors from creating more advanced systems other than perhaps their security in the idea that they don't have to make the effort to stay in business. We should indeed see what we can push for. If adopting RDA facilitates making ILS vendors responsive, so much the better, but up to now they haven't shown a great deal of interest in quantum improvements. Also: "assuming we do implement RDA"? Can anyone imagine a cataloging world post-non-implementation? Regardless of any amount of sentiment against RDA, I have a hard time imagining those who have worked so hard for so long to make RDA a reality accepting a decision not to implement. Perhaps my belief that it is not a done deal is faltering. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
>The questions above indicate that the questioner is missing the point of RDA >entirely. Of course they do. Has this list outlived its usefulness? Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
Not all libraries perceive the same needs as other libraries. If "the ILSs are just waiting for RDA to be finalized before rolling out new iterations that can take advantage of the relational properties" then why haven't they already rolled out ILSs that feature "technology [which] already exists, as we can see on the likes of Amazon"? For instance, where is the ILS software that routinely suggests, after I type in "Minn," "Minnesota," or "Minnie Minoso," or "Minnie Mouse" for that matter? (I sincerely hope that some listmembers have this feature in their ILS or cataloging software, BTW, as it does seem like an obvious imporvement). As I mentioned a few months ago, our head of IT cautioned us that we might not want to get rid of 10-digit ISBN capabilities in our systems because we still have customers whose ILSs can't handle the 13-digit ISBNs. ILS vendors have been slow to add a lot of features over the years. How many years did it take before they stopped using stopwords and started reading non-filer indicators? Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
>Meanwhile, speculation without facts isn't terribly useful. I think about how >much of the time used up in this debate couldn't have been better spent >gathering actual information. Well, sure, but seeing as how we're waiting on the U.S. national libraries to come to a decision anyway it's hard to turn off speculation. On Karen's broader point about the discussion, though, it seems to me as if we've been talking past each other for some time now. A decision, regardless of which way it goes, seems like the only thing of much tangible use left to be determined. Minds haven't changed much one way or the other in a good long time, or so it would seem from the online discussion. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
>Well, you can't stop there, Mike. >Which kinds of libraries favor which, etc.? To answer Kathleen's perfectly reasonable question and observation in reverse order: I'd rather not say publically at this point in this fascinating discussion (though I think a close reading of my previous postings on this and other lists might suggest a likely answer). & The heck I can't. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
It may be simplistic (but hey! that's what I do!), but I think the competing views of RDA's potential benefits and ultimate utility split along the lines of what kind of libraries are being discussed and what kind of libraries the individuals doing the discussing inhabit. With a few significant and voluble exceptions, that is. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
>I've finally figured out a way to "express" what FRBR/RDA feels like to me >after several years of study and practice. >I feel as if I've fallen down the rabbit hole and am searching for Alice while >accompanied by Franz Kafka. Yow! That's at least the second specific reference to the RDA discussion, if not RDA itself, that has referenced a cataloger feeling trapped in a work by Lewis Carroll! How literary can we get? I would suggest, however, that those of us not quite 100% onboard the RDA express might want to include James Ellroy along with Carroll and Kafka in our allusions to add a little toughness & brio lest we be accused of more "handwringing." Ellroy also figures in the discussion of the relationship between novels and feature motion pictures, too, in that he was initially quite complimentary about the film version of his L.A. Confidential, calling it a distillation (or some such positive word) of his work, but he has now changed his mind about that. (He did, however, enjoy the remuneration the film supplied.) The film not only shortened the novel's story substantially, it also completely changed the ending of the story beyond all recognition. Judgements about this sort of thing change over time, even judgments made by the principals involved. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Authority records per RDA for persons
>From Gene Fieg
>Authority records are for identification, between work and person in
>this case, and we should not add information that does not add to that
>identification. It is not a miniature Who's who.
>From Thomas Brenndorfer
>Those elements are used if needed to distinguish between two persons. The
>"Identify" user task means to distinguish between two persons (RDA 8.2).
>>Going beyond that is up to the policy of the agency or the judgement of the
>cataloguer.
>From RDA 8.3:
>"If the preferred name for the person, family, or corporate body is the same
>as or similar to a name by which another person, family, or corporate body is
>>known, record as many of the additional identifying elements listed below as
>necessary to differentiate them...
>Fuller form of name
{etc.}
>Other designation associated with the corporate body
>If none of the other identifying attributes listed above can be readily
>ascertained, designate the name as an undifferentiated name.
>Include additional elements covered in this chapter and in chapters 9-11 in
>accordance with the policy of the agency creating the data, or as judged
>>appropriate by the cataloguer."
Thomas provides an iteration of what RDA says about information that may be
used in an authority record, but I think Gene's point has more to do with what
we _should_ include in an authority record rather than what various information
RDA sanctions for possible use. There is a difference.
Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses
mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] RDA "draft"
"The case for not spelling out abbreviations is easy: 1. Catalogers don't have to waste time look up abbreviations in tables 2. Users don't have to be confused by abbreviations and waste time looking them up in tables By the tenth time a library user came to me and asked me to locate a "call number" like this: 382 p. : ill. I concluded abbreviations have to go." Well I'm certainly convinced. I wonder though, Thomas, how many of those ten+ library users know what a "bibliographical reference" is? From what I see on our P-CIP applications and in books for which others have performed CIP, a great many authors seem to think it means quotations from the Christian Bible. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] RDA "draft"
>From Bernhard Eversberg: "As was pointed out in another posting, there's the danger of a digital divide in the cataloging world. This cannot be in the intention of anyone concerned about improved access to library materials. The only way to prevent this, and prevented it must be, is to make the text of the rules open source. It is to be regarded like a law, and texts of laws are free for the good reason that people cannot be expected to abide by a law they have no access to because they cannot afford to buy it. Likewise, RDA will fail without this approach. The text must be made universally accessible to become useful." While I agree entirely with what Bernhard says about what should be done to disseminate RDA if RDA is to be a success, it is not and never has been the intent of the co-publishers to make RDA available for free or anything like free. In fact I daresay it has been understood from the beginning of this process that RDA was intended to pay for itself. It's not a secret, though it's also not the first thing the RDA crowd mentions when touting RDA. Should cost of access and the possibility of universal access have been concerns? I think they should have been-- but they were not. To perhaps put it crassly: theoretical purity was a higher concern than access. It's hard to blame the co-publishers very much since none of them are exactly rolling in extra money, and this process has been expensive, but some of us have been complaining about the assumed cost of subscriptions to RDA for some time now. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] "actual RDA"
I wrote: > So far we at QBI are leaning toward utilizing Mac's cheat sheets. To which Adam Schiff replied: "Which were put together based on drafts that might not represent the final published instructions. I haven't compared them to see if they accurately reflect the current RDA, but users of them should proceed with caution. They also won't be able to be kept current if Mac does not have the RDA Toolkit available. It's also highly likely that there will be further RDA revisions as a result of the U.S. RDA test, and any such revisions would need to be taken into consideration when creating "cheat sheets." Information on the current pricing of the RDA Toolkit and the print version is available at http://www.rdatoolkit.org/pricing"; Thanks for all the cautionary verbiage, Adam, but as you may have noted I also said that not a single customer of ours has expressed any interest, positive or negative, in RDA. Moreover we, like many libraries and other cataloging agencies, are not in a position to afford the subscription and, as you and others have made abundantly clear, the print version will never be current for very long at a time whenever one might purchase it. I don't think smaller libraries and cataloging operations were targeted for disenfranchisement by the backers of RDA, but I do think that to varying degrees disenfranchisement will result. I would be interested in hearing what remedies--other than buy the printed version and hope--RDA enthusiasts would offer us. It seems obvious that in the planning and creating of RDA the emphasis would be on getting it right rather than planning for the have-nots who will always exist regardless of what initiative is undertaken. If all cataloging matters were held up until all cataloging agencies were in a position to participate fully, no initiatives could ever be successfully undertaken. When we get to the end of the adoption consideration process, it will be interesting to see what suggestions are made for non-adopters, if any are. So far it seems to pretty much be: "Go fish." Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] "actual RDA"
Many excellent points in this thread; points not normally aired on this list where the emphasis is more on the technical functionalities and requirements of RDA. I think it may be important to realize that there is not now and never has been any initiative for RDA to be anything but a constantly changing thing. Those of us who, because of cost or inapplicability of aspects of RDA to our practice, will not or cannot adopt it are not really part of the target audience for RDA. It seems to me that adopting RDA assumes a bifurcation of the cataloging world, or maybe more like a stratification into many levels of adherence to a standard embraced by... Well I'm not exactly sure who will and won't embrace RDA, but I don't think those of us who might try to adopt it without the rather large and continuing cash outlay of a subscription have much reason to be optimistic about that path. So far we at QBI are leaning toward utilizing Mac's cheat sheets. We'll know more if and when one of our customers adopts RDA. As I may have mentioned before, we still have had absolutely no inquires about RDA from our customers, yet we continue to sell cataloging with our titles. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Fox, Chris Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 12:29 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] "actual RDA" And what about those of us who are still struggling with the requirement to shell out scarce money for the Toolkit, or the print version for that matter, when we haven't even decided whether we can catalog the RDA way? -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Paul Burley Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 10:19 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] "actual RDA" Adam: >>>"There is only one version of RDA that counts now, and that is the >>>one that is available through the RDA Toolkit, or, lacking that, the printed loose-leaf version of RDA sold by ALA, CLA, CILIP, etc." I disagree. Any given standard can only have a _single_ authoritative source. If there's any difference between RDA Online and the print version of RDA, no matter how minor, the print version is _not_ an authoritative source of RDA. Even the correction of a spelling error in RDA Online renders the print version non-authoritative. >>>"The actual RDA is what counts now and it really behooves all of us >>>who comment on specific instructions to have access to it." So those with access to RDA Online can comment, hash out the fine points, and be an active participant in the understanding and adoption of RDA. Those using the print version of RDA, or the drafts, should remain passive participants in the process until they have access to the "actual RDA". Correct? That seems valid to me, but the consequences are pretty serious in terms of the adoption of RDA. If someone like myself owns the print version, has an active interest in RDA, and has found points of interest and problems in RDA, the delay that results in putting off those questions/discussion until I have access to RDA Online is problematic. Paul Burley Paul R. Burley Technical Services Librarian Northwestern University Transportation Library 1970 Campus Drive Evanston, Illinois 60208-2300 Phone, 847-491-5274 Fax, 847-491-8601 Transportation Library: http://www.library.northwestern.edu/transportation/ -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 2:18 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Thoughts re: 336-338 for a streaming video file > But, in the version of RDA which I read, at 3.4.1.3 we were referred > to 3.4.1.5 for other unit names (aka SMDs) which may be used in > collation (aka carrier type and extent). There is only one version of RDA that counts now, and that is the one that is available through the RDA Toolkit, or, lacking that, the printed loose-leaf version of RDA sold by ALA, CLA, CILIP, etc. Note that corrected typos and other changes that are being made at regular update intervals in the Toolkit will not be reflected in the printed version that the publishers sell. It really makes no sense anymore to be referring to earlier drafts of these rules and basing policies on them. The actual RDA is what counts now and it really behooves all of us who comment on specific instructions to have access to it. Adam *
Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????
