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

[Myers, John F.]

Sorry, close but no cigar, as they say.

While a sequence printed on both sides is usually counted in terms of pages, 
and when printed only on one side is usually counted in terms of leaves, the 
fundamental definition is that a page constitutes a given face of a leaf and a 
leaf constitutes the entire piece of paper one turns to progress through a 
volume.

Per Carter's  _ABC for Book Collectors (New Castle: Oak Knoll Press, 2002):
Leaf -- The basic bibliographical unit: the piece of paper comprising one page 
on its front side (recto, obverse) and another on its back (verso, reverse).

Per AACR2 (2005 Update). Glossary:
Leaf - One of the units into which the original sheet or half sheet of paper, 
parchment, etc., is folded to form part of a book, pamphlet, journal, etc.; 
each leaf consists of two pages, one on each side, either or both of which may 
be blank.

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
Schenectady NY 12308

mye...@union.edu
518-388-6623

Gene Fieg wrote:

A page has printing on both sides
A leaf has printing or representations of data on one side.
Period.

Re: [RDA-L] 260 and 264 Fields

[Myers, John F.]

Martin Kelleher wrote:

...doesn't 264 1 pretty much replicate 260, however?

---

In a simple scenario, yes, since we usually record publication statements from 
AACR2 and prior cataloging codes there.  BUT, the scope of field 260 and the 
corresponding cataloging rules, is not just publication statements but of 
Publication, Distribution, etc., Statements.  "Pretty much" is not adequate for 
the demands RDA is anticipated to serve.  Basically, the round hole represented 
by field 260 is large enough to accommodate the smaller square publication 
statement peg we have routinely shoved into it.  In reformulating the rules, we 
have now specified 4 separate shapes for our pegs for the purpose of being able 
to distinguish each corresponding statement.  This then requires us to have 
holes specifically shaped to correspond to these new pegs.

This issue was explored thoroughly in discussion paper and proposal submitted 
to MARBI.  The new 264 field with its indicators to specify the nature of the 
statement was the best option (or least worst, if you will).  Field 260, as 
currently formulated, does not serve RDA's degree of specificity at all, as 
evidenced by the findings of the RDA test.  Amping it up with additional 
subfields only made the field and its data murkier.

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
Schenectady NY 12308

mye...@union.edu
518-388-6623

Re: [RDA-L] SOR from copyright statement

[Myers, John F.]

Don Charuk wrote:
[snip]
If the author is provided on the title page and the illustrator is provide on 
the title page verso can they both be transcribe in the statement of the 
responsibility? Does not the rule 2.4.2.2 state the SOR should come from the 
same source as the title proper. If so interpreted, would/could you not make a 
note for the illustrator according to rule 2.20.3? 

-

It was not my understanding (from various training sources) that 2.4.2.2 
required the SOR to come from the same source as the title proper.  Instead, 
2.4.2.2 offers three options as the source of the SOR, and lists them in order 
of preference.  It does not state that in selecting one option that the others 
are precluded, which is to say, there is no RDA equivalent to AACR2's "chief 
source."  Given that, one may mix-and-match sources to most fully describe the 
resource in hand?  (Remaining mindful that extending the description beyond the 
CORE elements is a matter of cataloger judgment.)

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
Schenectady NY 12308

mye...@union.edu
518-388-6623

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

[Myers, John F.]

Julie Moore asks:

in the instance where I am pretty sure that the item was published in 2013, but 
there is no hint of a date anywhere ... is it OK for the cataloger to record:
246 _1 $a xxx : $b yyy : $c [2013?]

--

1.9.2.3  Probable Year
   If the probable year is known, record the year followed by a question mark.

   EXAMPLE
[1969?]

There is a full set of guidance under RDA 1.9.2 that correspond to AACR2's 
table at 1.4F7.

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
Schenectady NY 12308

mye...@union.edu
518-388-6623

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

[Myers, John F.]

Julie Moore wrote:

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



It is there.  RDA guidance 1.9.2 for Supplied Dates applies, as referenced in 
2.8.6.6 "Date of Publication not Identified in a Single-Part Resource"

In particular:
1.9.2.4  Probable Range of Years
If the probable date falls within a range of years, record the range. 
Record between, followed by the earliest probable year, then and the latest 
probable year, followed by a question mark.

EXAMPLE
  [between 1846 and 1853?]
  [between 1800 and 1899?]
  [between 1970 and 1979?]
  [between 1400 and 1600?]


John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
Schenectady NY 12308

mye...@union.edu
518-388-6623

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

[Myers, John F.]

Julie Moore wrote:
Follow up question ... why is it that I see the majority of RDA records with 
multiple 264s having the 264 _1 (publication) and 264 _4?
Is this because the only date they have is a copyright date ... so they put the 
publisher info in the 264 _1 $a and $b and sometimes $c [copyright date -- so 
thus, and inferred publication date?] ... and then they are putting the 
copyright date in the 264 _4?
--
Many of the early records created after field 264 was first authorized had 
paired instances of field 264, when the date of publication was not specified 
in the item in hand but a copyright date was present.  This was part of the 
evolution of guidance by LC and PCC from the release of RDA, through the test 
period, and to the beginning of implementation of changes in MARC as a result 
of lessons learned during the test period.

My institution doesn't participate in PCC (too few records produced in a year), 
but if I properly recall things from over a year ago, there was a tendency 
towards including as much as possible during the test, in order to push the 
envelope.  Also,  RDA itself is somewhat unclear regarding "[date] not 
identified" -- in one place it is very clearly addressing "not identified in 
the resource" and later on it is less specific, allowing interpretation of "not 
identified in the record."  If one opts to assume the "resource" language 
carries forward, then the paired instances of field 264 is the only correct 
application of the rules.  As Robert Maxwell writes, there are catalogers that 
feel this is best practice, regardless of assumptions and applications, as it 
provides the opportunity to record the element present in the resource, upon 
which one is inferring the supplied date of publication. In the 
face of overwhelming whining about seeing "264 1 ... $c [2013] 
// 264 4 $c (c)2013" in records (to say nothing of all the extra typing, and 
debates about fixed field coding), the looser interpretation was incorporated 
into the LC-PCC Policy Statement, so that a single instance of "264 1 ... $c 
[2013]" is now sufficient, as reported by Aaron Kuperman and Adam 
Schiff.


John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu

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

[Myers, John F.]

Can the question be clarified?  DVD is not an aspect reflected in the GMD.  Nor 
are search limits by record type or specific format usually driven by the GMD 
but instead by the coding in the fixed field or field 007.  Both of these 
fields are still employable in MARC records conveying RDA data.

In a post-MARC scenario, the limiting functionality currently carried by the 
fixed field and field 007 coding would most likely draw directly from the 
content and carrier types, in whatever "parking place" they were recorded.

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
Schenectady NY 12308

mye...@union.edu
518-388-6623

Ophelia Payne wrote:

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

Re: [RDA-L] Another relator term question -- Government agencies in the 710

[Myers, John F.]

J. McRee Elrod wrote:

With the demise of MARBI, I hope LC will continue adding needed codes.  

--

MARBI was (well, is for the next 7 weeks) an ALA body.  It has functioned as 
the de facto approval body for the deliberations of the MARC Advisory 
Committee, a body convened by LC in its role as the MARC21 Secretariat.  LC has 
already committed to continuing the existence and functioning of the MARC 
Advisory Committee in a post-MARBI environment, in order to maintain and 
develop the MARC21 format for the foreseeable future.

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
Schenectady NY 12308

mye...@union.edu
518-388-6623

Re: [RDA-L] Bib records with uniform titles for the Bible

[Myers, John F.]

I don’t have the automated authority control turned on in my Innovative 
installation.  I’ve just downloaded and overlaid the authority records.  The 
Global Update functionality works very well to flip the bibliographic headings 
– a reasonable compromise between fully automated and a one-by-one approach.  I 
have found that it takes some care with the process, but it is mostly 
manageable.

Caveats:

1)  Do not automatically strip out all O.T. and N.T. – there are instances 
were these need to be flipped to Old Testament and New Testament.

2)  Do not automatically flip all O.T. and N.T. to Old Testament and New 
Testament – there are instances where the final period (full stop) needs to be 
retained.

3)  Make no assumptions that your ‘Find’ text corresponds to a clean data 
file – re-execute your search to see what “dirty data” floats to the top and 
hence requires manual intervention.

4)  Regarding searching and downloading: There are instances in the local 
subject authority file where older records have either been subsumed into name 
authorities or deleted outright – these too require some manual grooming.

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
Schenectady NY 12308

mye...@union.edu
518-388-6623


On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Joan Milligan 
mailto:jmillig...@udayton.edu>> wrote:

On Friday my colleague loaded the new authority records for all of the New 
Testament headings. When we looked at our Millennium catalog this morning, all 
the headings had flipped. However bib records with 730s such as Bible. N.T. 
Acts. English aren't affected by the new authority records.

Can anyone offer advice on what to do about this? Do we need to go in and 
change these Uniform Titles one by one?

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

[Myers, John F.]

Which perhaps begs the question of why have two different Type codes for the 
same kind of content?  (Which I acknowledge is an encoding and communication 
format question rather than an RDA question.)

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
Schenectady NY 12308

mye...@union.edu
518-388-6623
---
On Mon, 18 Mar 2013, Joan Milligan wrote:

> I believe the "Type" should be "a" not "t," because a dissertation is 
> considered published when it appears online.

Re: [RDA-L] UNSUBSCRIBE

[Myers, John F.]

The Welcome message one received when first subscribing provides the proper 
protocol for unsubscribing.  I quote it here for interested parties' 
convenience:
"You may leave the  list at any time by sending  a "SIGNOFF RDA-L" command to 
lists...@infoserv.nlc-bnc.ca."
It will be a far more reliable mechanism for achieving the desired end than 
posting to the list and relying on the List owner to be monitoring list traffic 
sufficiently closely to see the request there.
Note that the address for sending commands to the list software, Listserv@..., 
is distinct from the address for posting messages to the list itself, RDA-L@...

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
Schenectady NY 12308

mye...@union.edu
518-388-6623

Carlen DeThorne wrote:

I had previously requested to be unsubscribed from this.

Please confirm receipt of this and unsubscribe my email.

Re: [RDA-L] Cross training

[Myers, John F.]

The Library of Congress has extensive (some might say overwhelming) training 
materials on RDA.  They are all free.

This is the general page:
http://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/RDA%20training%20materials/index.html

This link in particular (which is not readily obvious from the descriptions on 
the general page), supplies LC's in-house training:
http://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/RDA%20training%20materials/LC%20RDA%20Training/LC%20RDA%20course%20table.html


These additional free websites summarize some changes from AACR2 to RDA, in 
their respective contexts.  They are somewhat more convenient snapshots than 
full-blown training.

Changes from AACR2, by the JSC: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/5sec7rev.pdf (may 
be somewhat out of date as RDA continues to be edited)
MARC21 changes for RDA, by LC: http://www.loc.gov/marc (select "RDA in MARC" 
link on the page)
OCLC changes for RDA: 
http://www.oclc.org/support/documentation/technicalbulletins (#258, 260, 261)


John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
Schenectady NY 12308

mye...@union.edu
518-388-6623

Paul Davey wrote:

If I
(a) need to cross-train from AACR2 to RDA, initially for monographs
(b) I have no institutional financial support
(c) I can't afford training prices that I see on the web

what can I do?

Re: [RDA-L] RDA encoding

[Myers, John F.]

Francis Lapka wrote:



I have what is probably a naïve question, touching on RDA and BIBFRAME.  I'll 
preface the question with an example. Imagine a resource with the following 
title page:



"

An heroic epistle to an unfortunate monarch, by Peregrine the Elder.

Enriched with explanatory notes.

The second edition.
London: Published in the year MDCCLXXVIII by E. Benson
"

Let's suppose that a cataloger encoded the data in one of the following 
(imaginary) schemes:

Encoding 1


An heroic epistle to an unfortunate monarch, by Peregrine the 
Elder. Enriched with explanatory notes.

The second edition.

London: Published in the year MDCCLXXVIII by E. Benson





Encoding 2





An heroic epistle to an unfortunate monarch, by Peregrine the Elder.

Enriched with explanatory notes.

The second edition.

London: Published in the year MDCCLXXVIII by E. Benson






Would these encodings be considered valid RDA cataloging for the elements 
covered in the example? That is, would these encodings satisfy the RDA core 
requirements for Title, Statement of Responsibility, Edition statement, and 
Publication statement? All of the required data is included, but it is not 
encoded in parsed fields equivalent to RDA elements. Does this make it invalid? 
If not, would it be reasonable to expect BIBFRAME to accommodate (or play well 
with) encoding scenarios such as these?

Later responding:

In these encoding scenarios, the entities that we want to treat as *data* would 
be handled in distinct fields, separate from the transcription. For an imprint 
we could augment the transcription with separate data elements, such as:
tgn7011781
http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n50028787http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n50028787%3c/hasPublisher>>
1788


As stated, while the proffered examples RECORD the data that RDA specifies, 
they do not ENCODE, as such, the actual elements required for an RDA record.  
RDA has separate CORE elements for Title, for Statement of Responsibility, for 
Edition Statement, and for Publication Statement, with the latter having CORE 
sub-elements of Place of Publication, Publisher's Name, and Date of 
Publication.  One could not ask of the encoding in either of these examples to 
identify most of these RDA elements, with the exception of Edition Statement in 
the first encoding.  Which is a long, drawn out explanation leading to the 
conclusion that, no, these would not be valid RDA encodings.

The closing question posed is a pertinent one though - how flexible will/should 
BIBFRAME be with respect to addressing alternative descriptive cataloging 
standards from RDA and alternative models from FRBR?  I more than suspect this 
need for flexibility underlies the modification from FRBR in creating BibFrame 
Works, BibFrame Instances, BibFrame Authorities, and BibFrame Notations.  
Within the actual tagging structure, the use of wrapper tags for groupings of 
tags would only be applicable, in an RDA context, where RDA subordinates 
sub-elements to larger elements.  The use of  as a wrapper would not 
work, as RDA does not require the data contained therein from this specific 
example to be uniformly sourced from the "title page" of all resource (setting 
aside the issue that "title page" is specific to print resources).  Entire 
parallel structures of tags would potentially need to be developed if required 
for separate descriptive standards.  And we would not have to look far to see 
this play out as we tried to encompass RDA and AACR2's approaches to 
publication data within a single scheme - currently dealt with by the separate 
MARC tags of 264 and 260.  Roy Tennant was working on something like this a few 
years back - I remember him presenting at the (Metadata?) Interest Group 
session at ALA Midwinter in Boston.  He had been experimenting with a 
meta-scheme that would pull information from a variety of schema and wrap each 
scheme's contribution in a set of wrapper tags identifying the data as coming 
from the respective scheme (which is an approach different from the simple 
scenario torpedoed above).

And to the subsequent reply, I agree that there is considerable tension between 
our desire to accurately describe our resources and effectively provide access 
to them in our online environment.  In cards, the only access was through the 
controlled points we created; every other detail was subordinated to the 
descriptive function provided by the researcher visually scanning the card.  
The online environment makes our descriptive elements available for access, 
subject though to the vagaries and inconsistencies of publisher and cataloger 
practices.  My sense, since being exposed to XML, has been that that the 
solution to the controlled access we seek is to embed the controlled forms (or 
rather the links to the corresponding controlled vocabulary terms) as an 
attribute within the opening tag, while the tag pair encloses the transcribed 
data.  That is, to draw from the example: London.  It'

Re: [RDA-L] German cataloging rules "RAK"

[Myers, John F.]