>While NYPL would like to politicize it, An alleged initiative to which you are contributing by replying in this manner. As to whether patrons care whether illustrations are in color or in black and white, in my experience lots of public and school library patrons do care about that, and probably find that information somewhat more useful than the number of pages devoted to "bibliographical references,"* a term which I doubt most patrons understand any better than the frightful "col. ill." or "etc." Purely conjecture on my part. I'll stop now before I further "politicize" this thread. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Abbreviations in RDA
>The following abbreviations continue to be used in collations: >centimeters cm >kilometersk >metersm >What have I missed? The purehearts dunning you for deigning to call shortened terms for metric measurements "abbreviations"? Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] general interest in RDA
>Not sure if you meant this as a serious observation Yes and no. I've posted before about the lack of interest expressed in forums other than cataloging lists regarding RDA. Of course, cataloging is often a non-starter in public library conclaves not devoted exclusively to cataloging concerns. Postings about RDA have appeared irregularly on the PUBLIB list over the last year or so and are rarely if ever commented upon by listmembers, although other, perhaps more mundane cataloging matters, are frequently discussed (often in the sense of "what is wrong with these #%$&* catalogers that they would perpetrate this practice?!?"). At this point any librarian interested in cataloging or the functioning of their catalog *should* at least know about RDA, but so far many don't seem to have that knowledge or any interest. More of them seem to be concerned about the new edition of DDC. They've certainly had the opportunity to do learn about RDA. When I have posted to PUBLIB members who have expressed interest in cataloging onlist, I have consistently heard back that they've either never heard of RDA or have vaguely heard of it, will try to familiarize themselves with it, and will get back to me. To date, that last bit hasn't happened. >I am seeing an uptick in the number of ILS system RFPs and RFIs that ask >systems vendors about their plans for RDA support; while that of course >doesn't directly speak to the level of interest in RDA or the advisability of >implementing RDA as currently designed or as it might exist in the future, it >does at least signal a trend. I consider that good news. To date, we have had no customer interest in RDA expressed. >Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if general interest in RDA doesn't happen >until there are definite plans to implement it. Indeed. Just as in politics it's hard to beat something with nothing, in this case it's hard to make definite plans about indefinite initiatives. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Galen Charlton Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 4:55 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] general interest in RDA Hi, On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Mike Tribby wrote: > An announcement went out on PUBLIB Monday morning for an RDA webinar: "ALCTS > webinar: RDA Ask-the Experts on February 17, 2011." So far there have been no > posts in reply. One can virtually feel the pulsating interest out there. Not sure if you meant this as a serious observation, so I apologize if I'm belaboring a response to an off-the-cuff remark. Wouldn't those who are interested in the ask-the-experts session just sign up for the webinar without necessarily announcing that they had done so? The Amigos RDA virtual conference that a number of us on this mailing list presented at last Friday seemed to be well attended, and unlike the ALCTS webinar, attendes had to pay. I am seeing an uptick in the number of ILS system RFPs and RFIs that ask systems vendors about their plans for RDA support; while that of course doesn't directly speak to the level of interest in RDA or the advisability of implementing RDA as currently designed or as it might exist in the future, it does at least signal a trend. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if general interest in RDA doesn't happen until there are definite plans to implement it. Regards, Galen -- Galen Charlton Equinox Software gmcha...@gmail.com No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3432 - Release Date: 02/09/11 07:34:00
[RDA-L] general interest in RDA
An announcement went out on PUBLIB Monday morning for an RDA webinar: "ALCTS webinar: RDA Ask-the Experts on February 17, 2011." So far there have been no posts in reply. One can virtually feel the pulsating interest out there. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Linked data
>And yet, somehow, plenty of other people in the 21st century produce large >quantities of bibliographic data that is capable of supplying a displayable >title that identifies the thing in the record. Amazon for one. This would be the same Amazon for which many publishers (admittedly mostly small publishers) have great difficulty getting updated and subsequent editions of their works to display properly? We regularly search Amazon for information on books we have on order so that we can assign approximate Dewey classifications for our sales staff to use in calling on libraries. In any but the very most straightforward cases, Amazon's ability to supply an accurate displayable title is subject to compromise. But this seems like a side issue to this discussion. In my experience Amazon does a good job in a lot of areas, but it's held up as an exemplar far too often for its track record with complicated or non-mainstream items. I'd still rate it as a bit more reliable than IMDb, but prone to the same shortcomings. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Browse and search RDA test data
>The rules for capitalization in AACR2 (and default RDA, which carries them >over) are very complex and quite difficult for trainees to grasp, even more so >when working with multiple languages. FWIW, in the approximately seventeen years I've been training new catalogers, AACR2's capitalization rules have never been a problem, but no doubt others' mileage may vary. Cataloging mostly English materials is likely a factor, but over the years we've cataloged Spanish language materials and a few other languages have crossed our desks from time to time. OTOH, I'm still seeking the people who are reportedly confused to distraction by common abbreviations like "etc." and "ill.," so maybe I've been leading a more halcyon professional life than I realized. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Browse and search RDA test data
Quoting "J. McRee Elrod" : > Capitalization as found would be acceptable in 505 contents and 520 > summaries, but 245 titles are seen in hitlists with other titles, so > uniformity is more important. > > In the upper case examples I checked, the all caps do not reflect the > source, according to Amazon images. There is no rationalization apart > from bone laziness in harvesting data. Quoting Hal Cain: >Contents notes rendered all uppercase have attracted hostile comment already >(perhaps not here, but certainly on Autocat), when incorporated into >(AACR2) >LC records from linked data produced or captured elsewhere. It's widely >understood that continuous uppercase text is more difficult for most >>people >to read. >I fail to understand what reasonable purpose can be served in using uppercase. > If it's as a paltry attempt to represent the style of the titlepage (or other >>>>source of primary identifying data for a document), that purpose would be >better served by attaching a link to a titlepage image -- which is a strategy >>>>I'm considering for a forthcoming project with early printed books. Perhaps not surprisingly, I find myself in agreement with both Mac and Hal. And I would ask Jonathan and any other list members who see value in all-caps display of titles if they have any thoughts on how to transcribe a title in which all letters are caps, but the letters at the start of the title (and possibly at the start of each word) are _larger_ caps than the caps that make up the rest of the title. I don't think my keyboard or my cataloging software is capable of creating caps in different sizes in the same field, at least not easily. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Abbrevitions in RDA records
"When I fill out forms on the web I never have to type in the name of a state. I type in the first letter or letters until the state name appears in the form box. So why should catalogers be typing in the entire state name? This is not new technology. There is a serious problem with our systems, which seem to employ 1960's data entry methods. We can't blame that on RDA." I would gladly use cataloging software that does as Karen suggests above. And yes, crappy software cannot be blamed on RDA. Too bad it's silent on display; perhaps some display requirements would help drive ILS improvements or modernization. Nah, probably not. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 2:37 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Abbrevitions in RDA records Quoting Mike Tribby : > Or better yet, spelling out Minnesota instead of Minn. repeated as > many times as I have occasion to do original cataloging on items > published in Minnesota, which in our case is quite a few--easily > hundreds over a year. Not to mention spelling out "pages," > "illustrations," and any number of bits that show up in most if not > all records. It adds up. When I fill out forms on the web I never have to type in the name of a state. I type in the first letter or letters until the state name appears in the form box. So why should catalogers be typing in the entire state name? This is not new technology. There is a serious problem with our systems, which seem to employ 1960's data entry methods. We can't blame that on RDA. kc -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3304 - Release Date: 12/08/10 07:34:00
Re: [RDA-L] Abbrevitions in RDA records
>The argument is vociferously made that spelling out "edition" instead of >writing "ed." (saving 4 characters) is extra time that catalogers can't afford Or better yet, spelling out Minnesota instead of Minn. repeated as many times as I have occasion to do original cataloging on items published in Minnesota, which in our case is quite a few--easily hundreds over a year. Not to mention spelling out "pages," "illustrations," and any number of bits that show up in most if not all records. It adds up. >at the same time as many of the same people advocate always adding one-three >sentence notes in addition to coded materials, for somewhat unclear user >benefit. An example would be nice, but my conscience is clear on this one. I don't advocate adding anything that doesn't absolutely need to be there and would welcome the day when coding in the machine readable portion of the record would spawn whatever text were needed. Besides, end-users tend to want more grist for keyword searching. >something far more expensive and less powerful than it could be if we cared >about creating clean data for machine processing And if it works for humanoids, too, so much the better? Maybe this is the crux of the larger question. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Abbrevitions in RDA records
Would abbreviations constitute "a substitute vocabulary encoding scheme"? Still waiting for the English translation, Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Abbrevitions in RDA records
"Data, rather than text, should even involve less keying on the part of catalogers. If there is a field for "number of pages", you only key in "357" not "357 p." or "357 pages". You should never have to key something that is in a controlled vocabulary -- those should be check boxes or drop-downs. And don't get me started on punctuation." Sounds great. Why doesn't RDA reflect this then? Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Recording Relationships in MARC
>For all the carping from catalogers that love abbreviations, I do not >understand what the benefit is supposed to be. An increase in throughput time for most records (anyway nearly all of the ones that have information in the 260$a) for little or no benefit. Of course if I could just slough it off on the students in our copy cataloging module I might not care. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Recording Relationships in MARC