Count me in as one "in the Anglo-American world very interested in the way 
[cataloging (not just authority control)] is done in Germany."I have been 
particularly fortunate to sit in on the MARBI meetings, where the DNB 
Representative Reinhold Heuvelmann has given some insights into the different 
approaches used in Germany -- for starters, treatment of whole-part 
relationships, much more extensive use of embedded control numbers , and a 
reliance on systems other than MARC for internal data/record storage, display, 
and manipulation, with MARC reserved for data transfer.  

Further exposure to and knowledge of cataloging practices outside the 
Anglo-American tradition can only improve internationalization efforts when 
developing future cataloging codes.  This will undoubtedly introduce greater 
complexity and more options to such a code, but it also opens us up to the 
process of consciously deciding between alternatives rather than just doing 
things "because that is how we've always done them."

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
Schenectady NY 12308

mye...@union.edu
518-388-6623

-Original Message-
Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:

We already tend to think of RAK as a thing of the past (although, in addition 
to RDA, I'll have to teach at least some basic RAK for years to come, as the 
legacy data will still be there). It's good to be reminded that there might 
still be some interest in the German cataloging tradition.

[snip]
And thirdly, I'm not sure whether an English version of the rules would be 
enough. It might be useful to interpret them and explain the main differences 
for an Anglo-American audience.

Ideally, I think what we should have is an English translation of selected 
parts of the corpus of German rules, combined with a collection of essays on 
various aspects of German cataloging. This should include not only aspects of 
the rules themselves, but also matters of cataloging routines and techniques. 
For instance, I've found that many colleagues in the Anglo-American world are 
very interested in the way authority control is done in Germany.

Re: [RDA-L] Relationship codes

[Myers, John F.]

A major criticism of mine regarding RDA has been the heavy reliance on terms 
rather than codes.  Mac's comment makes me realize that the codes would be 
equally language dependent -- what is a mnemonic code in English would be 
random gibberish to colleagues elsewhere.  Where I might previously have 
despaired at this revelation though, I now think this argues even more strongly 
for the utility of the vocabulary registries emerging from colleagues with 
expertise in the realm of linked data.  Substantial development is required 
still to create a cataloging interface to facilitate and a public interface to 
leverage the use of the registered vocabularies, but they seem a strong 
contender for breaking the Gordian knot of presenting data held in common in a 
multilingual context.

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
Schenectady NY 12308

mye...@union.edu
518-388-6623


-Original Message-
J. McRee Elrod wrote:

Heidrun said:

>It hasn't been decided yet, but I assume we'll end up with codes ...

The MARC $4codes are English based.  Would you contemplate using these codes, 
or having German based ones?  Record interchange would be easier if we all used 
the same codes.  If you do use these codes, it is another example of what I 
find surprising: European willingness to abandon their own language centric 
practices for English centric ones.

Re: [RDA-L] punctuation in 511 notes

[Myers, John F.]

See AACR2  1.7A1 for prescribed punctuation in notes, which is largely 
reproduced at RDA D.1.2.8.  In brief though,semi-colons internal to notes  are 
not prescribed, but are merely grammatical.

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
Schenectady NY 12308

mye...@union.edu
518-388-6623

Rick McRae wrote:
I wonder if the apparent contradiction between the examples found in 7.23.1.3, 
"Recording Performers, Narrators and/or Presenters" which are represented in 
the 511 field, and the punctuation rule expressed in Appendix D.1.2.1: "Precede 
each mark of prescribed punctuation by a space and follow it by a space.." The 
aforementioned examples clearly disregard this.

Re: [RDA-L] Relator terms vs. codes

[Myers, John F.]

This is one of the more troubling by-products of the incomplete conversion of 
the rules from AACR2's exclusively textual foundation to RDA's vision of a 
computer facilitated environment of embedded links.  There are many instances 
where RDA says RECORD, when it would have been preferable for it to say 
INDICATE.  "RECORD" has trapped many of us in the mindset that the RDA 
terminology is the end-all and be-all of how to convey this information.

We have become far too engaged in arguments over terminology.  The point of the 
RDA terms is to provide unambiguous indicators of various functions and 
relationships.  RDA could have used completely random groupings of characters 
to accomplish the same thing, which would at least eliminate the arguments over 
the relative (un)intelligibility of the various "terms".   Such groupings would 
more clearly serve as "codes" that required translation into language 
appropriate terminology.  But in a hybrid data-verse, where there is still a 
fair degree of human interaction, some foundation in linguistically 
intelligible terminology has its place, and so we have a list of technical 
vocabulary.

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
Schenectady NY 12308

mye...@union.edu
518-388-6623


-Original Message-
J. McRee Elrod wrote:

Library and Archives Canada have said that they are intending to use
$4 relator codes rather than $e relator terms, because of their bilingual 
nature.

The advantage of codes over terms, is that the local system could substitute 
patron friendly terms, as opposed to the lengthly, often redundant, RDA relator 
phrases (it is obvious what is directed or composed in a record for a DVD).  

Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

[Myers, John F.]

So, the library in question has already decided that 1) the GMD does not work 
for them -- they had to replace standard GMD terms for specific terms of their 
own construction, and 2) that they are willing to invest in the effort to 
modify their records from the standard in order to meet their perception of 
their clients' needs.

So the defense of the GMD is not with the AACR2's GMD per se, but with the 
utility of MARC21's 245$h in providing an embedded flag that both disambiguates 
otherwise matching titles resulting in: separate hits on a list; and early 
clarification as to the distinguishing characteristic between two otherwise 
matching title.  This is not an insignificant issue, particularly in current 
catalogs and current cataloger mindsets.  However, as our commercial 
counterparts have readily shown, it is quite easy to develop a faceting 
structure in an online catalog that allows patron and cataloger alike to winnow 
a large set of items down to those meeting specific categories of interest (and 
combinations thereof) such as brand, price, popularity, etc.  (Try buying a 
television set on Best Buy's website to see this in action.)  Deployment of 
such facets within library catalogs, using the new RDA terms and their 
corresponding MARC21 336/337/338 fields, could improve access by leveraging the 
computer to work on record selection, rather than requiring users to scan for 
the GMD -- the library could offer the facet of VIDEO to capture all video 
forms in the Media Type, and offer the facets DVD and VHS to capture specific 
carriers in the Carrier Type.  Note that the labels of the facets do not need 
to match the terminology in RDA: there just has to be mapping between catalog 
label and RDA term to connect the interface to the records.

And on a perhaps more contrarian bent, if one is already doing "additional 
work" to modify AACR2 records with respect to the GMD, what is the added burden 
to continue such work in an RDA environment? 

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
Schenectady NY 12308

mye...@union.edu
518-388-6623

-Original Message-
Kathleen Lamantia wrote:

Yes, sorry, of course these are not AACR2 terms, but we do use them and have 
for years.  In fact, they were carefully chosen before I got here.  They convey 
exactly what is needed to staff.  As I said in my earlier post, III's field 30 
MAT TYPE generates icons which are for patrons using the public display.

The 245|h[gmd] is more for staff who see the Millennium interface while 
performing searches.  However, the 245 also appears in the OPAC as an added 
piece of information for patrons.

On 10/23/2012 2:36 PM, Kathleen Lamantia wrote:
> Our current gmds are very clear and succinct: dvd, compact disc, comic book; 
> book on cd, etc. Why make people try to figure out a combination of 3 terms 
> when one simple clear statement is already in place and tells them what they 
> need? "People" in this case being staff who are trying to get items to 
> patrons.

Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

[Myers, John F.]

As preliminary studies were undertaken that led to the creation of RDA, it 
became obvious that the GMD was an intellectually inconsistent hodgepodge of 
terminology.  "Sound recording" managed to encompass an entire content category 
of recorded sound.  Meanwhile, "motion picture" and "videorecording" split the 
content of 2-dimensional moving images into two primary media categories.  
Similarly "microform" and "electronic resource" effectively addressed media 
categories of textual content, although "electronic resource" could also 
encompass the content of computer files.  

Historically, I suspect it was the disconnect between "electronic resource" GMD 
and the "computer file" Record Type that signaled the beginning of the end.  
Veteran catalogers may remember when all electronic resources, including those 
with textual content, were cataloged on a "computer file" format.  Around 1998, 
we changed that guidance to today's practice of restricting "computer file" 
format to strictly computer oriented content that the divisions in content, 
medium, and carrier became pronounced.  Things only acerbated as more material 
was digitized, as well as the proliferation of formats for "shiny, round, 
digital things."  When a digital version of a sound recording could be encoded 
on a DVD-ROM, and as websites emerged capable of joining textual content with 
streaming imagery and sound,  the nails were being put in the coffin.  The need 
was obvious to clearly articulate the divisions between computer file content, 
digital media, and various digital carriers for a wide variety of non-computer 
file content.

It is hard to dispute concerns that the resulting terminology is unwieldy.  The 
system and display issues of incorporating the new MARC fields conveying this 
data into both lists and individual record displays are also significant.  But 
a system that unambiguously encodes the nature of these three facets -- 
content, medium, and carrier -- is the long overdue fulfillment of an important 
need, and a necessary transition from the "fuzzy" categories represented by the 
GMD.

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
Schenectady NY 12308

mye...@union.edu
518-388-6623

-Original Message-
Michael  Bernhard wrote:

Has anyone suggested that RDA be revised to provide for a GMD (in addition to 
the new 33x fields)?  Or are the new rules already so set in stone that such a 
change could not be considered?  It seems that many of you in these 
conversations (and many others whose views you report) see a definite need for 
the continued application of the GMD.  (I apologize for not being aware of the 
thinking that led to the abandonment of the
GMD.)

Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16

[Myers, John F.]

Billie Hackney wrote:

But it doesn't change the fact that creating an RDA record is more work, more 
typing, and more effort for overworked catalogers.

-

This is not an invalid criticism of RDA, and an area where early criticisms 
felt that RDA did not go far enough in evolving from its AARC2 roots.  The 
language of RECORDING element data in AACR2 was largely carried forward intact 
in RDA.  In places where we are to transcribe information directly from the 
resource, this is fine.  In many other places, it would be sufficient to 
INDICATE element data.  

As a particular example, describing the extent and nature of content.  The 
arguments over abbreviating vs. not abbreviating is an unfortunate outcome of 
maintaining this RECORDING mindset.  The further dithering over the creation of 
new MARC fields to translated the recorded data into corresponding coded data 
is another by-product.  

Is it really necessary to require a cataloger to record in a digital context 
the actual words "illustrations" or "colour/color" or "black and white"?  (And 
then duplicate those details with codes elsewhere?)  Should it not be 
sufficient to have interfaces on the cataloging and the public display modes 
that allow one to draft a record with "ill." "col." or "b&w", or corresponding 
coded values, or options from a drop-down menu, which are then converted when 
stored into an appropriate stored value and when displayed into the 
corresponding (and even language/script appropriate) text?  (And at the risk of 
overgeneralizing and of drawing commonalities where few believe they exist, 
this seems to be the crux of many of the disagreements between the "pro" and 
"anti" RDA crowds -- they both see a problem but have widely divergent takes on 
the solutions -- change the way we deal with the data in the context of RDA or 
reject the changes RDA institutes outright.)

So now, instead of moving forward by experimenting with different solutions to 
input/storage/display, we instead can't get past the point of thousands of 
catalogers having to type out "illustrations" "colour/color" "black and white" 
etc., because that's the only option RDA gives us.

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu

Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16

[Myers, John F.]

I have to join Karen's bandwagon here.  I am profoundly disappointed by the 
extreme negativism in response to programmatic changes she suggests.  Yes, of 
course there are exceptions!  That's why the cataloging rules are a 3" 
three-ring binder rather than a 16 page pamphlet.  But in the name of mercy, is 
it really all that impossible to tease out broad swaths of bibliographic 
territory where we have SOME confidence of how the data is configured 
consistently?  So we've got litigants in the mix, well then exclude records 
that deal with litigation.  And we've got artists in the mix, so exclude 
records that deal with art resources.  Same with scores and sound recordings 
with respect to composers and librettists.  There's still a vast quantity of 
records where an easy flip from [Name] to [Name] + (author relator code/term) 
would be reasonably well served.  Develop subsequent iterative processes to 
tease out erroneous flips and to address the other clusters of litigants, 
artists, etc., (and erroneous flips in those processes).  The counter arguments 
I hear in response to Karen make me truly fear that we as a profession suffer 
from a fatal lack of imagination.  If I, who will never qualify as a 
programming heavy-weight, can figure out and implement analogous changes to 
batches of records, surely institutions like OCLC and the national libraries, 
with significant computing power and programming expertise, can accomplish what 
is proposed on the scale it would encompass.  Anyone who thinks we are going to 
continue to move forward by examining every resource and record on a one-by-one 
basis (or who rejects change predicated on that limitation) might as well go 
back to filing cards.  Try lighting a light rather than cursing the darkness.



John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu


-Original Message-
Karen Coyle wrote:

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 7:14 PM, J. McRee Elrod  wrote:
> Karen Coyle said:
>
>>No role in the 100 almost always means "author."
>
> Not in our database.  We have criminal defendants (our earlier client 
> base was heavily law firms), artists (early clients included art 
> schools), composers (we do quite a few music CDs).
>
> Some clever programming might handle composer.

Right. I was thinking of texts, of course. The primary 100 role will vary by 
record type (MARC record type, that is). But I find it interesting that for so 
many of you (and I refer here to others who replied) that you are more 
motivated to declare change impossible than to think about ways to make 
possible changes. 

Re: [RDA-L] JSC web site not available

[Myers, John F.]

By all means, and let us maintain our card catalog in case the local database 
goes down.  Just make sure you haven't moved it to the basement because open 
flames as a backup light source when the overheads lose power aren't a good 
idea in a building full of paper.

These are the two faces of technology -- the one side provides us with more 
capabilities while the other side leaves us more vulnerable to systemic 
failures.

When the power goes down here, we are dead in the water -- the server is on the 
backup generator and has an additional backup battery; but our workstations are 
not, so no Internet, no ILS, no public catalog stations, etc.  But my unit does 
more with 2 people than 4 accomplished 20 years ago, who themselves did more 
than their predecessors of 20 years previous.

Consequently, I look forward to the coming changes, if for nothing else than 
anticipated improvements in ease of navigation for our users.

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu


-Original Message-
J. McRee Elrod wrote, including a quote from the JSC Secretary:

>The website of the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA 
>(JSC) has not been available since mid-June.
 
We are being advised to abandon complete inhouse bibliographic records for 
items in collections, but rather to depend of displays created from linked data 
outside the ILS?

Good luck with that.

Re: [RDA-L] Part 1: Order of records Re: [RDA-L] [BIBFRAME] RDA, DBMS and RDF

[Myers, John F.]

I think the question is referring back to filing rules of the card catalog.  
I'm not certain how closely they met the conditions of the "strong reading" 
because I'm not entirely certain of the original query myself.

>From the 1956 LC filing rules, p. 140 has the following statements regarding 
>the interaction of subject entries with other entries:

I. The proper order of entries when the names of a person, place and thing are 
identical is: A. Person; B. Place; C. Subject [other than a specific subject 
that is arranged after its own author and added entries]; D. Title.

Example:
Stone, Samuel  [author]
Stone, Thomas [author]
Stone, Pa.   [name of place]
STONE  [name of an object]
Stone[a title beginning with the word]

II. Any author entry may have its own subject entry.  When this is the case, 
the subject entry follows directly after its own author and added entries.  
[Clarifying text elided]

Example (some entries elided):
Stone, Thomas [author]
Stone, Thomas [added entry]
STONE, THOMAS  [subject]
Stone, Pa.   [place as author]
Stone, Pa.   [place as added entry]
Stone, Pa. Dept. of Ed.  [subordinate body as author]
Stone, Pa. Dept. of Ed.  [subordinate body as added entry]
STONE, PA. DEPT. OF ED.  [subordinate body as subject]
STONE, PA. [place as subject]
STONE, PA. - BIOG.[place with subdivision as subject]


III. [A sequence dealing strictly with subjects and their various subdivisions, 
qualifications, and inverted formulations - clustering by group but not 
yielding a strict alphabetic sequence: ART - HISTORY precedes ART - 17th 
CENTURY precedes ART - ALBANIA.]

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu

Karen Coyle wrote:

I don't get this at all. Maybe an example would help?

Quoting Simon Spero:
[snip]
In a  strong reading could imply that when searching a physical card catalog by 
a heading of a specific kind (e.g. subject) , there would be no card found that 
would would not be in alphabetical order for that subject.  But if the catalog 
was interfiled, an entry on a different field might interrupt the ordering for 
the specific field that were searched for, a contradiction.

Re: [RDA-L] Comparison table of extent terms

[Myers, John F.]

J. McRee Elrod responded to a quoted snippet:

>Content: cartographic image
>Content: text
>Media needed to access content: unmediated
>Carrier: volume
>Extent: 1 atlas (68 pages)

Or it could be "Content: cartographic image, text"

But why not "map, text"?  RDA media terms often seem to use phrases where a 
word would do.



"Map" is problematic because it means more than one thing.  In common English, 
we use "map" to represent both the nature of the content and the carrier of the 
content: saying something is a map means the graphical representation of 
cartographic data and the thing on which such a representation is presented.  
In many cases they are coterminous and, being human, we can get away with the 
"sloppiness" of our usage.  But we also see cases where they aren't -- 1 map on 
4 sheets; 4 maps on 1 sheet.  

The data structures that Karen Coyle is exploring and advocating for, in order 
to support computer/machine processing of information, cannot and will not work 
with this kind of ambiguity.  There absolutely has to be a one-to-one 
correspondence between terminology and meaning.  This unfortunately means some 
awkward and convoluted terminology in order to differentiate the various uses 
as well as to incorporate the terminology into the framework of other terms.  

It can be hoped, as we move forward, that interfaces will be developed both for 
input and display of data which will afford more amenable terminology for the 
human user.  For the time being, and during this period of transition in 
particular, the strangeness of the RDA terms serves to enforce the care with 
which we must conceptualize content/medium/carrier/extent and thereby properly 
apply the terms appropriate to each category.

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu

[RDA-L] GMD and Content/Media/Carrier discussion [was AUTOCAT: Large print differentiation in RDA]

[Myers, John F.]

[Forwarding my full post from AUTOCAT, with apologies to double-subscribers]

What I find interesting in this thread is that correspondents argue for the 
value of the GMD while simultaneously indicating that it doesn't work for them 
as configured in AACR2, namely through the manner in which they extensively 
modify it for their users' needs to take on aspects of the SMD.

What appears to be valued, is not the GMD per se (in its narrow AACR2 
definition), but an early indication of the specific format and carrier of the 
material represented in a hit list.  Since we already have a number of 
theoretical analyses that criticize the intellectual consistency of the GMD 
terms and we here see a number of workarounds that demonstrate the GMD terms 
are less practical to users than one might think, the major attribute the "GMD" 
(as loosely applied) seems to have going for it is its parking space in the 
245$h. 

However unwieldy the terminology developed by the JSC in "breaking up" the GMD 
into an internally consistent set of Content/Medium/Carrier terms, this 
actually seems to be in line with the practices being developed locally by 
catalogers in the field.  The other main complaint is the displacement from the 
"prime real estate" at 245$h to the relative obscurity of the new 33X fields.

These are not insignificant issues. But the present thread of comments would 
seem to indicate it is a matter of user-friendly iconography for the 
Content/Medium/Carrier data and of its functional placement in display 
structures that lies at the heart of the concern, rather than the apotheosis of 
AACR2's GMD over all alternatives.  The former is a place for dialogue, 
refinement, and improvement where the latter would leave us in a "take it or 
leave it" scenario.

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu

--AUTOCAT correspondents articulate their use of the "GMD"-- 

Kathleen Lamantia wrote:

We do the same as Douglas, having a "very large array" of gmds in our 245 and 
we will also continue to use them.  Our patrons and staff depend heavily upon 
them.

Douglas Wray wrote:

We'll keep using using our GMDs, too. For patrons placing holds at home, they 
are probably the single most important bit of data in the bib record.
People typically don't go deeper than a hit list. We actually employ an 
extensive array of local GMDs-- "CD audiobook, abridged"; "Blu-ray"; "Blu-ray & 
DVD"; "CD"; "board book"; "large print"; "electronic game"; "score"; and many 
more.

Sarah Simpson wrote:

We're keeping the GMD indefinitely - too many holds problems without it, and 
customers won't even begin to use the 336-338.  Once there is a way to display 
the format in the title field again, we'll drop the GMD.

Re: [RDA-L] Fwd: [RDA-L] Undifferentiated personal names: call for community discussion

[Myers, John F.]

Barbara Tillett wrote:

A word of caution on abandoning undifferentiated names.  When we were doing the 
regional IFLA meetings for the International Cataloguing Principles, the 
Chinese told me how glad they would be to have a capability to use 
undifferentiated names, as their cataloging code didn't allow them.  Adding 
qualifiers to every name caused a lot of problems with hundreds of authority 
records for what was in fact the same person using different professions or 
writing different things over time - each being established separately - they 
wanted the ability to use undifferentiated names so they could collocate them 
until they had more concrete differentiating information.

-
I reply:

But it would seem fairly straightforward to address in a programmatic fashion 
the bibliographic maintenance occasioned by the collapse of authority Record 1 
with authority Record 2 when they are found to represent the same 
entity/person, as opposed to the near impossibility to accomplish the opposite, 
where one attempts to program how to tease apart instances of bibliographic 
records linked to undifferentiated authority Record A into those to be linked 
to one or more "daughter" records supporting newly differentiated headings.

The intention, as I understand it, is not to abandon undifferentiated names 
(i.e. headings/access points) but to parse instances of such onto individual 
authority records.  There are several RDA elements in Chapter 9 that are not 
amenable to creation of a unique heading/authorized access point but could 
potentially facilitate proper association of the item in hand with the 
individual represented in such an authority record.

My clumsy and hastily cobbled example below, incorporating the presentation of 
these "non-heading" elements or of "Source found in" data should not be 
mistaken for an effort to formally incorporate them into the heading/authorized 
access point to force a differentiation.  They are only meant to illustrate the 
potential display of such data besides the heading/authorized access point as 
an aid to selecting the appropriate "John Doe" record -- much as brief hit 
lists of bibliographic records provide selected snippets of data, such as 
publisher, for selecting a desired manifestation record.  Such expanded 
authority displays, if developed, could be used just as readily with unique 
headings to facilitate the selection amongst creators with similar 
differentiating elements in their headings/authorized access points (Smith, 
John, 1949- vs. Smith, John, 1950-, while unique headings, don't really provide 
much for selecting one over the other as author of a resource in hand published 
anytime after 1975, where indicating upfront the affiliation with a University, 
place of birth, or previous publications could).

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu


John F. Myers's original post:

In the main, the thrust of the discussion paper is an obvious implication of 
the ideas in FRAD and of the authority record changes in RDA.  It is a 
necessary development as we move from construction of headings to creation of 
robust, element-configured authority records as the locus of establishing 
identities.

My concern for this proposed environment is the adequate presentation of 
differentiating information, however tenuous, for such undifferentiated 
records.  This would facilitate the quick determination by catalogers of a) 
which prospective authority record corresponds to an identity to be associated 
with a given bibliographic record, and b) whether establishment of another 
undifferentiated authority record might be required.

One such solution might be retooling our current authority displays so that 
something akin to OCLC's Brief List display (currently configured for 
bibliographic records) becomes available for authority records too.  For 
example, expand an authority search's truncated list entry for "Doe, John. (3)" 
to provide the 3 entries:
 Doe, John. [author. Book of topic A. 1956.]
 Doe, John. [editor. Book on topic B. 1999.]
 Doe, John. [performer. [SR]. Music to remember. 2010.]
(Caveat, the above examples are made up with absolutely no coherent regard for 
current authority record practice or potential RDA authority information.)

It is also possible that a new bibliographic framework, which could provide a 
comprehensive overall picture of entities in the various FRBR entity groups 
rather than bifurcating our records into bibliographic and authority silos, may 
address this concern in a better manner.

Whatever the solution turns out to be, I would encourage exploration of this 
question of presentation, as we progress towards implementation of individual 
records for name entities with non-unique headings.

Re: [RDA-L] Fwd: [RDA-L] Undifferentiated personal names: call for community discussion

[Myers, John F.]

In the main, the thrust of the discussion paper is an obvious implication of 
the ideas in FRAD and of the authority record changes in RDA.  It is a 
necessary development as we move from construction of headings to creation of 
robust, element-configured authority records as the locus of establishing 
identities.

My concern for this proposed environment is the adequate presentation of 
differentiating information, however tenuous, for such undifferentiated 
records.  This would facilitate the quick determination by catalogers of a) 
which prospective authority record corresponds to an identity to be associated 
with a given bibliographic record, and b) whether establishment of another 
undifferentiated authority record might be required.

One such solution might be retooling our current authority displays so that 
something akin to OCLC's Brief List display (currently configured for 
bibliographic records) becomes available for authority records too.  For 
example, expand an authority search's truncated list entry for "Doe, John. (3)" 
to provide the 3 entries:
 Doe, John. [author. Book of topic A. 1956.]
 Doe, John. [editor. Book on topic B. 1999.]
 Doe, John. [performer. [SR]. Music to remember. 2010.]
(Caveat, the above examples are made up with absolutely no coherent regard for 
current authority record practice or potential RDA authority information.)

It is also possible that a new bibliographic framework, which could provide a 
comprehensive overall picture of entities in the various FRBR entity groups 
rather than bifurcating our records into bibliographic and authority silos, may 
address this concern in a better manner.

Whatever the solution turns out to be, I would encourage exploration of this 
question of presentation, as we progress towards implementation of individual 
records for name entities with non-unique headings.

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu


Forwarded on behalf of the PCC Policy Committee. Please excuse duplication.

Please cc c...@loc.gov on all responses.

 Original Message 
Subject:

[PCCLIST] Undifferentiated personal names: call for community discussion


The Program for Cooperative Cataloging Policy Committee (PoCo) has been 
monitoring the discussion on various cataloging email lists over the past 
months and noticed a recurring topic of (and frustration with) authority 
records for undifferentiated personal names.  We wondered whether this was a 
problem that we should tackle now, in conjunction with the imminent changes to 
the LC/NACO authority file to align it with RDA implementation.  Even though 
this is not an RDA issue, we decided yes.

Two PoCo leaders, Philip Schreur and John Riemer, volunteered to prepare a 
discussion paper, which is attached to this message and is posted on the PCC 
web 
site.
  We invite community comment on this discussion paper beginning now through 
June 22, 2012.  The discussion will continue in person at the PCC Participants 
Meeting at the ALA Annual Conference in Anaheim.  There are several options for 
you to provide input, and the PCC Secretariat has agreed to compile the issues 
for the discussion.  To participate in this discussion, you may:  (1)  send 
your comments privately to the PCC Secretariat at 
c...@loc.gov; (2) post your comments publicly to one of 
the cataloging email lists, preferably PCCLIST, with a cc to c...@loc.gov; (3) 
voice your comments in person at the PCC Participants Meeting at the ALA Annual 
Conference in Anaheim in June.  While PoCo members will be reading the 
comments, we will not be able to respond to each comment.

We expect that the community comments in the coming months will help us prepare 
for and design the public forum on this topic at the PCC Participants Meeting, 
and will enable those unable to attend that meeting to participate.   We are 
particularly interested in hearing from authorities and ILS vendors, and hope 
that providing this discussion paper now gives them time to think and react.  
We also welcome reactions from the international community, especially from 
CEAL, where we know this topic has particular impact.

Re: [RDA-L] What FRBR is not

[Myers, John F.]

Karen Coyle wrote:

FRBR claims to be based on a "relational" model, as in "relational database."



I do not think FRBR self-identifies as a "relational" model.  It is an 
Entity-Relationship model.  This may seem like hair-splitting but, while the 
E-R model also framed the underlying structure of relational databases, I do 
not think that the E-R model need be restricted so narrowly to the relational 
database as a specific "offspring" of the model.

The E-R model relies on a set of entities, the relationships between those 
entities, the attributes of the entities, and the attributes of the 
relationships.  This modeling seems readily extensible to implementations such 
as RDF, linked-data, and others.  This is evidenced by the ability of the E-R 
model to be expressed through FBRB principles which themselves are manifested 
in a specific cataloging code, RDA, that has three conceived implementation 
scenarios.  

The linked-data sessions I have attended have spoken of 
Subject-Predicate-Object structures.  I do not see a significant difference at 
the large-scale between the E-R model and linked-data's SPO model.  E-R model 
details can be resolved into SPO structures as needed: Subject entity has 
relationship Predicate to Object entity; Subject entity has attribute-nature 
Predicate of Object specific attribute; Subject relationship has 
attribute-nature Predicate of Object specific attribute.  Things are a little 
dicey and complicated because the E-R model relationships, as predicates 
between the E-R model entities, are themselves subject to SPO analysis with 
their attributes.  But this does not seem beyond the extensibility of the 
linked-data modeling I have witnessed.

The FRBR report, in the closing paragraph of "Areas for Further Study", poses 
the possibility that the E-R analysis may be applicable to "the structures used 
to store, display, and communicate bibliographic data."  As we consider 
prospective new bibliographic frameworks, that would appear to be the stage at 
which we find ourselves (and the area of most controversy -- where FRBR is 
erroneously assumed to already apply directly to them).  I am intrigued by the 
potentials for cross-fertilization between the "competing" models, as I see 
there the greatest opportunity to transcend the specific limitations of each 
(remembering that limitations are almost a universality of models, being 
simplifications).  

The challenge is to develop models that are sufficiently complex to ADEQUATELY 
describe reality while being sufficiently simple that they don't entail 
reproduction of reality (which obviates the utility of the model).


John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu

Re: [RDA-L] RDA as the collaboratively created way forward[?]; was Is RDA the Only Way? An Alternative Option Through International Cooperation

[Myers, John F.]

I fail to understand how it is possible to remove 'user tasks' from a platform. 
 They don't exist there in the first place.  The user tasks exist OUTSIDE any 
platform and reside WITH the USER.

No matter what tool or platform is used, there has to be sufficient hooks 
associated with the resources it is describing in order for it to return a set 
of results for the FIND task.  There has to be sufficient ancillary data, 
hook-like or otherwise, provided in those results for the user accomplish the 
IDENTIFY and SELECT task.  And lastly, there has to be some further aspect of 
the record for the user to complete the OBTAIN task.

In Google, the hooks are the data compiled and indexed by its spiders, the 
ancillary data is the brief description below the link, the obtain aspect is 
the actual link.  Similar pieces of data arise from the other web services.

One may argue about the elements one designates for accomplishing these tasks, 
one may argue about the validity of a given element for a certain population's 
accomplishment of these tasks, and one may argue about the elements appropriate 
to specific kinds of resources, but in the end we still need to have a 
mechanism that returns something whenever a user casts his/her net into the 
information universe, lets them discriminate amongst the fish captured, and 
then haul one out.

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu

James Weinheimer wrote:

If you remove the FRBR user tasks from Google, you still have Google. If you 
remove them from Google Books you still have Google Books. If you remove them 
from YouTube you still have YouTube. If you remove them from Bing, you still 
have Bing. And on and on. And people will still prefer them to our tools. I 
wonder why?