>Ideally, the software would convert from the controlled vocabulary to whatever >language makes makes sense to the user -- which could be different in >different systems -- translating to a different language is an obvious example Wouldn't the same hold true for translating those incredibly obtuse abbreviations like "etc." or "ed." to spelled-out versions, too? Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Status of the US RDA Test
>From Chris Fox: >I really don't see, despite the 2008 refusal of the recommendation to stop >work on RDA, and the way the test is being conducted in a live database while >many of us are still waiting for a "decision," and despite what I see as a >significant number of people who are against RDA implementation, that there is >any way in the world that RDA will not become the de facto law of the land. >So much for an objective test. Chris may well be correct here, but I think it's important to make a distinction between what ultimately happens with RDA and how the national libraries in the U.S. are handling the test. While it's quite obvious that RDA has significant backing in LC's cataloging management, I don't think the test itself is being rigged. Admittedly it would be nice to hear any dissenting voices at LC, NLM, or NAL, but that could be seen as biasing the test or at least muddying the waters for the other testing institutions. We have been assured both publically and privately--by people who I trust to know what they're talking about--that the test is indeed legitmate and not just a preamble to adopting RDA. The testing institutions, on the other hand, may well be more disposed to adopting than not adopting, but the mere fact that QBI was included as a test site shows that, at the very least, vocal (perhaps whiny?) doubters of RDA were not systematically left out of the testing. And it seems to me that one could look at "the 2008 refusal of the recommendation to stop work on RDA" could indicate some doubt about the whole project and a desire on the part of the national libraries to "fish or cut bait" with RDA as it were. (I fought off the urge to use a similar but more earthy metaphor that more accurately mirrors my thoughts on parts of RDA.) I do think that the view that the lack of organized opposition to RDA during the long process of its writing indicates that most catalogers had no objections to it is wrong, though. The lack of participation in the creation of a code that one does not endorse or think necessary is not an endorsement of that code. If there were an initiative to extend authority control to the 260 subfield b portion of records, I would oppose it, but I doubt if I'd have the time or inclination to work in committee on the proposal just to make sure it didn't succeed. Similarly many catalogers were legitmately shocked when RDA suddenly became the manifest path to the future. I don't think the entire cataloging community has been heard from--nor asked, for that matter--about the _need_ for RDA, especially RDA in its current composition. And as to OCLC, after speaking with our OCLC liason I highly doubt that OCLC is in any way complicit in fixing the outcome of the test. In fact OCLC probably has no very attractive option at this point. If Chris is correct that the libraries who have trained their staff to catalog according to RDA will continue to follow RDA whether it is adopted by LC et al. or not (and I think he probably is correct about that), OCLC will face a situation where a lot of their members, albeit perhaps not their largest members, will not adopt, thereby forcing OCLC to come up with a way to house RDA and non-RDA records for the same stuff or face bitter complaints from whichever faction they might choose not to follow. At this point in the increasingly acrimonious process there may well be highly dissatisfied OCLC contributors no matter what the national libraries decide. I've received offlist emails wondering why QBI volunteered to test a code that I have said we probably cannot afford to adopt due to RDA subscription cost, increased cataloging software costs, and the need to re-tool our database and storage operation. The simple answer is that when we signed up for this, the cost of continuing access to RDA had not yet been announced. Also at the time we signed up for the test I had hoped that we'd be able to fulfill the conditions of the test over the summer when we are much less busy. The common set being released just as our busy season commenced (plus a much busier season than we've had in years materializing--this is not a complaint as it means QBI has more business than usual) didn't do us any favors, but it probably accurately reflects some of the problems peculiar to a vendor cataloging operation. And finally, the national libraries have identified cost as part of the adoption criteria. This in and of itself likely limits their options and probably increases the chances of not reaching a consensus in the cataloging community as a whole. The Blogosphere and the Consultantocracy are clearly--at least in my estimation--on the side of RDA, but I don't think it's a done deal at the national libraries. Which may not forestall my bitter complaints at whatever decis
Re: [RDA-L] Dates in call numbers for RDA
>In the absence of any additional indications that you have a different >manifestation, why would you input a different record into our shared database? And yet duplicate records appear in WorldCat all the time with less reason or differentiation than this. >The same thing with call numbers: how many of us are really going to spend >time fiddling with a perfectly decent call number on a perfectly decent record? And yet it happens. >We will copy catalog the resource and the students doing that work will move >on to the next one on their cart. Sounds pretty slick for those of us who have students to do that. Will all cataloging under RDA be done on campus? > I don't see how patrons are going have an issue with this either. Other than patrons who want the most recent manifestation of a work, you're probably right. But there are a lot of those patrons. I realize not all of the members of this august forum catalog a lot of travel books, but that's one area where this will matter greatly. Then there's the matter of acquisitions staff trying to decide whether an advertised or recommended work is already in hand or not. They could check the ISBN? That would work fine-- if publishers didn't reuse ISBNs-- not all of the time, but it happens. >I'd rather spend the time creating authority records for the additional access >points that we will be doing now that the rule of three is no longer the law >of the land. Given the huge numbers of headings roaming around WorldCat without benefit of authority records, I somehow doubt that authority control will be improved by not having the rule of three-- except at LC where I believe they have already decided against unlimited tracings. As will we if it comes to that. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 11:46 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Dates in call numbers for RDA Frankly, I really do not see what the big deal is. Whoever catalogs a resource first is going to put that record into our shared database, which we will all then use, and most of us are going to just accept the probable or inferred date of publication that the original cataloger included in that record. If the item is received and gets cataloged in the year before the copyright date, then there is clear evidence that the publication date is not the same as the copyright date. Why should that date be changed by a library receiving the item the next year, or three years later? Just accept that the library inputting the record had the best available information and move on. In the absence of any additional indications that you have a different manifestation, why would you input a different record into our shared database? The same thing with call numbers: how many of us are really going to spend time fiddling with a perfectly decent call number on a perfectly decent record? We will copy catalog the resource and the students doing that work will move on to the next one on their cart. I don't see how patrons are going have an issue with this either. Libraries could have a local policy to use the later copyright date in the call number, but really, why is this more useful to users, and at what cost to efficiency? I'd rather spend the time creating authority records for the additional access points that we will be doing now that the rule of three is no longer the law of the land. Adam Schiff ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3288 - Release Date: 11/29/10 19:34:00
Re: [RDA-L] Dates in call numbers for RDA
>The JSC paper http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/5editor3.pdf discusses the elements >in the context of their traditional displayed values and their substitutions >by schemes such as the fixed fields. There is also the possibility of dividing >elements into subelements. And there is always the possibilty of using notes >that explain the choice of Date of publication (there is an example of a note >for explaining probable dates in RDA 2.20.7.3). And, eventually, there is also the possibility of taking a couple of hours to create the simplest records. This is progress? Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Dates in call numbers for RDA
This exchange illustrates another factor that gives me pause about the whole RDA thang-- even those who helped create RDA don't appear to know precisely what it does or what it will affect. If you invite deviant practices, deviant practices will occur. Is it really a good idea for RDA to suggest using inferences (the date the item arrived at the individual cataloging agency) to determine publication date for an item that has only a copyright date but not an explicit publication date? What percentage of titles that the rest of you catalog even have an explicit publication date whether or not a copyright date is present? For us, those items are absolutely in the minority. At least using a date that actually appears on an item lessens the chance of duplicate records for a single item that was received at one cataloger's desk in, for example, December of 2010 and at another cataloger's desk in January of 2011. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Michael Cohen Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 4:50 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Dates in call numbers for RDA Yes this discussion occurs about this time every year, but we solve it, in the absence of a publication date, by recording the copyright date as published on the piece regardless of when the thing was received (per AACR2 1.4F6). We CAN blame RDA for its instruction in 2.8.6.6 to "supply the date or approximate date of publication" when it is NOT printed on the piece, thus introducing multiple records for the same manifestation and going against the principle of exact transcription. John Attig wrote: > On 11/24/2010 12:36 PM, Mike Tribby wrote: >> So the 2010 date, which does not actually appear on the item, would be >> recorded in an RDA record based simply on when the item appeared at the >> cataloging agency based on... what? >> >> What if the item arrived at one agency on December 31, 2010, but arrived at >> other cataloging agencies' offices on January 2, 2011 owing to vagaries in >> holiday scheduling for delivery companies? The book would then be a [2010] >> publication some places, but just as legitimately a 2011 for other agencies? >> >> Just another thing to love about RDA! This truly is the season of giving, >> isn't it? > You cannot blame this on RDA. This discussion occurs about this time > of year *every year* on AUTOCAT when people begin receiving materials > with next year's publication date but which have obviously already > been published. RDA does not change the fact that this does happen, > nor the arguments about how correctly to record the "facts". > > John Attig > Authority Control Librarian > Penn State University > jx...@psu.edu > -- Michael L. Cohen Head, Copy Cataloging & Catalog Maintenance Units General Library System, University of Wisconsin-Madison 324C Memorial Library 728 State Street Madison, WI 53706-1494 Phone: (608) 262-3246Fax: (608) 262-4861 Email: mco...@library.wisc.edu No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3287 - Release Date: 11/29/10 07:34:00
Re: [RDA-L] Dates in call numbers for RDA
>You cannot blame this on RDA. This discussion occurs about this time of year >every year on AUTOCAT when people begin receiving materials with next year's >publication date but which have obviously already been published. RDA does >not change the fact that this does happen, nor the arguments about how >correctly to record the "facts". Then I apologize to RDA. For this. Only. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of John Attig Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 12:42 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Dates in call numbers for RDA On 11/24/2010 12:36 PM, Mike Tribby wrote: So the 2010 date, which does not actually appear on the item, would be recorded in an RDA record based simply on when the item appeared at the cataloging agency based on... what? What if the item arrived at one agency on December 31, 2010, but arrived at other cataloging agencies' offices on January 2, 2011 owing to vagaries in holiday scheduling for delivery companies? The book would then be a [2010] publication some places, but just as legitimately a 2011 for other agencies? Just another thing to love about RDA! This truly is the season of giving, isn't it? You cannot blame this on RDA. This discussion occurs about this time of year every year on AUTOCAT when people begin receiving materials with next year's publication date but which have obviously already been published. RDA does not change the fact that this does happen, nor the arguments about how correctly to record the "facts". John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3276 - Release Date: 11/24/10 07:34:00
Re: [RDA-L] Dates in call numbers for RDA
>From Mac: >These late in the year arrivals should be treated as published the year of >copyright. If copyright year is present, publication year should be omitted >if not printed in the item, with no insertion. So is the absence of publication dates but the presence of copyright dates a peculiarity of our practice that other catalogers do not experience? For us it's a bit of a rarity when an out-and-out publication date appears anywhere in a publication, let alone in its traditional place on the t.p. With fewer and fewer publications having pub dates and more and more of them having copyright dates it renews the thought that some of the writers of RDA may not have been actively engaged in creating cataloging records in a while. Yes, I realize my observations here are specific to printed media. No, I don't recall seeing a lot of publication dates as opposed to copyright dates on digital or online entities. Perhaps I need to expand my world. And while we're at it, are we certain that patrons who are utterly baffled by stuff like "etc." and "col. ill." all immediately know what a "c" in a little circle means? Seems like we can assume they're all morons or not, but we ought to pick a lane. (Clarification for the excessively detailed: I do not personally think patrons are morons, either individually or in the aggregate. But then I think they're likely smart enough to search in a dictionary, Wikipedia, or on Google when they encounter common definitions that they don't recognize). Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Dates in call numbers for RDA
So the 2010 date, which does not actually appear on the item, would be recorded in an RDA record based simply on when the item appeared at the cataloging agency based on... what? What if the item arrived at one agency on December 31, 2010, but arrived at other cataloging agencies' offices on January 2, 2011 owing to vagaries in holiday scheduling for delivery companies? The book would then be a [2010] publication some places, but just as legitimately a 2011 for other agencies? Just another thing to love about RDA! This truly is the season of giving, isn't it? Where's the returns desk? Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Mark Ehlert Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 11:29 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Dates in call numbers for RDA Michael Cohen wrote: > We just received a book with no publication date and a copyright date > of 2011. > > Under AACR2 we would catalog this as > DtSt: s > Date1: 2011 > 300 $c c2011 > with a date of 2011 as the last element of the call number. > > Under RDA (I assume) we would catalog this as > DtSt: t > Date1: 2010, Date2: 2011 > 300 $c [2010], ©2011 > with a date of 2010 as the last element of the call number. > > Is that correct? Yes, this is correct. Publication dates are required for published works under RDA's current incarnation. Copyright dates are optional in this case you give, but LC's practice at present is to give the copyright date for single-volume monographs regardless (LCPS 2.11), thus resulting in sometimes (or usually) two identical dates with different functions in the $c. See also LCPS 2.8.6.6 for an example just like this. Plus, I'm sure you meant the 260 field, not 300. :) I don't have a copy of the LC's Shelflisting Manual nearby, so I can't confirm the earlier date for the call number. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex CoordinatorUniversity of Minnesota Bibliographic & Technical 15 Andersen Library Services (BATS) Unit222 21st Avenue South Phone: 612-624-0805Minneapolis, MN 55455-0439 <http://www.minitex.umn.edu/> No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3276 - Release Date: 11/24/10 07:34:00
Re: [RDA-L] US RDA Test and OCLC
>In the contemporary environment, our standards HAVE to be produced one part at >a time, and constantly iteratively evolve. It is not realistic to expect that >we'll get the whole thing all at once and it will never be changed again -- we >don't get good standards out of such a process. But Jonathan's reply speaks to two separate issues: the whole thing + in a form that will never be changed. In the case of RDA I don't think it's unreasonable to want to see the whole thing before buying in. Never changing is not and never has been on the table for RDA-- or AACR for that matter, at least in practice. If it's impossible to have a glimpse of RDA in its ever-changing entirety, maybe that, like a previous onlist observation about having to invent a new language to explain one's plan, is an indication of some trouble with the basic plan itself. Is it really that much of an imposition to allow the testing to take place before making a final decision on RDA? If it's the done deal so many of its backers (and more than a few pesky "naysayers") say it is, you'll have your brand new shiny wowwy-zowwie soon enough. Then we can all get to work complaining of RDA's inadequacy and writing articles extolling the Next Big Thing. Monday, eh? Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] RDA records in the LC catalogue
From Mark Ehlert >Obviously I'm commenting with the future, not the here-and-now. This can be a problem in many areas. For instance I just got off the phone with our cataloging software vendor. Their stuff doesn't work on Windows 7 and our IT department informs me we won't be running XP much longer. The software vendor is "looking into" what to do about this. BTW-- when I asked what they had planned for RDA implementation, the reply was "I'm not familiar with that." A toast, then, to better days! Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Parallel Title Proper RDA 2.3.3
>Beyond the core elements, I would assume that anything is optional -- or at >least subject to an application decision at some level. Hmmm. Thanks for the clarification, John. I think my records for the test just got a lot shorter. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of John Attig Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 2:12 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Parallel Title Proper RDA 2.3.3 The Parallel Title Proper is not a core element. Therefore, I would say that the recording of some or all of them is an application decision that needs to be made. This application decision can be made through a national decision, an institutional decision, or by individual catalogers. In this case, there is an LC Policy Statement that says that the Parallel Title Proper is core for LC. Other institutions may choose to follow this decision or make their own. I assume that the LC decisions means that *all* parallel titles proper are to be recorded. Generally speaking, RDA does not offer explicit options to limit the number of instances of an element to be recorded; if the element is a core element, then it is assumed that they will all be recorded. Beyond the core elements, I would assume that anything is optional -- or at least subject to an application decision at some level. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu On 10/11/2010 11:44 AM, Arakawa, Steven wrote: Is there no cataloger option to limit the number of parallel titles proper to transcribe? Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation Catalog & Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.448 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3190 - Release Date: 10/11/10 06:34:00
Re: [RDA-L] RDA Questions
>If we are using authority records from LC, anything other than following their >lead would not make sense. Again, not every cataloging agency follows LC's lead. This kind of option in the RDA rules serves no purpose that I can see. And haven't we heard plenty in the recent past about not relying on LC for everything? If the rules allow deviations in practice, deviations are sure to occur. Moreover, LC does _not_ prepare every authority record in the shared authority file. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Brenda Parris Parker Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 10:59 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA Questions If we are using authority records from LC, anything other than following their lead would not make sense. Brenda Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access writes: >Which is why I suggest that we follow LC's lead in this matter. > >Robert L. Maxwell >Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept. >6728 Harold B. Lee Library >Brigham Young University >Provo, UT 84602 >(801)422-5568 > >-Original Message- >From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access >[mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Mike Tribby >Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 9:42 AM >To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA >Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA Questions > >How does open-ended instruction on just how to note birth and death >dates achieve the interchangeability and all-important granularity that >RDA is purported to advance? If I record Lee Perry as "Perry, Lee, >1936-" and another cataloging agency records him as "Perry, Lee, b. >1936" how does that achieve anything other than confusion? > >If confusion is our goal, I'm all for it at this point. But somehow I >doubt that's what we're pursuing here. > Brenda Parris Parker Technical Services/Reference Librarian Brewer Library Calhoun Community College Decatur, AL No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.448 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3183 - Release Date: 10/07/10 18:34:00
Re: [RDA-L] RDA Questions