Re: [RDA-L] Justification of added entries

[Myers, John F.]

Karen Coyle wrote:

Mac, can you give more info on 1) difficulties caused ...

--

As Mac subsequently replied, the use of relator terms can cause havoc with the 
display and indexing in the ILS.  Some relator terms were more common in card 
days and then fell out of favor as the implementation of ILSes resulted in 
split files or misrepresentations in the displays.  The classic example was Ben 
Franklin where, if memory serves, there were separate listings for him as 
author, editor, and printer.  (Or under Mac's misrepresentation scenario, if 
the printer entry was indexed "first" then all subsequent entries would listed 
under him as a printer.)  Consequently, my first library employer had a regular 
practice to strip them out, much as Mac's clients request currently.  Things 
were substantially mitigated with the development of relator codes.  For 
whatever reason, ILSes seem more forgiving of them -- they do not go into the 
display or indexing.  In that regard, I would wish that the relevant LCPS had 
been formulated conversely, to eschew terms in favor of codes, despite the 
subtle non-compliance with RDA as written.  While my early experiences shaped 
my ability to live without "illus.", "ed.", "comp.", etc., my subsequent work 
with media taught me the value of "drt", "prd", "aus", etc.

What we need though is not to be tilting at the straw men of terms and codes 
but to be fighting for systems that put the information we provide to good use. 
 The indexing and display should not be broken up by the absence, presence, of 
difference of a term or code.  But the term or code should be leveraged by the 
system to facilitate selection, presumably via a faceting function after 
execution of the initial search.

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu

Re: [RDA-L] Repeating 260$c for publication and copyright dates

[Myers, John F.]

The solution Mac proposed, of using copyright symbol/lowercase 'c'/term
'copyright', would not be effectual from a data standpoint.  The
desirable outcome is to cleanly record the copyright date as a numerical
value, actionable by the machine as a number.  This is not possible if
it remains coupled in the 260 $c with date of publication data that can
appear as a string of digits recording the transcribed date, a possibly
incomplete string of digits in brackets for a conjectured date, or
textual indication that there is not a date provided.  There is also the
complexity of the three textual/symbolic options to prefix the copyright
date itself.  Both sets of conditions require a machine to treat the
characters we see as numbers largely as a textual string that can be
displayed but not acted upon.


John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu


-Original Message-
Mark Ehlert wrote:

Kevin M. Randall  wrote:
> If the tag is 260 $c, a computer has no way of
> distinguishing which RDA element the date belongs to.

Mac has suggested in earlier messages that the copyright
symbol/lowercase "c"/term "copyright"--i.e., the content of the
tag--would distinguish one kind of date from another if both were
coded with the same subfield marker.  A butt-ugly approach to solving
the problem, IMHO.

Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records?

[Myers, John F.]

So, when AACR2 makes an arbitrary determination that "a single author is
good enough" when there are more than three, it is OK.  

However, when RDA affords catalogers the option to follow that
historical arbitrary determination to its logical end (by extending its
application to numbers of authors less than three) or to break with the
pattern of arbitrary determinations (by allowing all authors regardless
of number), that is now a problem?

On a local basis, I routinely disregarded the Rule of Three in order to
incorporate descriptive elements and access points for college faculty.
In the future, regardless of whether the "restrictive" option allowed in
RDA is initially employed, the agencies where such access is important
will improve the record to meet their constituents' needs and
expectations.  Those agencies that use the record "as is", in its
pre-improved state, will do so because it meets the needs of their own
constituents and hence needn't worry about the subsequent changes.


John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu

-Original Message-
James Weinheimer wrote:

RDA has determined that a single author is good enough. I wonder what 
the faculty would say about the single author rule where that co-authors

can legitimately be left out, along with authors and other contributors?

Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records?

[Myers, John F.]

J. McRee Elrod wrote:

There were no main entry changes for monographs as dramatic as the
dropping
of the rule of three.

For me, the most difficult earlier change was entry for serials and
series.  I had spent years with "Journal of chemistry" being entered
under title, and "Journal of the Chemical Association" being entered
under the association.  



Sorry Mac, but I would disagree. 

The changes incumbent with respect to:
- form of entry for pseudonyms, 
- form of entry of corporate bodies, 
- editors as main entry, and 
- corporate bodies as main entry 
were substantial.  

I am blessedly too young to have been involved in the actual changes
instituted by AACR2, but can still see the after effects in the remnants
of the card catalogs I have seen.  And I have run across the literature
from that era regarding the formidable questions surrounding what to do
with card catalogs as that divide was crossed.

The rule of three is an intellectual and pragmatic construct on the part
of catalogers that I maintain very few users care about or for.  I
certainly would never have noticed it in the years preceding my
cataloging education.  If I had, I would likely have wondered, why isn't
the author in the same position as the authors of other books?, why
aren't all the authors listed?  

(And yes, I would have made those observations eventually.  I still
remember the distrust I felt over seeing a full statement of
responsibility on new cards in the catalog -- at that point, I far
preferred the truncated versions rendered by earlier codes, which better
matched the citation format I needed for bibliographies.  As a second
career, it took a while to get to cataloging, but obviously the die was
cast early if I was making those kinds of distinctions.)

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu

Re: [RDA-L] Linked files

[Myers, John F.]

I'm sorry but no, it shouldn't, for the same reason that temporary
interruptions to our online journal subscriptions do not argue for a
return to print only access for those resources, for the same reason
that temporary interruptions to a bibliographic utility do not argue for
a return to strictly in-house catalog record production.  

It's an electrically and digitally connected world out there: there are
both advantages and disadvantages.  The lowered overhead of shared
resources is the chief advantage, the possibility of service
interruption is the chief disadvantage.  

When the power goes out here, our server stays up but our workstations
are shut down -- data is safe but we are dead in the water.  Despite
this extremely infrequent interruption to our work, we have not returned
to hand typing catalog cards as a more reliable interface.  Likewise,
interruptions in access to external resources, do not cause us to revert
to older technologies in face of the enormous efficiencies they
otherwise provide.

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu

-Original Message-
J. McRee Elrod wrote:

The unavailability of the LC authority files yesterday and tdoay
should make is hesitant to depend in our local OPACs on links to
offsite files. should it not?

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Myers, John F.]

Jim Weinheimer wrote:
 
As one of those veteran catalogers, I honestly do not see how the
changes in RDA have a lot of potential. Which changes do you have in
mind? The abbreviations? The changes in the headings of the Bible? The
lack of the $b in titles? 

-

One could argue interminably the pros and cons of abbreviating or not.
I can see merits to both sides, as well as to native language
representation of missing date issue.  (That is, the replacement of
[s.l.] with [place of publication not identified], where [s.l.] replaces
the earlier [n.p.] for "no place".)  I am however adequately convinced
by the machine processing crowd to hold my reservations in abeyance.  

The Bible heading changes would happen regardless of RDA -- they were
the last proposal to change AACR2 and were rolled into RDA rather than
causing a new update to AACR2 in the middle of the RDA development
process.

If by "lack of $b in titles" you mean that the "Other title information"
element is not part of the core elements of RDA, I would point out,
insofar as AACR2 had core elements which I will equate with the "first
level of description" articulated at 1.0D1, it is neither a core element
of AACR2.  The equivalence of the RDA core element set as a "Full level"
record is an undesirable possibility, but is a consequence of policy
implementation not of RDA itself.

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Myers, John F.]

Kathleen Lamantia wrote:

Well, it seems to me that Pride and Prejudice is Jane Austen's conception 
(work) no matter what form (expression) it takes, so I would answer your 2nd 
question, "is the creator the same?" with yes.  As to valid alternatives, that 
seems to me to be "cataloger's judgment," so we are left with a situation in 
which book and movie will or will not be the same work depending on perception 
- and that's no way to run a railroad.

--

My first exposure to FRBR was at an ALA Preconference in 2004, where a slide 
introducing the Group 1 entities and their relationships included an arrow from 
Work back to Work, indicating that the Work concept could be extended 
iteratively to function at higher levels, i.e. in the manner of the "superwork" 
or "family of works" mentioned in other correspondence for this thread.  I have 
not seen that illustration since.

All explanations of FRBR since then have clearly articulated that a motion 
picture adaptation of a novel is a distinct and separate, if related, work.  
This has been confirmed by subsequent re-examination of FRBR itself, namely the 
work attribute Form of the Work.  To be blunt, this is NOT a matter of 
"cataloger's judgment."

Personally, despite an initial tendency to view novel and movie as belonging 
under the same work (or at least "superwork"), and a lingering sympathy for 
that perspective, I have educated myself to respect FRBR's distinction between 
them as separate works (much as I learned to respect AACR2's take on editors 
and corporate bodies concerning authorship).  This personal journey has been 
bolstered, as others have observed, by the treatment of such pairings within 
AACR2 which, insofar as it can be viewed as FRBR compliant, gives them entirely 
different main entry headings with the implication they historically have been 
considered to be in distinct work families.


John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Myers, John F.]

Mark Rose wrote:

The whole notion of Work in FRBR seems unnecessary in my view. We don't
deal in Platonic ideals of what a work is but in actual productions, the
physicality of the work, i.e. expression down to item.

---

The statement above is self-contradictory.  It would deny the "notion of
Work", but then incorporates "the work" in its rebuttal.  

Further, everything above the item is an abstraction -- even the
manifestation is not a "physicality of the work".  We just play a mental
game at pretending the manifestation is "real" when we catalog at that
level based on the sole item exemplar in our hands.  

We have played fast and loose in our title and name/title authority
records, using the authority for the expression in the original language
to serve both functions of describing that expression and serving as the
"work" anchor for subsequent expressions.  Despite the somewhat
arbitrary nature of FRBR's dividing point between work and expression
(and what constitutes the same work), it is obvious that some gathering
mechanism, distinct from the expression, is necessary to group related
expressions together, as evidenced by our current faulty authority
practices.  Lastly, it is not like the concept and abstraction of "work"
is new to us, having used its plural form as a collective uniform title
for ages.

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu

Re: [RDA-L] Recording series numbering in RDA

[Myers, John F.]

Jonathan Rochkind wrote:

That would be a good solution. That, I think, is incompatible with MARC,

even MARCXML, yeah?

Quoting Mark Ehlert (I think):
> A better solution might be a 3-level field structure that would
> contain two or more complete data fields with all the necessary
> subfields. Then, an entire 830, or more than one, might be attached
> directly to the 490 with no tag of its own but a different indicator.



I have often thought that the ability of XML to not only tag information
but also to provide it with attributes offers a wonderful technique to
accomplish within the same context the dual functions of controlled
access and transcribed description. 

For instance:


Wiley series of cataloging monographs ; V



  by
  John Smith
  and
  Jane Doe


Where the ## represent the control numbers to the authority records
for the corresponding transcribed data.

The indexing would grab information and function using the attribute
values while the displays would function using the transcribed data.

Too bad my (nonexistent) programming skills aren't adequate for
converting the concept into something workable.  :-(  

I'm also not sure if this would be work in the context of the linked
data/RDF model -- I originally thought of it in the context of an
adaptation to the "unitary" records we currently employ.


John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu

Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????

[Myers, John F.]

When one has questions about RDA and is so closely involved in the
import of RDA to one's work, wouldn't prudence argue for acquiring a
copy of the standard in question?  Even if one wishes to eschew RDA's
use generally and wants to avoid the ongoing subscription costs, there
is now a paper version available for use as a reference text: pairing
"strongly worded" with being unknowledgeable is rarely a felicitous
combination.

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu


-Original Message-
Deborah Tomares wrote:

I sent the question around publicly because I was not
sure if this was a hitherto-unknown RDA provision that I was coming
across,
instead of a single rogue cataloger. My posting was a request for
information, albeit worded a bit strongly in places. 

Re: [RDA-L] Abbreviations in RDA

[Myers, John F.]

Not to detract from Karen's statement, but "etc." and "other" do mean
something -- that the category encompasses things besides those
explicitly identified that, while of a similar nature, are too obscure
or insufficiently fleshed out to warrant the intellectual effort to
label, identify, or categorize further.

The challenge is that, while humans can live with this degree of
ambiguity and inexactness, machines and machine processing can't.  Every
exception of this type would require programming a "bail out" mechanism
for the software to identify it, and a "bail out" action for the
software to treat it.  I strongly suspect that the coding occurrences
for handling such exceptions would grow geometrically or exponentially
with the number of exceptions to be addressed.  And as Karen identifies,
the value of these "etc." and "other" labels would be nil in the
information sense -- one would know that they are exceptions or special
cases, but have no further information as to the nature of the
exception/special case or how it relates to other exceptions/special
cases.

(And I readily admit this is going to be one of the hardest things for
me in adapting to the programmatic vision of machine handling of our
data, because my life and thought processes are full of these little
"other" categories.)

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu


-Original Message-
Karen Coyle wrote:

"etc." needs to go away with its partner "other" (heavily used in MARC  
vocabularies, not in RDA). Neither of these imparts any information  
nor does it provide a way to expand a list as needed.

Re: [RDA-L] New ideas for 260

[Myers, John F.]

I do not see a conflict between either statement.  Mark posits a
relationship that is not automatically direct.  Mac offers examples of
how the potential relationships are not automatically direct and how
they can vary with respect to which other date the copyright date is
related.

The nebulosity and variability of such relationships strongly argues for
recording the copyright date in its own MARC field, as a more-or-less
independent element, rather than trying to shoehorn it into the existing
publication, production, manufacture framework.  FWIW, my impressions
were that a new field was the direction discussion took during the MARBI
meeting at ALA Midwinter.

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu


-Original Message-
J. McRee Elrod wrote:

Quoting Mark Ehlert:
"My assumption is that copyright dates in RDA have a related but not
directly
linked association with production, publication, distribution and
manufacture."

But copyright date may differ from any of those dates, just as it may
differ from publication date.  New releases, reprints, and
reproductions may or may not be recopyrighted.

Re: [RDA-L] RDA and MARC

[Myers, John F.]

Ms. McGrath, author of the presentation, readily identifies as "red
herrings" the issues on which Mac focuses his rebuttal.  There are more
substantial issues presented by the author, namely the structural
difficulties of MARC both with respect to encoding reliably
machine-actionable data and to addressing adequately the relationships
that are the underpinning of Entity-Relationship data structures.  

As to the delay of RDA implementation, the author closes with the
observation that banking was in a similar bind of relying on 1960s era
coding as the foundation of its software until forced to change by the
prospect of Y2K.  RDA would be our equivalent to force us to recast our
coding for upgrading to 21st century systems and needs.

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu


-Original Message-
J. McRee Elrod wrote:

The author says, among other things, that MARC field 245 is maxed out
for subfields.  With number subfields, 26 more can be added.  How many
does he want?

Subfields need not be in numerical or alphabetic order, e.g., 245$h,
and 111 subfields since the changes in entry form for conferences.

He also objects to the number codes, and would prefer labels in
English.  In our multilingual situation, the language neutrality of
numbers is one of MARC's advantages.

[snip]

At least RDA should be delayed until there is a coding system which
can handle it.

Re: [RDA-L] general interest in RDA

[Myers, John F.]

Although not as widely recognized as it should be, ISBD is a unitary
standard to address content, communication, and display.  The latter two
aspects are intertwined in how ISBD covers both the Areas and the
punctuation to formulate the data in a unit card.  

Whether online catalogs retain the unit card format in their displays or
whether we are cognizant of the lingering effect of the unit card in our
work, the fact remains that AACR2 is predicated on building an ISBD
record and the ISBD record is predicated on building a unit card.  To
borrow from biology, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" -- the embryonic
development of an organism recreates historical evolutionary
developments.  For all their digital trappings and online presentation,
our current records retain that gestational feature of the unit card.