Understood, but RDA is supposed to enable catalogers beyond LC's orbit to create records that all can use. Sadly not every cataloging agency in the bibliographic universe follows LC policy. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 10:48 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA Questions Which is why I suggest that we follow LC's lead in this matter. Robert L. Maxwell Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept. 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Mike Tribby Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 9:42 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA Questions How does open-ended instruction on just how to note birth and death dates achieve the interchangeability and all-important granularity that RDA is purported to advance? If I record Lee Perry as "Perry, Lee, 1936-" and another cataloging agency records him as "Perry, Lee, b. 1936" how does that achieve anything other than confusion? If confusion is our goal, I'm all for it at this point. But somehow I doubt that's what we're pursuing here. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 10:35 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA Questions RDA only says to record the birth or death date. It does not specify how you mark the data as referring to birth or death. If you will look at 9.3.2 (date of birth) you will see that RDA simply says to record the date, e.g. "1974". It is the same for other dates associated with a person. RDA doesn't say how you should tell the user of the data that the date is, for example, a birth date. That is left to the cataloging agency to decide. In MARC, since we don't have a separate field or subfield for "birth date" and "death date" the data needs to be marked in some other way. Possibilities include using the word "born" or "b." before the birth date and "died" or "d." before the death date. Another possible way to mark the data is to append a dash to the end of the year if the number represents a death date and append a dash to the beginning of the year if the number represents a death date. LC has chosen, for the test, to use dashes to designate the number as a birth date or a death date. If the dash comes after the number, it is a birth date. If it comes before the number, it is a death date. It is the same whether we have only the birth date, only the death date, or both. This is LC's local cataloging agency decision, but I think it would be good idea for others to follow it. The decision seems quite sensible to me and will be much better for indexing than interposition of a word in front of the number, and less capricious than the former NACO practice of establishing a name with a dash after the date if we thought the person was still alive at the time, and instead using "b." if we thought the person was dead-with the arbitrary result that a person was established with a "b." or a dash solely depending on when his/her name was established. I realize a dash before a death date without a birth date looks strange, but I suspect we'll get used to it. Bob Robert L. Maxwell Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept. 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Thompson, Rebecca L Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 9:54 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] RDA Questions My colleague and I have a couple of questions: First, we are confused by the print versions pertaining to RDA on the ALA website. The RDA: Resource Description and Access and RDA: Element Set View have the exact same description, except the latter has the statement "RDA: Element Set View is an innovative way of sorting the RDA instructions by element, such as Title, Place of Publication etc." We were under the impression this is what RDA was to begin with. Is this a printed out version of what is under the tools tab in the RDA Tool
Re: [RDA-L] RDA Questions
How does open-ended instruction on just how to note birth and death dates achieve the interchangeability and all-important granularity that RDA is purported to advance? If I record Lee Perry as "Perry, Lee, 1936-" and another cataloging agency records him as "Perry, Lee, b. 1936" how does that achieve anything other than confusion? If confusion is our goal, I'm all for it at this point. But somehow I doubt that's what we're pursuing here. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 10:35 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA Questions RDA only says to record the birth or death date. It does not specify how you mark the data as referring to birth or death. If you will look at 9.3.2 (date of birth) you will see that RDA simply says to record the date, e.g. "1974". It is the same for other dates associated with a person. RDA doesn't say how you should tell the user of the data that the date is, for example, a birth date. That is left to the cataloging agency to decide. In MARC, since we don't have a separate field or subfield for "birth date" and "death date" the data needs to be marked in some other way. Possibilities include using the word "born" or "b." before the birth date and "died" or "d." before the death date. Another possible way to mark the data is to append a dash to the end of the year if the number represents a death date and append a dash to the beginning of the year if the number represents a death date. LC has chosen, for the test, to use dashes to designate the number as a birth date or a death date. If the dash comes after the number, it is a birth date. If it comes before the number, it is a death date. It is the same whether we have only the birth date, only the death date, or both. This is LC's local cataloging agency decision, but I think it would be good idea for others to follow it. The decision seems quite sensible to me and will be much better for indexing than interposition of a word in front of the number, and less capricious than the former NACO practice of establishing a name with a dash after the date if we thought the person was still alive at the time, and instead using "b." if we thought the person was dead-with the arbitrary result that a person was established with a "b." or a dash solely depending on when his/her name was established. I realize a dash before a death date without a birth date looks strange, but I suspect we'll get used to it. Bob Robert L. Maxwell Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept. 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Thompson, Rebecca L Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 9:54 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] RDA Questions My colleague and I have a couple of questions: First, we are confused by the print versions pertaining to RDA on the ALA website. The RDA: Resource Description and Access and RDA: Element Set View have the exact same description, except the latter has the statement "RDA: Element Set View is an innovative way of sorting the RDA instructions by element, such as Title, Place of Publication etc." We were under the impression this is what RDA was to begin with. Is this a printed out version of what is under the tools tab in the RDA Toolkit? Could anyone explain the differences between the two? Our second question relates to the use of the terms "born" and "died" (b. or d. in AACR2) in name headings. In 9.19.1.3, the examples (copied below) show the use of these terms. However, at the ALA RDA101 pre-conference in June and the ALCTS Introduction to RDA webinar last Wednesday, the examples always showed use of a dash (examples below) and we were told to not use the terms born and died. Since both of these trainings were officially sanctioned, I am wondering what is correct. Has there been a change and the toolkit has been updated yet? Or was there a change and it just hasn't filtered down the trainers yet? Thank you for your time and help. Examples from 9.19.1.3 Smith, John, 1978- Smith, John, 1718-1791 Smith, John, born 1787 Smith, John, died 1773 Examples from pre-conference and webinar Smith, John, 1978- Smith, John, 1718-1791 Smith, John, 1787- Smith, John, -1773 Becky Thompson Assistant Professor of Library Science Miss
Re: [RDA-L] Recording Extent, Other Physical Characteristics, and Dimensions for incomplete serials
Most of our practice is books, so we will likely continue to record information in 300 $c because spine height, and in some circumstances the width of a book, are useful in identifying what books may be stored separately because of shelf dimensions. In other cases, like DVDs, CDs, and (if we ever see them again) audio and video cassettes, it seems to me that unless the value in 300 $c is other than the norm, one could conceivably do away with recording them. As usual, we'll try to do what pleases our customers. I don't foresee us eliminating inputting the information in subfield b, however. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Jacquie Samples Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 1:41 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording Extent, Other Physical Characteristics, and Dimensions for incomplete serials Hi Everyone, Thanks for all the discussion about 300$a, but what I'm really exploring are the $b and $c. $b= Other Physical Characteristics $c = Dimensions So, I can choose to include them or not, but I'm attempting to make a clear, logical agency decision. At least for the test. I noticed that UChicago is going to include $b and $c on their records, and I was hoping to get a discussion going about the pros/cons of including information on illustrations and such, as well as height, from the beginning of a serial. Could this be useful in non-exceptional cases (that is, the resource is not a folio and has boring illustrations)?I happen to have a large format comic book serial that I could see fitting the "exceptional" case, where we might want to know about the illustrations and the height, but this is not a common case. I know that we did use our 300$c information recently when determining the size and number of containers to purchase for an automatic retrieval system (ARS), but this is not a common need. Thanks again, Jacquie >>> Jonathan Rochkind 2:23 PM 2010/09/23 >>> Right... but you don't need a blank "v." there waiting for you in an electronic record, it's easy enough to record "2 v." in an electronic record that previously had a blank there. In a printed card, you printed the "v." to leave space for you to later write in "2". In an electronic record, having a subfield with a blank "v." in it adds no value... does it? It's just useless information, it might as well be blank, saving entry time and making things a lot easier for software (that otherwise has to know to ignore a blank "v.", and not bother displaying it to the user, becuase it tells them nothing and is just confusing). Am I missing something? Jonathan Mike Tribby wrote: > As Maxine's post suggested, when a serial does finally publish it's last > volume, the number of volumes could be recorded in the record whether the > record is electronic, card, or liquid. > > > > > Mike Tribby > Senior Cataloger > Quality Books Inc. > The Best of America's Independent Presses > > mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com > > > -Original Message- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and > Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Jonathan > Rochkind > Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 1:07 PM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording Extent, Other Physical Characteristics, > and Dimensions for incomplete serials > > Aha, that makes sense for printing catalog cards. It makes no sense at > all in an electronic record that will never become a printed catalog card... > does it? > > MSHERMAN wrote: > >> Traditionally, way, way back in the dark ages, when we used catalog >> cards, the number of volumes of an open entry was left blank, so that >> when the item finally published it's last volume, the librarian could >> fill in the actual volumes in the run of the serial. >> >> This should still be true today, but I haven't noticed anyone >> actually completing the number of volumes when they close an open >> screen on OCLC records. >> >> Maxine Sherman >> Cataloger >> >> Cuyahoga County Public Library >> Administrative Offices >> 2111 Snow Road / Parma, OH 44134-2728 p 216.749.9378 / f 216.749.9445 >> >> msher...@cuyahogalibrary.org >> www.cuyahogalibrary.org >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and >> Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Re: [RDA-L] Recording Extent, Other Physical Characteristics, and Dimensions for incomplete serials
>The more rules, the more time/expense. Little things add up. And we've got a >LOT of little things. At first blush, this seems an odd thing to be posted on an RDA list. Or maybe I mean ironic. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 1:37 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording Extent, Other Physical Characteristics, and Dimensions for incomplete serials For "harder" read also "more expensive". The same could be said for the time of the cataloger. It doesn't take that much time/expense to enter a "blank v.", but it's yet another rule the cataloger has to be trained for and remember. The more rules, the more time/expense. Little things add up. And we've got a LOT of little things. Jonathan Rochkind wrote: > Having the "v." around in a field forces the computer software to have > an extra rule "Check this field to see if it's nothing but a "v.", and > if it is don't bother showing it to the user." (Or of course, you can > just show it to the user, probably confusing them, which is what most > of our software does). > > All these rules add up; actually displaying AACR2/Marc in a sensible > way to users requires many many special case rules like this. This > makes software hard to write and hard to maintain. > > Jonathan > > Mike Tribby wrote: > >> Again, I think the same could be said of other types of records. On a card, >> one could simply leave a blank area rather than having "v." sitting there >> unadorned. So I guess I agree with Jonathan that it really serves no purpose >> other than as a placeholder. Perhaps it suggests that the serial was in fact >> printed rather than in some other form and would, therefore, be found in >> volumes in its hard copy form, but that information is also likely to be >> found elsewhere. We're not going to require a 300 $c in the BSR anymore, so >> perhaps we might as well kill off other fields that are no longer necessary. >> On the other hand in an electronic environment having the "v." floating >> around unfulfilled causes no excess space concerns, although it is useless. >> As to saving entry time, the rule of three and use of abbreviations do that, >> too, and they're earmarked for the scrap heap. There are competing >> priorities in everything we do. >> >> >> >> >> Mike Tribby >> Senior Cataloger >> Quality Books Inc. >> The Best of America's Independent Presses >> >> mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and >> Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Jonathan >> Rochkind >> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 1:23 PM >> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA >> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording Extent, Other Physical >> Characteristics, and Dimensions for incomplete serials >> >> Right... but you don't need a blank "v." there waiting for you in an >> electronic record, it's easy enough to record "2 v." in an electronic record >> that previously had a blank there. In a printed card, you printed the "v." >> to leave space for you to later write in "2". >> >> In an electronic record, having a subfield with a blank "v." in it adds no >> value... does it? It's just useless information, it might as well be blank, >> saving entry time and making things a lot easier for software (that >> otherwise has to know to ignore a blank "v.", and not bother displaying it >> to the user, becuase it tells them nothing and is just confusing). Am I >> missing something? >> >> Jonathan >> >> Mike Tribby wrote: >> >> >>> As Maxine's post suggested, when a serial does finally publish it's last >>> volume, the number of volumes could be recorded in the record whether the >>> record is electronic, card, or liquid. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Mike Tribby >>> Senior Cataloger >>> Quality Books Inc. >>> The Best of America's Independent Presses >>> >>> mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com >>> >>> >>> -Original Message- >>>
Re: [RDA-L] Recording Extent, Other Physical Characteristics, and Dimensions for incomplete serials
Again, I think the same could be said of other types of records. On a card, one could simply leave a blank area rather than having "v." sitting there unadorned. So I guess I agree with Jonathan that it really serves no purpose other than as a placeholder. Perhaps it suggests that the serial was in fact printed rather than in some other form and would, therefore, be found in volumes in its hard copy form, but that information is also likely to be found elsewhere. We're not going to require a 300 $c in the BSR anymore, so perhaps we might as well kill off other fields that are no longer necessary. On the other hand in an electronic environment having the "v." floating around unfulfilled causes no excess space concerns, although it is useless. As to saving entry time, the rule of three and use of abbreviations do that, too, and they're earmarked for the scrap heap. There are competing priorities in everything we do. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 1:23 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording Extent, Other Physical Characteristics, and Dimensions for incomplete serials Right... but you don't need a blank "v." there waiting for you in an electronic record, it's easy enough to record "2 v." in an electronic record that previously had a blank there. In a printed card, you printed the "v." to leave space for you to later write in "2". In an electronic record, having a subfield with a blank "v." in it adds no value... does it? It's just useless information, it might as well be blank, saving entry time and making things a lot easier for software (that otherwise has to know to ignore a blank "v.", and not bother displaying it to the user, becuase it tells them nothing and is just confusing). Am I missing something? Jonathan Mike Tribby wrote: > As Maxine's post suggested, when a serial does finally publish it's last > volume, the number of volumes could be recorded in the record whether the > record is electronic, card, or liquid. > > > > > Mike Tribby > Senior Cataloger > Quality Books Inc. > The Best of America's Independent Presses > > mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com > > > -Original Message- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and > Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Jonathan > Rochkind > Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 1:07 PM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording Extent, Other Physical Characteristics, > and Dimensions for incomplete serials > > Aha, that makes sense for printing catalog cards. It makes no sense at > all in an electronic record that will never become a printed catalog card... > does it? > > MSHERMAN wrote: > >> Traditionally, way, way back in the dark ages, when we used catalog >> cards, the number of volumes of an open entry was left blank, so that >> when the item finally published it's last volume, the librarian could >> fill in the actual volumes in the run of the serial. >> >> This should still be true today, but I haven't noticed anyone >> actually completing the number of volumes when they close an open >> screen on OCLC records. >> >> Maxine Sherman >> Cataloger >> >> Cuyahoga County Public Library >> Administrative Offices >> 2111 Snow Road / Parma, OH 44134-2728 p 216.749.9378 / f 216.749.9445 >> >> msher...@cuyahogalibrary.org >> www.cuyahogalibrary.org >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and >> Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Jonathan >> Rochkind >> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 12:45 PM >> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA >> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording Extent, Other Physical >> Characteristics, and Dimensions for incomplete serials >> >> I have never understood why cataloging standards result in: >> >> 300 $a v. >> >> Even knowing that stands for "volumes" -- why is this supposed to be >> useful? I get when it says "2 v.". That's telling you there are two >> volumes. But when it just says "v." -- can anyone explain to me what >> the >> >> point of this is supposed to be? Is this supposed to be useful >> information somehow, "v." ? >> >> Jonathan >> >> >> >> > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.445 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3154 - Release Date: > 09/23/10 06:34:00 > No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.445 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3154 - Release Date: 09/23/10 06:34:00
Re: [RDA-L] Recording Extent, Other Physical Characteristics, and Dimensions for incomplete serials
And I used the wrong form--"it's" rather than "its," too. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Mike Tribby Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 1:19 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording Extent, Other Physical Characteristics, and Dimensions for incomplete serials As Maxine's post suggested, when a serial does finally publish it's last volume, the number of volumes could be recorded in the record whether the record is electronic, card, or liquid. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 1:07 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording Extent, Other Physical Characteristics, and Dimensions for incomplete serials Aha, that makes sense for printing catalog cards. It makes no sense at all in an electronic record that will never become a printed catalog card... does it? MSHERMAN wrote: > Traditionally, way, way back in the dark ages, when we used catalog > cards, the number of volumes of an open entry was left blank, so that > when the item finally published it's last volume, the librarian could > fill in the actual volumes in the run of the serial. > > This should still be true today, but I haven't noticed anyone actually > completing the number of volumes when they close an open screen on > OCLC records. > > Maxine Sherman > Cataloger > > Cuyahoga County Public Library > Administrative Offices > 2111 Snow Road / Parma, OH 44134-2728 > p 216.749.9378 / f 216.749.9445 > > msher...@cuyahogalibrary.org > www.cuyahogalibrary.org > > -Original Message- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and > Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Jonathan > Rochkind > Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 12:45 PM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording Extent, Other Physical Characteristics, > and Dimensions for incomplete serials > > I have never understood why cataloging standards result in: > > 300 $a v. > > Even knowing that stands for "volumes" -- why is this supposed to be > useful? I get when it says "2 v.". That's telling you there are two > volumes. But when it just says "v." -- can anyone explain to me what > the > > point of this is supposed to be? Is this supposed to be useful > information somehow, "v." ? > > Jonathan > > > No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.445 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3154 - Release Date: 09/23/10 06:34:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.445 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3154 - Release Date: 09/23/10 06:34:00
Re: [RDA-L] Recording Extent, Other Physical Characteristics, and Dimensions for incomplete serials
As Maxine's post suggested, when a serial does finally publish it's last volume, the number of volumes could be recorded in the record whether the record is electronic, card, or liquid. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 1:07 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording Extent, Other Physical Characteristics, and Dimensions for incomplete serials Aha, that makes sense for printing catalog cards. It makes no sense at all in an electronic record that will never become a printed catalog card... does it? MSHERMAN wrote: > Traditionally, way, way back in the dark ages, when we used catalog > cards, the number of volumes of an open entry was left blank, so that > when the item finally published it's last volume, the librarian could > fill in the actual volumes in the run of the serial. > > This should still be true today, but I haven't noticed anyone actually > completing the number of volumes when they close an open screen on > OCLC records. > > Maxine Sherman > Cataloger > > Cuyahoga County Public Library > Administrative Offices > 2111 Snow Road / Parma, OH 44134-2728 > p 216.749.9378 / f 216.749.9445 > > msher...@cuyahogalibrary.org > www.cuyahogalibrary.org > > -Original Message- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and > Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Jonathan > Rochkind > Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 12:45 PM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Recording Extent, Other Physical Characteristics, > and Dimensions for incomplete serials > > I have never understood why cataloging standards result in: > > 300 $a v. > > Even knowing that stands for "volumes" -- why is this supposed to be > useful? I get when it says "2 v.". That's telling you there are two > volumes. But when it just says "v." -- can anyone explain to me what > the > > point of this is supposed to be? Is this supposed to be useful > information somehow, "v." ? > > Jonathan > > > No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.445 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3154 - Release Date: 09/23/10 06:34:00
Re: [RDA-L] Interesting conversations about RDA and FRBR ...