RDA is significant in its attempt to break that premise, to "jump" our
data to a new framework and thereby open the possibility to similarly
free the mechanisms of communicating our data.

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu


-Original Message-
Jim  Weinheimer wrote:
ISBD/AACR2 guide the cataloger to put together a description for ISBD
*display*?! I confess that this is a very strange idea to me. I
personally don't think about display when I am cataloging anything. Very
few online catalogs use an ISBD display for the unit record, so
Worldcat, Voyager, Dynix, etc. each have all kinds of displays for their
records. 

Re: [RDA-L] RDA provisions

[Myers, John F.]

I unfortunately won't address no. 17.  To other matters though, I do not
think that what is stipulated in #3 and #4 are absolutely correct.  RDA
specifies the RECORDING of birth, death, and flourished dates as such.
Likewise, it specifies the RECORDING of fuller forms of the name.  It
does not specify the manner of incorporating either of those data
elements when CONSTRUCTING an controlled access point string (formerly
known as an authorized heading).  The shortcoming lies in the present
iteration of the MARC Authority format which lacks an adequate "parking
spot" for these data elements outside headings.  (The multipurposed 670
does not qualify as adequate.)

The RDA Testing Group developed guidelines which address both types of
elements, within the current constraints of MARC.  The expanded use of
$q in headings was, as the energetic discussions on various lists
indicated, an inelegant if necessary solution to the problem.  It is to
be hoped that a new field in the MARC Authority format will be developed
and approved expeditiously in order to accommodate the vast historical
file of AACR2 headings and future RDA headings, which are all predicated
on establishing the name by which "the person is commonly known."

After years of converting open death date ranges to single birth date
references, it is to be further hoped that the date solution is
revisited as well.  It would be disappointing to return to an
environment where cataloger sloth or cluelessness were the inferences to
be rendered by the presence of open death dates in those access points
corresponding to individuals whose birth date precedes any reasonable
expectation of vitality.
 
John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu


-Original Message-
J. McRee Elrod wrote:

Following the Amigos RDA @ Your Library electronic conference, I was
asked these questions off list.  Am I correct, particularly in no, 17?

Thanks, Mac


[snip]
3.Dates:  1941- not b. 1941; -1968 not d. 1968; active 1965
not fl. 1965?

Yes, according to Library of Congress Policy Statements (LCPS).  

RDA calls for "born", "died", and "flourished", which we can ignore in
view of the LCPS for the test period, which for the present I think we
can assume would continue with implementation.

4.Are the cases in which increased use of qualifiers such as
occupation spelled out in RDA?

Yes.  And regardless of when the author lived.  There would be fewer
undifferentiated authorities.  

RDA calls for fullest form of name as opposed to name as found, with
more $q.  Those forms are in 100 of RDA test records and 700 in
authorities.  I'm hoping for superimpositon with established forms
left unchanged, and the 700 becoming a 400.  The fuller form should be
used only as practice for new authorities, with established form used
if in the NAF, I think.
[snip]

Re: [RDA-L] Linked data

[Myers, John F.]

I think Mac's point would be, how does one reconcile the following
possibilities:

1) Hyde, J. S., & Delamater, J. (2008). Human Sexuality (10th ed.) New
York: McGraw-Hill.

2) Delamater, J., & Hyde, J. S. (2008). Human Sexuality (10th ed.) New
York: McGraw-Hill.

Something is driving the citation order that gives primacy to Hyde.

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu


-Original Message-
Jim  Weinheimer provided examples:

Sample journal article:
Yawn, B. P., Algatt-Bergstrom, P. J., Yawn, R. A., Wollan, P., Greco,
M., Gleason, M., et al. (2000). An in-school CD-ROM asthma education
program. Journal of School Health, 70, 153-159.

Sample book:
Castellanos, J., Gloria, A. M., & Kamimura, M. (Eds.). (2006). The
Latina/o pathway to the Ph.D.: Abriendo caminos. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

And when there are only two names, you use the ampersand:
Hyde, J. S.,& Delamater, J. (2008). Human Sexuality (10th ed.) New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Re: [RDA-L] Extracting titles from MARC

[Myers, John F.]

The problem being, and this goes to Jim Weinheimer's comments as well,
that in the case of non-collective titles, as the Thomale article
identifies, the 245$a isn't enough.  There are additional titles buried
in the 245$b or worse in the 245$c.  Yes, those titles should be traced
in a 740 or 700$a$t.  But how does one reliably program to account for
this?  How will a program know that an instance of 740 is for an
additional title by the same author as the main entry in tag 100 vs.
obsolete coding for a variant title?  What would a machine do about
instances when the transcribed title in the 245$b or $c does not match
the authorized form as found in the 700$t?  Further, reliable extraction
of 700$t data for titles immediately applicable to the item in hand
would be dependent on accurate coding of the second indicator as an
analytic.  If there is a collective title, then would one want to and
how would one differentiate the treatment and extraction of title data
for the contents, from both the instances of non-collective titles and
"regular" listings of tables of contents?  The preferences of Mac's
clients aside, what is the place of uniform titles vs. transcribed
titles in the entire enterprise?  

In instances like these I am reminded of the advertising for a childhood
game: moments to learn, a lifetime to master!  This is all well and good
for a game but less well so for an important enterprise.

I am adept at and heretofore enamored of the previously workable
compromises with which our cataloging practices produce a "descriptive
bibliography-lite" enhanced by more robust access mechanisms.  But
having seen things from a programmer's viewpoint courtesy of Thomale, I
would now tend to describe the results of our efforts as Kafka-esque --
Only this is the title, except when these other things are also titles,
which are titles only when they aren't the something else they're
normally supposed to be.


John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu


-Original Message-
J. McRee Elrod wrote:

The discussion of extracting title from MARC has puzzled me.  Since
1979 we have had no difficulty in extracting titles from MARC for new
titles lists, circulation pocket and card labels, or whatever.  Our
clients all want the title as on the item, so we ignore 130/240.  We
use 245$a, on some occasions adding :$b, =$b, and ,$b (we code
alternative titles as well as subsequent titles in a collection as
",$b"), depending on the product and space available.

Re: [RDA-L] Linked data

[Myers, John F.]

The Thomale article in Code4Lib which Jonathan cites is a MUST READ.  It
was profoundly eye opening and highlights the issues with our data being
only machine-readable in the communication sense rather than in the
utilization sense.  As Thomale describes our records, they are documents
not data.

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu

-Original Message-
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:

I think it's even a bit more than you think.  The thing is, it's NOT 
like all you need is a list of tags and subfields and what they mean.  
You need to somehow understand the complicated and poorly defined 
interaction between AACR2, MARC, ISBD, and hell, LCRI's too, and, you 
know, also how they've changed over time, and which ones are often 
ignored -- in order to figure out how to use the data.

One example of this can be found reported in this article:  
http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/3832


This is a software developer with years of experience specializing in 
library metadata -- and it still took him a while to figure out an 
effective way to get the elements he wanted out of MARC, and that way is

a hacky collection of complicated heuristical regexps that will work, 
well, much of the time, for his data at least.

Re: [RDA-L] Linked data

[Myers, John F.]

An modest proposal: perhaps a file of 3x5 cards produced by a manual typewriter 
will provide the desired reliability?  
 
On a less satirical note, to harness the benefits of technology, one must make 
certain compromises with respect to one's independence from it.  But with the 
continued improvements of mobile technology, one may soon no longer require a 
physical wire over which to transmit data.
 
John Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
Schenectady NY 12308
mye...@union.edu
518-388-6623



J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Whoop de do.  I'm to be excited about a feature which goes down every
time a logging truck hits a power pole near my internet server?

[snip] 
Are we headed toward systems which can not be used in third world
counties?

Re: [RDA-L] RDA, Internationalization and Standardization?

[Myers, John F.]

Deborah Tomares wrote:
[snip]
RDA proponents often cite as
one of their concerns the need for our data to play nice with other
metadata schemata, and to be interoperable/cross-walkable/etc. I would
imagine that to facilitate this, there would be a push for increased
standardization in various fields, so that others approaching our data
would be able to understand and utilize/convert it more easily.
[snip]

-

When data "plays" nice, it is of similar degrees of granularity and
applicability: Can I take a piece of data from place A in this standard
and drop it into place X in another standard and have them mean and
encompass the same thing?  In this respect, I think RDA has improved the
situation, by more closely defining the nature of the data elements we
are using and by taking into consideration the input of the DCMI and
ONYX standards.  Admittedly, the language used to accomplish this is
tortuous, with the dividing line between necessity and bad editing a
debatable point.

But I do not think "playing" nice means that the data necessarily
"looks" the same.  If the data element is very closely defined regarding
format -- "this element will only contain numerical data only in Arabic
numerals" -- "looking" the same would be achieved.  But in a mixed
alpha-numeric format, which still is the nature of most of our
cataloging data including something seemingly so straight forward as
enumeration, there is a lot more room for leeway.  So, somewhat
counter-intuitively, in RDA's efforts to achieve internationalization
and wider intake of cataloging data, the result is actually some erosion
with respect to consistency for _descriptive_ elements, as observed.  As
Adam Schiff notes though, a greater degree of consistency is retained in
controlled forms that address _access_.  

With respect to "others approaching our data", I suspect it is less
about that, since our data is locked up in MARC which no one else uses,
than it is about the converse of making the new code sufficiently
flexible so as to enable us to appropriate the data from others'
sources.  But that is entirely my own perspective.

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu

Re: [RDA-L] Timeline or history of RDA development

[Myers, John F.]

There is no "year" for RDA development.

 

The best information is perhaps found on the JSC website under its
"Historic Documents" section:

http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs.html for efforts leading up to the review of
RDA drafts, and the "Working Documents" section:
http://www.rda-jsc.org/working1.html for the timeline of the RDA review
effort.

 

Work extends back to 1997, with the International Conference on the
Principles & Future Development of AACR.  (And back further if one
wishes to incorporate the review of FRBR drafts.)

 

 

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian

Schaffer Library, Union College

807 Union St.

Schenectady NY 12308

 

518-388-6623

mye...@union.edu

 

MCCUTCHEON, SEVIM wrote:



Can someone point me to a timeline or history of RDA development?
Perhaps an article or a website that states what year what development
occurred.

Re: [RDA-L] Confusion between "Field of activity" and "Profession or occupation"

[Myers, John F.]

It was reported that these two elements emerged from FRAD.
Unfortunately, I don't have a paper copy and, unlike FRBR, there does
not appear to be a digital manifestation, so I'm not in a position to
confirm the genesis.  Perhaps those with access can draw on its guidance
for clarification in this matter.  

I recall having this very concern with these two elements though when
reviewing the draft RDA and feeling then that it was rather a bit of
hair-splitting.  

It would be nice if the RDA test results address this question
sufficiently so that we can either:
1) Clearly and consistently distinguish between the applicability and
application of the two elements, or,
2) Conclude that slavish adherence to the FRAD model in this
circumstance is unwarranted on pragmatic grounds and hence these two
elements can be merged.
 
Both paths would still leave open the question of appropriate
terminology to use, which is a separate but valid point raised in other
venues.  

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu

-Original Message-
Peter J Rolla wrote:

And we have been struggling with the difference between "Field of
activity" (RDA 9.15, MARC field 372) and "Profession or Occupation" (RDA
9.15, MARC field 374).  We thought we had come up with a rule of thumb
to use, [snip].  However, we just had LC contact us and instructing us
to move the information we had put in the 372 field (fiction writer,
musician, composer) into a 374 field.  
[snip]
Can anyone explain the distinction between the two fields better than
we've been able to?

Re: [RDA-L] 300 Punctuation

[Myers, John F.]

This is what happens when we continue to coopt a communication standard 
developed to print cards for use as a vehicle to convey data in electronic 
interfaces.  Nearly every quirk in MARC can be traced back to its foundation as 
a card printing mechanism (and the lack of programming sophistication when it 
was originally developed).
 
John Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
Schenectady NY 12308
mye...@union.edu
518-388-6623



 J. McRee Elrod wrote:
According the samples, and the explanations given by others, you now
know that there is a final period only if a 490 follows 300, despite
the fact that there are now three new 3XX fields between.

This seems ridiculous to me.  In any given OPAC display, the 490 may
or may not be displayed following the 300, and may or may not be in
the same paragraph. 

Re: [RDA-L] Feedback on RDA

[Myers, John F.]

J. McRee Elrod wrote:

More to the point, I think, would have been a recommendation that work
on RDA cease until a coding system was designed, and ILS development
took place, which could accommodate the implementation of FRBR and
FRAD.

I think RDA implementation should be delayed at least until those two
things have occurred.  We are pouring new wine into old wine bottles.

--

A new coding system, like a successor to MARC?  Who are you?  And what
have you done to our colleague Mac?  [Who also would know that the
hazard comes not from new wine into old bottles but from new wine into
old skins.]

But seriously, why would a new coding system be designed if there
weren't a content standard that called for it?  Why would an ILS be
developed for a coding system that didn't exist (for a content standard
that didn't exist)?  We've got to slice the snake biting its tail at
some point. 

The content standard was the one aspect of this daisy chain over which
a) the cataloging community had some control, and b) for which an agency
existed and could reasonably be adapted to new development.  In
contrast, we have little enough leverage with ILS developers to support
changes that we can concretely identify, much less something so
venturesome as new models.  MARBI too, while perhaps more responsive to
input, seems unlikely to spontaneously morph itself into developing a
post-MARC coding standard.

There are changes in the process that I would have preferred we had
taken, but the priority of addressing the content standard is not one of
them.

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu

Re: [RDA-L] Feedback on RDA

[Myers, John F.]

The work involved in compiling the constituency responses to the drafts
was COLOSSAL.  The stated deadlines were there for good reason.

In the U.S., the approximately 50 members of CC:DA were providing raw
input from their personal and subconstituency perspectives, to which was
added comments from the cataloging community at large via an ALCTS
web-form.  This raw data was filed in a large wiki space, where the
CC:DA members made subsequent comments to provide some communal sense of
consensus and priority of the issues.  When output to Word documents,
there was over 2 MB of data that then had to be distilled down to
something coherent and manageable, which itself was submitted for
feedback by the committee members prior to final submission to the JSC.
All of this TAKES TIME.

The deadlines were there to ensure that the responses were submitted on
time to the JSC which was operating under the dual time constraints of
its own meeting schedule and the deadlines set by the publishers.  There
was no intent to disenfranchise individuals.  But the work needed to be
done on time.  Incorporating late feedback was not a reasonable option
as it would either have to bypass the commenting and consensus
mechanisms to which the other feedback was submitted or in running
through those mechanisms would have delayed the delivery of the other
feedback so that the entire ALA response would not have been considered
by the JSC.

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu


-Original Message-
From: Wilson, Margaret

Here's another consideration.  When the first draft of RDA came out I
spent a considerable amount of time looking at it and writing comments.
I sent in my comments but I had misinterpreted the deadline given (it
did not apply to libraries in general--the deadline for that was given
somewhere else).  My input was not taken, even though I contacted
several people about it. I realize I was technically at fault for
misinterpreting the two deadlines, but it was so disheartening to have
my input ignored (as I recall I had prepared 14 pages of comments
relating to problems in RDA for electronic resources, based on my 7
years of experience cataloging them) that I dropped out of the process.
It seemed like comments from librarians were not being all that sought
after ...  

Re: [RDA-L] reminder: subscribing to and unsubscribing from this list

[Myers, John F.]

I would add, for those with email management software that affords the ability 
to create folders, it is HIGHLY beneficial to create a folder for holding such 
welcome messages.  This allows them to be segregated and saved for convenient 
future access.

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Leonard, William

For your convenience, the RDA-L welcome message is pasted below, including the 
instructions for subscribing to and unsubscribing from this list.