>How would the OPAC know to display only English-language books if you don't >tell it beforehand, whether FRBR catalog or otherwise? If the search one initiated were on title spelled in English or on the title (spelled in English) in a keyword search? Perhaps the title in English as a keyword search would bring up the Danish version, too, though. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Mark Ehlert Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 10:02 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Interesting conversations about RDA and FRBR ... J. McRee Elrod wrote: > Won't FRBR result in even more unwanted item records being displayed? > Will one be able to turn of FRBR display in OPACs? I don't *need* to > see the record for the Danish original of the murder mystery I want to > read! How would the OPAC know to display only English-language books if you don't tell it beforehand, whether FRBR catalog or otherwise? -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex CoordinatorUniversity of Minnesota Bibliographic & Technical 15 Andersen Library Services (BATS) Unit222 21st Avenue South Phone: 612-624-0805Minneapolis, MN 55455-0439 <http://www.minitex.umn.edu/> No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.445 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3136 - Release Date: 09/15/10 06:34:00
Re: [RDA-L] Time and effort
>Why wouldn't people in a library want to find/identify/select/obtain the >resources they want? They would. Who said they wouldn't? One would assume that's why they're there--other than for socializing. I think what people are questioning is whether or not *most* patrons still search in a formalized, theoretically structured way. With experience with search engines, it seems as if our patrons are searching in more intuitive, less structured ways, which strict adherence to theoretical models may not always reflect or enable. Word clouds and social tagging, anyone? At one point long ago RDA was going to be a less structured overview of new rules which would then be formulated along FRBR lines and defined by the communities that do the cataloging for the various formats. Then RDA dribbled over into defining how descriptive cataloging should be composed. I think Karen Coyle's recent comment about separating RDA as data model from RDA as cataloging rules gets to the pith of the issue. RDA as data model is an obvious improvement. RDA as cataloging rules is not, though it's probably not the end of the cataloging world as we know it. IMNSHO, of course. Reporting from Planet Weinheimer, Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Time and effort
>From Laurence Creider: > Would someone explain to me why we are rushing to implement something > that > is not even finished? Yes, a first version is available, but > there are > still major pieces missing. >From Bernhard Eversberg: >Who is rushing? Everyone who writes here has expressed their lack of >intentions of rushing into it. And of course it makes no sense to do >*anything* at all before LC have made up their mind. Remember it is still >possible they decide against it! A recurring phenomenon that may make people question whether or not RDA is a "done deal," and thus being rushed into, is the frequent public reference to "when" rather than "if" RDA is adopted. Granted a lot of these references seem to be phrased as if RDA is an inevitability because the announcements and pronouncements to which they are attached are specifically involved with the "how" of implemenation. But given that these references keep coming, often emanating from places and people who should know what they're talking about, plus the not infrequently invoked observation from some in the cataloging community that change is good no matter what the change is, or that change is inevitable so get used to it, it's not surprising that there is some question as to RDA being rushed, not to say crammed down our collective throat. What Bernhard says is definitely true. The fact that some pronouncements of LC (among others) don't emphasize the obligatory nod to the tentative nature of adoption underlines the suspicions being expressed. Of course one probably needs to have a "suspicious mind" [ref. the Elvis Presley song Suspicious Minds] to have these suspicions. I defintiely qualify, some days more than others. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Time and effort
>"We've gone too far to turn back" doesn't do it for me. Me either. How about "We've committed too much money to stop now"? It may not be the most important consideration, but I'd be surprised if it's not a consideration. A lot of time has collectively been spent on the project, too. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of NANCY K Brown Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 9:41 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Time and effort I continue to believe that AACR2 implementation costs were much higher than they needed to be at many institutions because it was issued about 5 years too early--at the tail end of the era of the card catalog, just before many large institutions made the shift to online integrated systems. Updating headings and refiling cards, in my case at the University of Texas, was much more onerous than similar changes would have been in an online-only environment. Again, in my opinion, we seem to be pushing for change prematurely. Instead of getting our ducks in a row, making sure we're clear on the direction we need to move in and that technology to support change in those directions is at least in the pipeline, emphasis has been on the urgency of change. It shouldn't be a challenge to articulate how going to a great deal of work and expense will make things better, i.e. allow us to work more efficiently and/or to provide better service. The benefits of adopting a new code should be both clear and exciting. "We've gone too far to turn back" doesn't do it for me. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] on behalf of Miksa, Shawne [smi...@unt.edu] Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 4:45 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Time and effort I've spent some time today reviewing my copy of this book --Research libraries and their implementation of AACR2 / edited by Judith Hopkins and John A. Edens. (Foundations in library and information science; v. 22). Greenwich, Conn. : Jai Press, 1986. ISBN 0-89232-641-7 Several long quotes follow so please bear with me. Specifically, I am relating quotes from just one chapter entitled "Implementing AACR2-defusing the sound and the fury: implementation of AACR2 at the University of California, Davis" by Kazuko M. Daily and Gregor A. Preston. All of the studies in this book contain interesting anecdotal evidence of the time and effort involved in implementing AACR2 in addition to details of implementation plans and challenges faced. Daily and Preston start their study with a "historical perspective" in order to relate how the University of California started their plans to deal with implementation of AACR2. A committee-the Alternative Catalog Evaluation Committee (ACE)-- was formed in 1978 and gave recommendations to the University Librarian in 1979. It was during this time that LC had decided to delay implementation one year until 1981, but the authors remarked that "...nobody on or outside the Committee felt that a one year reprieve gave us adequate time to gear up for what was inexorably coming in 1981" (p. 44). In Spring of 1980 the AACR2 Technical Implementation Committee (ATTIC) was formed and because of the lack of additional funding from the university the committee "opted for a lean implementation plan" (p. 46). [Keep in mind that this taking place as many libraries were dealing with issues surrounding card catalogs and new online systems. In California in particular, and relevant to this particular study, they were dealing with the 1978 passage of "Proposition 13" which had the effect (only one of many, if I understand correctly) of reducing funding for education, public libraries, etc. ] Here I am quoting some discussions on time and effort --Daily and Preston discuss the effects of AACR2 implementation on several different groups of staff--given by catalogers. Part II, Section F. Effects on Original Catalogers (selected excerpts), pgs. 59-60 "Professional catalogers spent a fair amount of time in learning to apply the new rules. This activity included state and regional conferences, in-house meetings, and personal study and application." "The rules which occasioned the most discussion were contained in Chapters 21, 22, and 24 of AACR2. Rule 21.1B2, which explains when a work emanating from a corporate body should be entered under the corporate body and when under title, was particularly troublesome and confusing... (snip)...Rules relating to the form of personal
Re: [RDA-L] Feedback on RDA
>But would ILS vendors develop their systems first, without new >instructions/cataloging code on which to base their work? With the exception >of one vendor that I'm aware of, it seems to me that most vendors have waited >until RDA was pretty much a reality before deciding to move forward with a >redesign of their systems Two tangential questions occur from Marjorie's posting: A. Are you saying that ILS vendors have taken our cataloging codes fully to heart in the past? I thought most complaints about ILS vendors was that they don't pay that close of attention to cataloging codes whether new or old. 2. And you're saying that there is at least one vendor currently working on an ILS that will accommodate RDA right out of the box? Kudos to them. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Feedback on RDA
>If you are unwilling to make the time, or insist to your employer that you >need time during work hours Sadly this is a non-starter in many work environments. >then what will you do when RDA is implemented and you don't have a clue what >to do? That is the paramount question for many. We have made the time to be involved in testing RDA. This is simply not possible for many. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Feedback on RDA
> Without taking a position one way or the other on the usability RDA as a > ruleset or the software ALA has wrapped it in, I'll just say that It's not > fair to say that there's been no feedback from the library community about > the content of the RDA instructions. The content of RDA has been in > development since 2002, when the Joint Steering Committee began revising > AACR2, and there's been a lengthy review and comment period after every > draft. The drafts were publicly available, and the means of commenting on > them were widely publicized in the library community as they were happening. This is indubitably so. It is also the case that there were frequent and very public calls for input and comment, yet many catalogers seem to have been unaware of the project at all, or at least as to the specifics of what was being undertaken. I wonder if it might not have been advantageous to take the lack of widespread feedback as an indication of disinterest, whether in the process or in the need for radical change in the first place. Then, of course, one could argue with whether what has emerged is radical enough for those who seek change, I suppose. I do think it's clear that a groundswell of approval has not ensued, but I'm not sure that indicates anything more than more disinterest. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Feedback on RDA