Welcome to RDA-L / Bienvenue à RDA-L
Please keep this message for future reference.
Priere de garder ce message pour référence. (Le français suit le texte anglais).
[snip]

Re: [RDA-L] Consolidated ISBD and RDA double punctuation

[Myers, John F.]

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.

Re: [RDA-L] Signatory to a treaty

[Myers, John F.]

One of aspects of XML, that had great appeal when I initially learned
it, is that data elements themselves can have attributes.  This allows
us to "have our cake and eat it too" when it comes to issues of
transcription and controlled access.  The data could be tagged in its
transcribed form with an attribute using the controlled form, or
alternatively, could be tagged in its controlled form with an attribute
of its transcribed form.  Presumably the controlled forms can then be
used by the machine for indexing and access, while the transcribed forms
can be rendered for display.  I have a vague suspicion that the
controlled/URI form should be the attribute, but my experience with XML
(to say nothing of the realms Karen works in) is sufficiently limited
that I'm not entirely certain -- I'm having a vague glimmer that there
are issues surrounding tag-embedded attributes.
 
For example (and probably not using the best XML mark up, but hopefully
serviceable):
 
New-York
 
Or alternatively,
 

   U.S.A.
   New York (State)
   New York

 
Better yet, swap in some URIs:
 
New-York
or
[URI for N.Y.,
N.Y.]



John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu

-Original Message-
From: Karen Coyle

I  assume we do need to figure out how to distinguish between  
transcribed and not-transcribed, at least in some cases. I'm not sure  
if it always requires a different element, although I suspect you are  
right. 

Re: [RDA-L] Contents of Manifestations as Entities

[Myers, John F.]

Ed is correct, but in which case, there needs to be corresponding rules
addressing summarization of content at the expression level in Ch.6 of
RDA for identifying Works and Expressions.  On cursory review of Ch.6
however, it appears that there are multiple expression attributes
described in FRBR that are not addressed by RDA.  RDA, with respect to
works and expressions, appears only to concern itself with those
attributes that might support creation of access points.  Attributes
that describe an expression without necessarily being used to
distinguish it from other expressions seem to have been left out.

FWIW, I had been relying on crib-notes regarding the FRBR attributes and
had lost sight of the broader scope encompassed by the label
"summarization of content."  Ed's reminder has opened my eyes about the
workings of the model with respect to the particulars of content.  It
makes sense now, in a certain perverse way.  I foresee however that it
will result in a veritable explosion of expressions for a given work.  I
had seen a fairly simple breakdown amongst a few distinguishing
attributes like language (and possibly translator).  Instead, there will
be a multitude of expressions to cover combinations of the "base"
expression with the expressions of ancillary material, which I had
previously seen as occurring at the manifestation level.  This placement
of "summarization of content" at the expression level has some appeal on
the theoretical level.  But I fear it does a great disservice to the
collocation function under the WEMI tree that was one of the appealing
aspects of FRBR -- the welter of manifestation level records will
largely be reproduced at the expression level.

To illustrate, using Karen's Moby Dick example, I had envisioned:

Work 1: Moby Dick
  Expression 1: Moby Dick (English)
Manifestation 1: Moby Dick (with foreword by A; published by X)
Manifestation 2: Moby Dick (with illustrations by B; published
by Y)
Manifestation 3: Moby Dick (with foreword by C; illustrations by
B; published by Z)
 
  Expression 2: Moby Dick (French : Translator 1)
Manifestation 4: Moby Dick (published by P)

  Expression 3: Moby Dick (German : Translator 2)
Manifestation 5: Moby Dick (published by Q)

Instead, this appears to be what we will get:

Work 1: Moby Dick
  Expression 1: Moby Dick (English : with foreword by A)
Manifestation 1: Moby Dick (published by X)

  Expression 2: Moby Dick (English : with illustrations by B)
Manifestation 2: Moby Dick (published by Y)

  Expression 3: Moby Dick (English : with foreword by C; illustrations
by B)
Manifestation 3: Moby Dick (published by Z) 

  Expression 4: Moby Dick (French : Translator 1)
Manifestation 4: Moby Dick (published by P)

  Expression 5: Moby Dick (German : Translator 2)
Manifestation 5: Moby Dick (published by Q)

And what is the benefit of that, other than to split a lot of
information between the expression and manifestation records?  Rather
than finding all of the English language editions nicely gathered
together and then examining the particulars of the manifestations, one
is still going to have to wade through all of them at the expression
level, but without even a clear distinction from the translations like
we have at present under the existing authority record practices.


John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu


-Original Message-
From: Ed Jones

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)

Re: [RDA-L] Contents of Manifestations as Entities

[Myers, John F.]

This is brilliant analysis of the situation.  The JSC and the RDA
testers in the U.S. should give it their strongest consideration.  Karen
has articulated, using general E-R model principles, the underlying
reason for what many of us have intuitively felt -- that contents notes
are not well located in Ch. 25.

She is absolutely correct in identifying a structured or unstructured
contents note as an attribute of the manifestation.  Admittedly, there
are occasions when there are distinct entities within an aggregate work,
and there needs to be mechanisms to address the formal identification of
those relationships.  But Ch. 25 as presently written is offering a very
confusing mix of description and access.  As we move to a Scenario 1
implementation this is another area, along with the issue of ancillary
material raised earlier, where further guidance is warranted with
respect to how far we wish to push the FRBR model -- how far do we
"drill down" in a given manifestation to separate it into constituent
works and entities.

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu


-Original Message-
From: Karen Coyle

I had to take some time to think about this, and to consult with folks  
who know more than me about entity-relationship data, not to mention  
RDF. So where we ended up last was:

Chapter 25 Related works
Scope: "A related work is a work related to the work represented by a
preferred access point (e.g., an adaptation, commentary,
supplement, sequel, or part of a larger work)."

with this as an example:

"Contains: ?Til death do us plots / by
Julianne Bernstein ? Class act / by
Michael Elkin ? Where?s your stuff? / by
Daniel Brenner ? Foot peddler / by
Vivian Green ? Smoke / by Louis
Greenstein ? Single Jewish female / by
Julianne Bernstein ? In spite of
everything / by Hindi Brooks ? Ger (the
convert) / by Leslie B. Gold and Louis
Greenstein ? Golden opportunity / by
Julianne Bernstein ? Interview with a
scapegoat / by Louis Greenstein"

A few key things:

1) Relationships are between entities in ER models. That means that you
have:
   entity -- relationship -- entity
   In RDA/FRBR we have a defined set of entities: Work, Expression,  
Manifestation, Item, Person, Corporate Body, Family, Concept, Object,  
Event, Place
   The above is not an RDA/FRBR entity, therefore it cannot have an  
entity relationship with Work or with anything else, for that matter.  
It could be defined as an attribute of Manifestation -- in other  
words, a Contents note.

[snip]

The bottom line is that one could create an ER set of data using the  
data described in chapter 27, but I cannot see a way to create ER data  
using what appears in Chapter 25.

I'm sorry to bug you all with these details, but if we can't create  
RDA data, then RDA might as well not exist, so I consider this to be  
important. If we are to create RDA data, it appears that there is a  
lot of work that still needs to be done, some of which may point out  
issues of this nature in the text.

Re: [RDA-L] expressions and manifestations

[Myers, John F.]

Not that I disagree with Karen's observation about applying the model.
But in terms of RDA, a contents note of the kind we are used to seeing
generated from AACR2 1.7B18, appears in the Oct. 31, 2008 RDA full draft
on p.10 of Ch.25 in the examples labeled "Structured Description of the
Related Work".  

The rules in Ch.25 refer back to those in Ch.24 addressing the general
guidelines on recording relationships between works, expressions,
manifestations, and items.  Those rules afford various options amongst
formal access points for the works and expressions (i.e. formal
identification at the work and expression level), structured
descriptions (i.e. a structured contents note), or unstructured
descriptions (i.e. an unstructured note).  

FWIW, I find the specific rule under which the example in question
appears, 25.1.1.3, to be one of the more uselessly vague instructions in
the new draft code.

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu


-Original Message-
From: Karen Coyle

Quoting "Myers, John F." :

> You have a question in the first segment about recording contents in
an
> RDA context.  This came up during the review of the drafts, and I
think
> the answer lies in Chapter 25 on related works/relationships between
> works.  Formally, placement there does conform to the FRBR model, but
> pragmatically, as evidenced by the several questions along the lines
of
> "where in RDA are the rules for contents?", I am as yet unconvinced it
> is workable.

There are lots of tables of contents that I don't think of as "related  
or contained works" -- simple chapters in a book that are not expected  
to stand alone as works in their own right. (Think fiction more than  
non-fiction, but it's probably true for both.) It would be very  
awkward to have to create a Work and Expression in order to provide a  
chapter view. In this case, table of contents is a kind of  
description, not a listing of works contained in the manifestation.

kc



-- 
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Re: [RDA-L] expressions and manifestations

[Myers, John F.]

Great drawings!

You have a question in the first segment about recording contents in an
RDA context.  This came up during the review of the drafts, and I think
the answer lies in Chapter 25 on related works/relationships between
works.  Formally, placement there does conform to the FRBR model, but
pragmatically, as evidenced by the several questions along the lines of
"where in RDA are the rules for contents?", I am as yet unconvinced it
is workable.

The differences between the two diagrams illustrate a point that I think
John Attig was making, and I hope that I am not misrepresenting by
paraphrasing as, "one can take the FRBR model a little too far."
Conceptually, yes, each manifestation with separate augmenting material
can be viewed as a manifestation of a new expression that incorporates
that material, and the augmenting materials themselves can be viewed as
works in their own rights.  And I might add that the illustrative matter
could be folded into that view, so where Karen has included the
illustrations in the "primary" expression, they might just as well be
treated as she did the various appendices.

I am not, however, convinced that this is not an overly pedantic
application of the model.  Nor am I convinced that is one that yields
any effective or productive results.  But it gets very deep into
considerations of whole/part that I admittedly have not explored in
great depth.  I can see the merit of treating an aggregation of
resources of equal weight (e.g. a collection of short stories or a music
album of songs) both as an aggregate-work in and of itself, and as an
aggregate of the separate works within it.  In opposition to that
treatment, I would be perfectly happy treating the addition of ancillary
bits to a primary work as merely variations between manifestations.  But
I realize that 1) this is not in strict compliance with the FRBR model,
2) ancillary may be in the eye of the beholder, and 3) these are
strictly my gut feelings that may not be born out in more considered
practice (either by myself or the cataloging community at large).

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu


-Original Message-
From: Karen Coyle


This is a bit experimental, but I have created two livescribe  
(livescribe.com) audio-visual bits attempting to diagram and explain  
the expression/manifestation issue that we have been discussing. I  
apologize for the crudeness of the presentations. You can view them  
here:

http://tiny.cc/V3hKu
http://tiny.cc/AAK6D

Re: [RDA-L] Structure of record

[Myers, John F.]

I am but a novice with the semantic web concepts.  My sense is that a
URI would most effectively work in a web context -- as additional
triples are incorporated into the description, then the "record" is
seamlessly updated whenever it is generated.  Web-connectivity is a very
real issue as Mac points out.  For agencies where this is a significant
concern and who have adequate infrastructure resources, it does not seem
out of the bounds of possibility that a local database of the triples
corresponding to its resources would be maintained -- it would basically
be a massive set of control numbers and the corresponding translations
to the literal string equivalents.  A job could be scripted to
periodically trawl the external web for any updates or changes.

However, that solution wouldn't help us much here, in any case, if the
power goes out since the emergency generator only powers the emergency
lights and the server power supply.  All of our client workstations
(staff and OPAC) are plugged into normal outlets that lack emergency
backup.

Furthermore, with respect to an internet outage, while in-house access
to an in-house server for the catalog might be sustained, we are fast
approaching the point where our remote online holdings will outnumber
our physical holdings.  There will be little point in bewailing the loss
of connectivity to remote URIs describing a resource when the actual
resource itself is equally inaccessible -- "Do you have any bananas?
Yes! We have no bananas."  

Lastly, much of the research using the library's catalog is performed
remotely.  Whether or not we can access the descriptive URIs in-house
will make little difference to remote users who are just as stymied at
getting into our system as we otherwise would be at getting out to the
web.

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu


-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod

John Myers said:
>URI(Particular Manifestation of Moby Dick) -- URI(has Statement of
>Responsibility/is the Statement of Responsibility for) -- URI(Herman
>Melville ; illustrated by Tony Millionaire ; foreword by Nathaniel
>Philbrick.)

Mac asked and observed:
Do these URI's refer to data stored inhouse in a linked file, or data
on the Web?

Yesterday, for the 3rd time in recent weeks, a vehicle hitting power
poles resulted in loss of power to our Internet provider (for five
hours this time).  (The earlier two were overturned logging trucks,
which took some time to clear.)

Re: [RDA-L] Structure of record (was: Question about RDA relationships)

[Myers, John F.]

If I understand things correctly, Dan's example is actually an RDF
triple serving the Work 'Moby Dick'.  To address the Manifestation
issues raised by Mac, one might have:

URI(Particular Manifestation of Moby Dick) -- URI(has Statement of
Responsibility/is the Statement of Responsibility for) -- URI(Herman
Melville ; illustrated by Tony Millionaire ; foreword by Nathaniel
Philbrick.)

The middle URI is taking the place of 245$c, and the initial URI is
taking the place of a record control number.  The "record" for the
manifestation would then be compiled on-the-fly by gathering the cluster
of last URIs associated with the first URI.  Presumably there would be
an RDF triple: URI(Particular Manifestation of Moby Dick) -- URI(is a
manifestation of/is manifested by) -- URI (Particular Expression of Moby
Dick) and a corresponding RDF triple linking the expression to the work.
These would carry forward the controlled headings associated with those
levels of the FRBR model, resulting in a complete description of the
manifestation with respect to its manifestation specific aspects and the
aspects in common at the expression and work level.

There are days when I find this elegant and inspired, there are days
when I am not certain it will be worth the effort, and there are days
when I am just plain scared and intimidated.  

The challenge and salvation of the RDF solution will be the development
of algorithms that will take the bibliographic description of a
manifestation and seamlessly extract the corresponding RDF triples for
the manifestation level, as well as determine the appropriate linkages
to existing URIs for the correct expression or else generate clusters of
RDF triples for the expression and possibly work.  

(All of the above subject to correction by those far more knowledgeable
than I am, i.e. "Karen did I get it close to being right?")


John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu

-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod

Dan Matei said:

>I would prefer something like:
>
>(URI(Moby Dick) -- URI(hasAuthor/isAuthorOf) -- URI(Melville)) -- (who
sa=
>id so) -- (when) -- (based on what)

Mac responded:
So based on this we would know we have listed "a" manifestation of
Moby Dick.  But without an actual transcription of what is *on* the
item, how can we match that description with a particular item in
hand?  

Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)

[Myers, John F.]

But such instances where the WEMI for the library's copy collapse to a
single "thing," then the library catalog should similarly concatenate
the record display to show it as the single item held.  This is an
implementation and display issue, not a FRBR or record issue.  (And I am
aware of the historical difficulties with implementation and display.)

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu


-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod
  
I suspect FRBR will confuse more than help patrons, implying that the
library has items it does not.   Just as most items represent  the
only work/expression/manifestation by a given author, most items in a
collection are the only manifestation of a work in the collection,
apart from Shakespeare and Bach.  

Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J)

[Myers, John F.]

I think what Karen is proposing is a further level of abstraction from
the extensively and dynamically linked records that make up the
"geography" of bibliographic description in scenario 1 to a "geography"
where the bibliographic description has migrated out of records
altogether and into clusters of linked RDF data across the Semantic Web.
Each cluster of linked RDF data would not only be extensively and
dynamically linked, but would also be extensible by the creation of new
RDF triples describing aspects of the resource as new information
becomes known.