>What surprises me is the speed at which it seems to be going through: I >haven't seen any mention from the powers that be about taking any length of >time to gather and process feedback after the 2 month preview, and perhaps >tweak either RDA or the toolkit to reflect changes suggested by users, or >things that have been flagged that just won't work. Although some RDA enthusiasts have a marked tendency to ignore it, there is a scheduled feedback period, at least for the U.S. national libraries and their other test sites, and, technically speaking at least, adoption of RDA is not a done deal. It gets a little hard to remember that given things like the upcoming ALCTS forum regarding how libraries are preparing for RDA. The obligatory nod to an open process is too often forgotten. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Keep your access to RDA after August 31st
>charging for it before it's even adopted or implemented is less than friendly >or helpful! But it is lean, mean, and a concrete manifestation of the often-invoked advice to "run it like a business!" Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Podcast
"Isn't this just as well, if in fact it doesn't live up to being groundbreaking kind of innovation that would be called for in this day and age? Instead, it draws out the lines sketched by Cutter already, but then little more. There's not a word about catalog enrichment, blank chapters about the integration of subject access, no guideline for indexing or the presentation of result lists, nothing about interoperability with other standards, even ISBD, - all of that is left to local decisions and vendors. And then it is a large grab bag of options that make it unusable unless accompanied by a long list of decisions and commentary. It remains to be seen how much of the relatively new aspects will be accepted by LC after The Test. For then, that will be what becomes reality, and not much beyond it. What can be hoped for, I think, is a slightly better AACR, not more." Then what's the point? "Will "other communities" be attracted? Surely not if it remains a closed standard. Will it become an international code? Not with its unnecessary language bias in too many points. Will it motivate catalogers better? (Which must be a key ingredient for success.) Difficult to say, but the response to the Toolkit, what little there was, has been lukewarm so far. Will it serve users better? On this most important topic, we know next to nothing." Very well put. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Consolidated ISBD and RDA double punctuation
> its necessary reliance on position in various Areas in order to resolve > ambiquity is anathema to metadataists Just one reason I prefer to think of myself as a metadadaist. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Myers, John F. Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 4:00 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Consolidated ISBD and RDA double punctuation And a hearty "Amen!" to that sentiment. (Although I now realize that its necessary reliance on position in various Areas in order to resolve ambiquity is anathema to metadataists.) John Myers, Catalog Librarian Schaffer Library, Union College Schenectady NY 12308 mye...@union.edu 518-388-6623 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access on behalf of Ed Jones A propos of nothing in particular, I would just like to say that I have always been in awe of ISBD punctuation. To anyone who understands the symbology--not that difficult--it conveys a vast amount of information in a minimal amount of space and with a minimal set of symbols, the semantics of a bibliographic description being established from the relative position of the symbols. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.441 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3007 - Release Date: 07/15/10 11:09:00
Re: [RDA-L] misspelling in RDA Toolkit
Maybe it's a MACRo. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Rachel Shaevel Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 1:50 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] misspelling in RDA Toolkit I can't decide if this is funny or not funny. Under the Tools tab / RDA Mappings, there are four choices: RDA to MARC Bibliographic Mapping MARC Bibliographic to RDA Mapping RDA to MARC Authority Mapping MACR Authority to RDA Mapping Rachel Shaevel Electronic Resources Cataloger Technical Services/Catalog Department Chicago Public Library Harold Washington Library Center 400 S. State St. Chicago, IL 60605 P: (312) 747-4660 rshae...@chipublib.org <mailto:rshae...@chipublib.org> No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.439 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2960 - Release Date: 06/24/10 06:35:00
Re: [RDA-L] Contents of Manifestations as Entities
>Who creates, houses, and maintains Work Authority records now? With >identifiers in the form of accession numbers? Not really a different thing. So LC, then? Anybody inform them of this? Have they committed to it? Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Contents of Manifestations as Entities
>The place of the $a can, of course, be taken by a URI once work records >exist, but who will create them? Or house and maintain them? Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Contents of Manifestations as Entities
So in RDA will the summary (MARC 520) and the TOC note (505) occupy the same field and will that field be repeatable? Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Ed Jones Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 11:53 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Contents of Manifestations as Entities But I think it _is_ in FRBR. I read "list of chapter headings" under "FRBR 4.3.9 Attributes of an expression: Summarization of content" (which I rendered as ) as synonymous with "table of contents": 4.3.9 Summarization of Content A summarization of the content of an _expression_ is an abstract, summary, synopsis, etc., or a list of chapter headings, songs, parts, etc., included in the _expression_. (FRBR, p. 37. http://www.ifla.org/files/cataloguing/frbr/frbr_2008.pdf) Ed -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 9:03 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Contents of Manifestations as Entities Quoting Ed Jones : > I guess my problem is I don't see a problem. It makes perfect sense > to me that FRBR treats these as relationships between entities when > it is useful to do so and as attributes of expressions when it is > useful to do so. That does make sense, but it isn't in FRBR. In FRBR there are no contents as attributes of expression, just "Whole/Part Expression-to-Expression Relationships" (p. 71) I would favor having such an attribute, for some of the reasons I give below. Each of these treatments can be expressed > formally. It also makes sense to me that RDA discusses these > alternatives in a single place, since RDA routinely offers four > alternative ways of expressing content in its elements: > identifiers/preferred access points/structured > descriptions/unstructured descriptions. RDA deliberately does not > address display or data structures, but there is nothing to prevent > users of RDA from devising or adopting schemes that treat > identifiers and preferred access points as relationships between > works (and/or expressions), and structured and unstructured > descriptions as attributes of expressions. Both can be espressed as > triples, if desired, just different triples: > > [relationship between works] > > [attribute of expression] > That latter is exactly what I went looking for when all of this discussion got started. There isn't a "has contents" attribute of expression in RDA nor in the RDA elements. Oddly, there isn't even an Expression-to-Expression "has contents" in the RDA text but the list of relationships provided by JSC is more complete. Now, we've been told that in fact all of those relationships are [any WEMI entity]/[specific WEMI entity]. The list of Group1 entity relationships (http://kcoyle.net/rda/group1rels.txt) has Contained in (Expression) Contained in (item) Contained in (Manifestation) Contained in (Work) Contains (Expression) Contains (Item) Contains (Manifestation) Contains (Work) Meaning it would be possible to have a Manifestation that contains either Works or Expressions. (Works being analogous to a 7XX, I believe.) So here's what I see: 1) we have a "contains" that can have as its object any one of WEMI. 2) the object of this "contains" is an entity, by definition. An entity is either W,E,M, or I. 3) the examples in chapters 25 and 27 show strings for individual Works and Manifestations, but in fact all of the examples in the RDA text show strings. I have to assume that in a machine-readable record, those strings would be coded in some way as actual entities, and, for example, the Work entity would have an established Work title, and other elements as appropriate. It would also have a relationship to a creator entity. In non-ER terms, like MARC, this could look like a 1XX/245, 7XX $a $t, or whatever else is enough to identify the Work. 4) the string that looks like a table of contents is not an entity. Having the object of "contains" sometimes be an entity and sometimes be a free text string is decidedly sub-optimal for data processing, because it means that you have two entirely different kinds of data that are the object of the same relationship. I assume this is there for legacy reasons, and therefore in a data carrier I would probably prefer to create the attribute you mention above to carry legacy data. 5) the obvious down side of the E-R version is that the contained Work entities, if they have not already been establish
Re: [RDA-L] expressions and manifestations
>For that example above, I can imagine that an initial cataloger ignores the >new prefatory material and considers it a manifestation of an existing >expression. Later, someone else comes along with the same book in hand, and >they find this established record in the great cooperative cataloging >environment in the sky, but they'd really like to model it as an aggregation >to draw out meaning that their user community needs. And they send their >changes back to the great cooperative cataloging environment in the sky, and >the first cataloger's system automatically gets them. And if the changes are not a fit for what the first cataloger's user community needs? Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
Re: [RDA-L] Resource Description and Access in Cataloger's Desktop
Well, Troy, that's a dandy--if not exactly cost-saving--development for libraries that use LC Classification. What about a Dewey-RDA interface? [Caution! Sarcasm alert!] There are still a few Dewey collections out there, you know. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