Since we have moved from the static scenario 3 to the slightly linked
scenario 2, to the extensively linked scenario 1, then the next level of
abstraction logically would be scenario 0.



John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu


-Original Message-
From: Bernhard Eversberg

But what, BTW, is scenario 0?

Karen Coyle wrote:
> Which is why I'm exploring the possibility of a "recordless" view -- 
which would consist of short statements ("Jane is author of Book") that 
are each valid, and can be combined with other statements to build up to

a complete bibliographic description. I don't know yet if this is 
possible. It would use semantic web concepts, not the RDA scenario 1, 
but perhaps scenario 0. 

Re: [RDA-L] Systems v Cataloging was: RDA and granularity

[Myers, John F.]

At the risk of showing my ignorance on the topic, it's not so much
getting "info from MARC" -- as Daniel's quip indicates there are a few
thousand ILSes doing fine with it.  The issue is making the information
actionable by other machines.  I might add that not all of the
shortcomings are MARC's fault but also of the cataloging codes that are
used to populate a MARC record. 

As an example, consider the FRBR expression entity.  A significant
aspect in textual works between expressions is translation.  We do have
a 240 field to record that, but since the application of the rules for
Uniform titles were left to the discretion of the cataloging agency,
indication of an expression for a translation can also appear in a
translation note recorded in tag 500, sometimes in conjunction with the
240 but oftentimes alone (as several thousand records in my catalog will
attest).  Now, if this data were consistently recorded in the 240 (both
with respect to the format and to the application of use of the 240),
then machine FRBR-ization of these records for translations would be
relatively simple.  

In the present circumstances however, with the existing mix of
treatments, it is much, much more complicated.  Having attempted to
duplicate solo translation notes into corresponding 240 tags, I have
learned there are no simple solutions.  I have to manually copy,
interpret, and edit the data due to the free-text nature of the note.  I
could employ a few programming tricks to simplify some of the tasks, but
I would still need to review so much of the resulting edits that my
current manual method is no less inefficient than a (partially)
programmed approach.  My manual approach is on the edge of practicality
(although I'm not sure which side), when I start with a file of about 4k
culled from a database of about 300k.  Any larger sets would likely be
unfeasible.

Doubtless others will have more cogent examples but I hope this gives a
hint as to the problem.

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Frances, Melodie

Can anyone explain WHY it's so hard to get info from MARC? 

Re: [RDA-L] Systems v Cataloging was: RDA and granularity

[Myers, John F.]

Yes, that has been a big part of the learning curve, that what passed
for "machine readable" in the 1960s no longer passes for "machine
readable" in the 21st century.  MARC as cataloging is more "machine
conveyable" than "machine readable" in that it still largely requires
human parsing for operating on the data.  I credit Karen Coyle and her
colleague Diane Hillmann for opening my eyes to the opportunities that
could be realized by machine parsing and handling of data (especially
large quantities of data).

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of McGrath, Kelley C.

I think perhaps this makes more sense if you understand that what is
meant by "machine readable" is more like "machine interpretable" or
"machine comprehensible." Certainly, machines can read and index a MARC
record in an ILS, but the information that is encoded in a way that a
machine can take action on it easily and reliably is a much smaller
proportion of what's in a MARC record.

Kelley McGrath
Ball State University
kmcgr...@bsu.edu

-Original Message-
From: Daniel CannCasciato 

Jonathan Rochkind quoting some Google Books person wrote:
"the first thing we discovered was that the 'machine readable' part of
the MARC acronym was not so much so."

A few thousand library systems out there to the contrary?

Re: [RDA-L] Systems v Cataloging was: RDA and granularity

[Myers, John F.]

Daniel CannCasciato wrote:

Karen Coyle wrote in part:

" all of the needs are user needs . . . "

Brava!


Jim Weinheimer replied:
Pardons, but this is not correct. If we are to manage the collection
(whatever "the collection" happens to be), we will need tools, and some
of these tools will be designed for library use and not for the users.
---

And my reply to Jim's concern is that "users" are neither a monolithic
body nor a solely external body.  Our metadata simultaneously serves the
needs of ourselves, our cataloging peers with whom we share it, our
public service peers (reference and circulation) to whom we present it,
and our external library communities in all their flavors.  All of these
constituencies represent "users" of some sort.


John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu

Re: [RDA-L] Systems v Cataloging was: RDA and granularity

[Myers, John F.]

Karen, 

I'm not going to disagree with you, but I will confess some confusion
about what you are saying, since my impression of one of the purposes of
RDA was to extract it as a content-only standard from the muddle in
AACR2 which itself inherits the mixed content/carrier/display framework
of ISBD.  I am reasonably confident that you are not arguing for a
return to a monolithic content/carrier/display standard (although maybe
you are), but at first read that appears to be the direction you are
headed.

Can you explain more about your desire for cataloging and system to be
integrated?

Thanks,


John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle

I am going to suggest that we can not take the position that "systems"  
and "cataloging" have different needs, or even that they are different  
activities. This is a mistaken idea that arose from the unique  
situation of MARC vis-a-vis AACR, which was itself an historical  
accident. When computers came into being, cataloging was already fixed  
as an activity, and therefore MARC was developed as a record format  
separate from what the profession called "cataloging." This is quite  
dysfunctional.

[snip]
A primary purpose of producing the registered RDA values is to create  
a unified system of rules and data elements, precisely to overcome our  
previous split between cataloging and systems. There should be a  
single set of goals, not "cataloging" goals and "system" goals. If one  
anticipates, for example, allowing users to modify their searches by  
language or date, those elements must be in the catalog record -- not  
the "system record", which I maintain should not exist as a separate  
thing. There should be only one, unified view.

Re: [RDA-L] RDA and granularity

[Myers, John F.]

These granularity issues are not new.  The granularity of MARC does not
match the granularity of AACR2/ISBD.  

The most glaring case of MARC being insufficiently granular is the well
known case of the 245$b being required to code for the "parallel title"
(AACR2 1.1D), "other title information" (AACR2 1.1E), and "additional
individually titled works" (AARC2 1.1G3).  

In most other cases MARC is more granular or allows encoding of data
elements not found in AACR2, since MARC supports the communication of
records formulated according to descriptive standards besides AACR2.
For example, to draw from the cited title subfielding, the $f and $g
subfields support elements from archival descriptive standards.  

The number and name of the subpart issue is a matter of inconsistent
granularity within AACR2.  In ISBD, RDA, and AACR2 these form part of
the title proper, but AACR2 formally treats them as distinct
sub-elements that are subsequently coded as such within MARC.  RDA and
ISBD are intellectually consistent with their granularity, addressing
them under the context of the title proper.  (And this raises an
interesting implication/question -- should RDA based descriptions eschew
the use of 245$n and $p within MARC coding?)

I am afraid that these standing granularity issues between the various
descriptive standards (AACR2, ISBD, RDA, DACS, etc.) and between each
descriptive standard and the communication standard (MARC or MARC21) are
going to play havoc with the visions of easy machine processing (at
least to the best of my vague understanding of those visions).

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle


Deborah Fritz pointed out to me over coffee at ALA that there is a  
significant difference in granularity between the RDA elements, as  
defined by JSC, and what we have today in MARC. I will try to give one  
simple example here, using Title Proper, but I'm sure there are many  
others. The questions that arise for me are:
1) is the granularity of MARC necessary/functional?
2) is the granularity of RDA sufficient? or is it expected that  
systems will develop greater granularity than the RDA elements?

*
RDA: Title proper
RDA: Other title information
RDA: Statement of responsibility

MARC: 245
$a - Title
$b - Remainder of title
$c - Statement of responsibility
$f - Inclusive dates
$g - Bulk dates
$h - Medium
$k - Form
$n - Number of part/section of a work
$p - Name of part/section of a work
$s - Version

**

Now, given my vague understanding of this level of detail in  
cataloging, I don't know if these "elements" are no longer valid in  
RDA, or if they are included but not designated as separate elements.  
At least the part/section information seems to be included in RDA as  
part of the title proper: (2.3.1.7)

"If the title of the part, section, or supplement is preceded by an  
enumeration or alphabetic designation, record the common title,  
followed by the enumeration or designation, followed by the title of  
the part, section, or supplement. Use a full stop to separate the  
common title from the enumeration or alphabetic designation, and a  
comma to separate the enumeration or alphabetic designation from the  
title of the part, section, or supplement."

Re: [RDA-L] 040$erda

[Myers, John F.]

If I recall the discussions, the original thought of coding 'r' for RDA
in the LDR/18 exposed the Anglo-centricity of the LDR/18 value 'a' for
AACR2, when all of the other national cataloging codes were relegated to
040 $e.  Also working from memory, RDA records that are not ISBD
punctuated will be coded blank.  

It is likely that the Desc byte, LDR/18 will come to take on a primary
purpose of coding not the Descriptive code but rather the Display with
respect to application of ISBD punctuation.  This seemed one of the
implications that arose in the discussions of Discussion Paper
2010-DP01.  Post RDA implementation, I would not be surprised if the 'a'
value became vestigial or artifactual in some sense.  There are some
steps at data conversion that would logically follow in order to make
the LDR/18 and 040$e stuff internally consistent with respect to coding
for AACR2, but I suspect that energies would be more profitably be spent
looking forward at that point.

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod

Thanks to those of you who reminded me about 040$erda to indicate RDA
records.  A code in LDR/18 (r?) whould make sorting for export easier
for us.  I wonder why this departure from past practice?  What code
will those following RDA without ISBD punctuation use in LDR/18?

Re: [RDA-L] Instruction

[Myers, John F.]

This question came up at the RDA program held on July 11, at ALA Annual in 
Chicago.  I will repeat the response I gave from the audience (with some 
caveats since the U.S. only teaches Library Science at the graduate level).  
 
As educators, it is our responsibility to educate our students.  This is 
different from training.  Training in the use of a particular tool has its 
place in providing a concrete application of the principles we convey.  But it 
is not the end all and be all of our efforts, nor should it be so for our 
students.
 
We frequently make a choice already on which of two competing classification 
schemes we wish to focus.  But the principles of classification remain the 
same, even if the particulars of the schemes may differ.  Likewise, the 
principles of description and access remain the same.  We describe resources 
using an element set so that a user with a known item in mind can match what is 
known with the record presented, or the user without a known item can match 
what is in the record with what is found (on the shelf or in the digital 
ether).  Assignment of access points provides the keys by which users of all 
stripes may locate the description in the particular database/catalog they are 
using.  Understanding these principles allows us to transition between 
different rule sets, whether it be AACR2 to RDA or to DACS, CCO, or RBMS.  This 
understanding should also transcend issues of which encoding format is 
employed, whether it be ISBD punctuation on a card, MARC, Dublin Core, etc.
 
Believe it or not, RDA is based on AACR2, and in particular on a logical 
analysis of AACR2 performed by Tom Delsey in the years before he became the RDA 
editor.  This analysis led to the content model which coupled with the 
conceptual models of FRBR and FRAD led to RDA.  Students educated in the 
principles of description and access and in the conceptual models of  FRBR and 
FRAD should be able to make the leap from AACR2 training to RDA application.
 
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 Brian Rountree


Since we have a new set of students this coming Sept. should I start
training them on RDA now, or wait until the next group in Sept. 2011 [we
have an intake every 2 years]?

Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA

[Myers, John F.]

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access on 
behalf of Weinheimer Jim

 
Perhaps I am completely off base, but I do not believe I am talking about 
relationships here, I am talking about some new types of entities that do not 
seem to fit the WEMI theoretical framework. These new things I discussed do not 
seem to me to fit in very comfortably to work, expression, manifestation, or 
item. They seem to be completely different animals.

--
 
Do these new things/entities have a name?  Do they have a definition? 
 
 
Is there any relationship between them and the model under discussion?  To 
previous cataloging theories?  That is, where do they fit into the structures 
we are used to?   Or are they entirely incompatible with previous thinking?  
 
 
Do we need to replace bibliocentric thinking with datum-centric thinking (like 
geocentrism was replaced by heliocentrism)?  Or can the approaches live 
side-by-side to address different levels of granularity at which users can 
operate (like quantum and Newtonian mechanics for sub-atomic and super-atomic 
interactions)?  
 
 
I can see from James and others' posts that something interesting is going on 
with full-text, digital access and the use of search engines.  I can also see 
that others have something interesting to describe concerning the semantic web. 
 I get glimmers that RDA seems to be leveraging FRBR to tap into the latter 
(setting aside concerns over the possible success or failure of that endeavor). 
 But I do not see what proponents of the former would like to accomplish, what 
their plan is to accomplish it, what libraries' place will be in it, and by 
extension what the role of the cataloging community will be.  
 
 
I get the point that hand-crafted metadata is not sustainable in a digital 
environment.  (Not happy, but get it.)  FRBR/RDA seem to offer the hope of 
guiding the evolution/development of machine-assisted metadata.  The "full-text 
rules/datum snippet/mash-up" approach seems only to offer oblivion.
 
John Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
Schenectady NY 12308
mye...@union.edu
518-388-6623

Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA

[Myers, John F.]

Jonathan Leybovich has cited FRBR chapter and verse for this treatment.  To be 
honest, I have not entirely been comfortable with this since my first exposure 
to FRBR.  I've learned to accede to it.  The best way that I've managed to get 
my head around it is to consider that the change in format requires such 
additional intellectual and creative contribution, that a new work is 
constituted.  Barbara Tillett has a wonderful slide in her FRBR presentations 
and in her pamphlet issued by LC, "What is FRBR" 
(http://www.loc.gov/cds/downloads/FRBR.PDF), that illustrates the continuum 
between original work and subsequent products in it's "family".  "What is FRBR" 
is an excellent introduction to the topic, by the way.  Mac has offered a 
pragmatic approach -- if the choice of main entry changes, a different work is 
involved.
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 Christoph Schmidt-Supprian
Excuse my ignorance, but why are the film and the novel two different works? 

Re: [RDA-L] Please i need your help

[Myers, John F.]

I believe this is a fake:
http://www.bauer-power.net/2007/12/nigerians-are-at-it-again-this-time.html
 
Marjorie should be at the JSC meeting in Chicago, not a fictitious AIDS 
conference in Malaysia.
 
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 Marjorie Bloss
Sent: Thu 3/19/2009 5:59 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Please i need your help


I am in a hurry writing you this message, i don't have much time on the pc 
here, so i have to brief you my present situation which requires your urgent 
response. Actually, I had a trip to Malaysia for a program called "Empowering 
Youth to Fight Racism, HIV/AIDS, Poverty and Lack of Education, the program is 
taking place in three major countries in Asia which are Taiwan, Singapore and 
Malaysia. But unfortunately for me, my little bag where my money, passport, 
document's and other valuable things got stolen at the hotel where i lodged due 
to a robbery incident that happened in the hotel. I have been so restless since 
last night, the present condition that i found myself is very hard for me to 
explain, I am really stranded here because i have been without any money, i am 
even owing the hotel here as well, moreover the Hotel's telephone lines here 
got disconnected by the robbers and they are trying to get them fixed back. I 
have access to only emails at the library because they also took my cell phone 
which i have all my contacts. I am now owing a hotel bill of $1,400 and they 
wanted me to pay the bill soon. I need this help from you urgently to help me 
back home, I need you to help me with the hotel bill and i will also need 
$2,000 to feed and help myself back home. So please can you help me with a sum 
of $3,400 USD to sort out my problems here. I am sending you this email from 
the city Library, I will appreciate what so ever you can afford to send me for 
now and I promise to pay back your money as soon as i return home. So please 
use the details of one of the hotel managers below to send the money to me 
through Western Union money transfer because that is the only way i could be 
able to get it fast and leave since he has a valid ID to pick up the money for 
me from the western union office here. These are the details below
  
Name: Asantewaa Faustina Adwoa
Address: 29B Jalan Loke Yew, Bandar Melaka, Malaysia
Text question: To whom
Answer: Marjorie Bloss
 
After you have send the money, email to me the western union money transfer 
control number or you can attach and forward to me the western union money 
transfer receipt so that i can pick up the money fast and leave.
 
Thanks and get back to me soon.

Cordially,
 
Marjorie 

Re: [RDA-L] OFFRE!!! OFFRE!!!

[Myers, John F.]

One might conjecture that with the recent server migration for this list that 
the list profile or list filters were not transferred with entire success 
during the process.  I would imagine that Nathalie is in conversation with the 
good people at LAC in order to resolve the situation.
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 Ayad Yedri, Samira
Sent: Thu 3/12/2009 6:26 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] OFFRE!!! OFFRE!!!



Hi everybody,

Does anybody know why we are receiving this e-mail? I know that this is a hoax 
so what does it have to do with RDA. Thanks.

 



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of cooltime...@club-internet.fr
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 3:10 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] OFFRE!!! OFFRE!!!

 

Bonjour,
Je suis le prince AL WALEED membre de la famille royale saoudienne , [snip]

Re: [RDA-L] DA meetings at ALA Midwinter

[Myers, John F.]

Yes, apologies, the Monday meeting is the 26th.  
 
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 Lovins, Daniel
Sent: Sun 1/18/2009 1:31 PM
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] DA meetings at ALA Midwinter



Second meeting must be Monday the **26th**, right?


Thanks.

Daniel

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:rd...@infoserv.nlc-bnc.ca] On Behalf Of Myers, John F.
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 11:57 AM
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] CC:DA meetings at ALA Midwinter

For those attending the ALA MidWinter meeting in Denver, the CC:DA meetings are:
Saturday, January 24, 1:30-5:30 p.m., Marriott Colorado Ballroom F
Monday, January 29, 8:00 a.m.-noon, Marriott Colorado Ballroom F

Note that a tentatively scheduled Friday afternoon meeting has been cancelled.

Regards,
John Myers, Chair, CC:DA

John Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
Schenectady NY 12308
mye...@union.edu
518-388-6623

[RDA-L] CC:DA meetings at ALA Midwinter

[Myers, John F.]

For those attending the ALA MidWinter meeting in Denver, the CC:DA meetings are:
Saturday, January 24, 1:30-5:30 p.m., Marriott Colorado Ballroom F
Monday, January 29, 8:00 a.m.-noon, Marriott Colorado Ballroom F

Note that a tentatively scheduled Friday afternoon meeting has been cancelled.

Regards,
John Myers, Chair, CC:DA

John Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
Schenectady NY 12308
mye...@union.edu
518-388-6623

[RDA-L] ALCTS webform for U.S. comment on the Complete Draft of RDA

[Myers, John F.]

Greetings, and apologies for cross posting and to non-U.S. subscribers.
Please forward to appropriate and interested parties and lists.

 

As recently announced by the Joint Steering Committee for the
Development of RDA (JSC), the complete draft of RDA is available for
review at: http://www.rdaonline.org/constituencyreview.  

 

Each national constituency of the JSC has a mechanism for providing
comments.  In the United States (exclusive of the Library of Congress,
which reports directly through its own JSC rep), this is through the
liaisons to CC:DA or through a webform offered by the Association for
Library Collections and Technical Services (ALCTS).  This form is now
available at: https://cs.ala.org/alcts/RDA_Form/rda_form.cfm
 .  There is also a link
to it via the CC:DA homepage at:
http://www.libraries.psu.edu/tas/jca/ccda/index.html (see the
"Announcing" block in the upper right).

 

 

Thank you,

John Myers, CC:DA Chair

 

 

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian

Schaffer Library, Union College

807 Union St.

Schenectady NY 12308

 

518-388-6623

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 

Re: [RDA-L] True history of AACR2

[Myers, John F.]

Delightful reading!

I see though that the history of AACR was populated by early missteps,
issues with the efforts of a least one of the editors, concern regarding
the financial implications of implementation, resistance to a new
underlying bibliographic framework, and resistance generally to the new
code.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [RDA-L] libraries, society and RDA

[Myers, John F.]

The issue is that we hide our catalog records in our catalogs.  While the 
public face of those catalogs is a WebOPAC, this is only an html based 
interface to the catalog data, an interface that is inherently self contained.  
The actual records are not searchable via a search originating on the open web. 
 That is, I can't google or yahoo "Gone with the Wind" along with my locale to 
discover that my local library has a copy of the book or the movie available.  
 
If I have understood anything that Diane Hillmann has said over the past few 
years it's that this segregation of our catalog records from the larger web is 
possibly the greatest threat to our relevance in the future.  We will be like 
that island in Dr. Doolittle that breaks off from the mainland and floats, 
lost, unknown and locked in time, while the rest of the world moves forward.  
Second to that is the insistence on creating catalog records that, at their 
core, are still only visually parsable.  This needs to be rectified by the 
creation of cataloging standards and data structures that offer the ability to 
use programming to machine harvest data, then manipulate and insert it into 
well formed catalog record shells.  This is necessary, not only to address the 
productivity issues surrounding the explosion of digital resources, but also to 
keep cataloging current with evolving information management practices which 
have grown more sophisticated than the essentially linear data structures we 
inherited from the card catalog and that we use MARC to recreate.  
 
We made a huge stride when we went from reproducing a description for each 
access point in a card catalog to using online systems to build indexes that 
pointed to a single copy of that description, but where each description holds 
copies of the access points.  It is time to evolve to the next level, where 
there is a single copy of each of the access points and then the descriptions 
point to them (and probably more that I haven't quite comprehended yet).  
 
Of course half the time I don't quite follow all the ins and outs and another 
third of the time I'm afraid that my profession is going to morph beyond 
recognition (and possibly my abilities).  But the sixth of the time that I 
really get it, I'm excited enough to hope.
 
(With apologies if I've wandered somewhat from the initial premise or if I've 
misrepresented Diane.)
 
John Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
Schenectady NY 12308
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
518-388-6623



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access on 
behalf of Miksa, Shawne
[snip]
This idea of "hoarding" and "hiding" is difficult to understand as it makes it 
sound as if librarians, and especially those who catalog, are cave dwellers who 
can't speak. 

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR user tasks

[Myers, John F.]

Forgive this simple country cataloger (well, ok, I presently happen to
chair CC:DA as well), but I've looked at the FRBR user tasks.  To my
perception they are but a further generalization and level of
abstraction of Cutter's Objects, adapted to an information universe
where there are multiple carriers and access modes to information beyond
the book.  Cutter's objects served us well as information providers and
in my experience as information users.  I somehow managed to navigate
the research needs of some 18 years of education with the support of an
information profession bolstered by 8 simple statements.  Further, most
of my needs were met by objects 2ii and 2iii -- to show what the library
has on a given subject, ... in a given literature.  Believe me, I am
sufficiently headstrong that if I thought those were "known item"
searches, I would seriously have questioned the point of all those years
of education.  But surely, knowledge that one needs information on a
given topic does not constitute a "known item search".  So I have to
ask, what is so deficient about the 21st century restatement of Cutter's
Objects?

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:

They are, but only for the known-item search and its corollaries.

Quoting Kevin M. Randall:
> The FRBR user tasks are nothing new at all, and I maintain as always
> that they are essentially timeless and universal.

Re: [RDA-L] The Person entity [was: Comments from Martha M. Yee ... 1 of 2]

[Myers, John F.]

-Original Message-
Karen Coyle wrote:

And your definition of "person" will determine what these relevant data
elements are, and what you can do with this data.  If you your persons
are bibliographic entities then they can't interact with data about
"real" persons (LDAP databases, the copyright renewal database, the
social security death index, etc.) unless somewhere a clear
connection is made between the bibliographic and the non-bibliographic
identities. This is why I am concerned about limiting ourselves just to
name forms - it limits what we can do with our data.

Perhaps Person is the wrong term for this entity and the name should
reflect its nature as a bibliographic concept.

Then again, we still have to deal with the "actual person as subject"
case. People do write biographies about the real people behind the
bibliographic identities. I don't think this is the same entity as the
bibliographic "persona" yet we are using the same entity for both. This
is probably where my dis-ease comes in.
-

[Myers]:  I guess I am relying on FRAD to identify the attributes of the
person entity and RDA to spell them out as data elements.  Further, I
think that Chapter 30 of the December 2007 RDA draft would address
concerns about the relationship between the bibliographic and
non-bibliographic entities.  The scope note at 30.1.0.1.2 says, "Related
persons include separate identities for the same individual."  So there
would be entity records, for instance, for both Lewis Carroll and
Charles L. Dodgson, with a relationship between the entity represented
by the pseudonym and the entity represented by the legal name.

As we transition from a cataloging environment and cataloging rules that
were primarily focused on heading construction to this new
entity-relationship model and supporting code, there does seem to be a
focus on "name forms" in the rules, and an inelegant one at that, if I
may be so bold.  However, there are other important attributes that are
now being addressed formally, in terms of the record content, for the
first time.  There have been discussions, much better expressed than I
can convey here, as to whether the heading/name form is properly an
attribute of the entity or just a (possibly) unique agglomeration of
selected attributes.  It is my hope that the JSC will provide both for
some clarifying revisions to Chapter 9 and resolving the place of the
identifying heading within the entity record framework.

Fervently hoping we are not talking to cross purposes,

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[RDA-L] The Person entity [was: Comments from Martha M. Yee ... 1 of 2]

[Myers, John F.]

-Original Message-
Karen Coyle wrote:

Actually my big concern is that the entity Person may make sense as a
subject but we don't have persons as creators, only personal names. That
name may be a pseudonym used by two actual human beings, or there could
be many names associated with one person. So the Person entity doesn't
seem to fit well into our cataloging world view in the creator/agent
role.
-
[Myers]: I will confess I am having difficulty understanding Karen's
concerns.  Bibliographically, we have historically had only headings and
cross references in our catalogs, which were then supported by authority
files in card or MARC format.  The Person has only existed in the
bibliographic sense and context, whether creating under an identity that
matched their personal identity or under a pseudonymous or conjoined
identity.  The entity structure of FRBR-FRAD and RDA in a scenario 1
implementation takes this to a new level of generalization and
integration but doesn't seem to commit great violence to that
"cataloging world view".

To my thinking, each manifestation will have a statement of
responsibility as an attribute, recorded in the manifestation entity
record.  Based on that attribute, the manifestation entity record will
link to the corresponding personal (corporate, conference) entity
record(s).  Those Group 2 entity records will record as their attributes
the various relevant data elements.  Depending on the implementation
scenario, headings will be hard coded in the Group 2 entity record or
machine generated from those elements (that is, we will record the
strings formerly known as headings into the entity record or the machine
will construct them on-the-fly when creating displays).

Does this illuminate the situation, represent erroneous thinking, or
lack applicability to the discussion?

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [RDA-L] Expression and Manifestation

[Myers, John F.]

An event is a Group 3 entity.  But I suspect that the original poster is
using shorthand to refer to the sound recording of Karajan's direction
of the Berlin Philharmonic performing Beethoven's 9th.

In a full entity-relationship implementation it is possible (likely?)
that distinctions between authority and bibliographic records will be
blurred.  There will be entity records to describe the instances of
entities in Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3.  What we conceive of as
"bibliographic records" could correspond to the entity records for
manifestations, but it is entirely possible that "bibliographic
descriptions" as we currently consider them would be generated
on-the-fly, drawing on the relationships between a set of specific Group
1, Group 2, and Group 3 entities.  We are making the next evolutionary
step from a linear card file where each access point required a copy of
the description to a linear electronic file where the access points in
one description were stored in various indexes to a non-linear network
of records where the description is assembled from them.

Regarding fragmentation, we have long been comfortable with a given
degree of granularity to bibliographic resources and a roughly analogous
granularity to our bibliographic descriptions.  The digital age in which
we find ourselves has made apparent the shakiness of our assumptions of
bibliographic indivisibility.  The ability to divide and recombine
content at will is driving the fragmentation; our modeling and
description must correspondingly work at an appropriate scale.  But the
fragmentation of our models is the response, not the cause.  It is
somewhat analogous to
be the emergence of quantum mechanics.  We similarly are learning to
divide the bibliographic universe into small quanta and rooting around
in how they interact and relate to each other.  But after this period of
exploration, it is highly likely that bibliographic description will
settle down into something familiar, much as macroscopic physical
interactions still obey Newtonian physics.


John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-Original Message-
J. McRee Elrod wrote:

>The realization of Beethoven's 9th by Berlin Philharmonic directed by
>Karajan would be an expression.

Ummm.  From the bibliographic point of view, is an *event* any of the
FRBR concepts?  The recording, not the performance; the exhibition
catalogue, not the exhibit; would be the expression/manifestation
would it not?  An event becomes a heading in the authority file, not a
work/expression/manifestation record in the bibliographic file does it
not?

Perhaps I'll just shut SLC down rather than cope with this!  How long
do I have before this fragmentation of the bibliographic universe?


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] The question of meaning

[Myers, John F.]

Excellent point!  I just ran across this kind of thing the other day.  I
was nosing around in Eighteenth Century Collections Online (ECCO) to
verify which edition (if I may be forgiven for outmoded terminology) of
a title we had, since ours was lacking the title page and the last
gathering.  In the end I was able to make the match to an OCLC record
with this extent statement: [4], 388, [6] p.  But the ECCO extent: 398
p.  I almost contacted them to correct their record until I did the
addition.

Much as it would deviate from our current practice for books, I would
have greatly desired RDA to make the principled leap to stick with the
unit level for the extent of all resources.  Our historical pagination
rules for books properly belong as an optional subunit amplification on
the unit.  Yes, we would get results like 1 v. (xii, 392 p.) or even
just 1 v., but the data structure would be much more consistent with the
existing 2 v. and 1 v. (unpaged) treatment of books, to say nothing of 1
video recording (72 min.), etc.

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-Original Message-
Karen Coyle wrote:
[snip]

These are fairly clear: number + unit. Then you get:

   viii, 278 pages

This could be interpreted as:
   viii pages
   278 pages

But it has another meaning, which is that it is also conveying (I could
say primarily conveying) the PAGINATION, that is, how the pages are
numbered. Pagination is important for distinguishing editions, so this
is good information, but it isn't the same as the number of pages in the
item -- especially not to a computer.

Re: [RDA-L] Expression and Manifestation

[Myers, John F.]

In my post below I offered a development of a FRBR hierarchy that of
course is simplistic and hypothetical.  This lovely world of ours
refuses however to be confined to the little boxes we create for it and
could offer the following scenarios:

Anachronistic issues aside, our symphony is originally recorded in the
early 1960s and is simultaneously issued on mono and stereo LPs.  This
could qualify as differences in physical carrier, resulting in two
manifestations.  But perhaps it could be argued that the mono soundtrack
is an abridgement of the full expression and thereby constitutes a new
expression?

Fast forward 30 years and a new company purchases the rights to the
original stereo soundtrack and in the process of digitizing it does some
restoration work.  It then issues it on CD with a new set of liner
notes.  One could view the CD as merely a new manifestation of the
expression that was embodied in the original soundtrack.  Or has the
restoration work introduced new contributions that qualify as a new
expression?  Furthermore, do we disregard the change in the liner notes?
Or do we carry our FRBR conceptualization farther to realize that the
original LP and liner notes together represented a collective work
comprised of 2 works - the symphony itself and the liner notes - making
the CD reissue a new collective work comprised of the symphony and the
new liner notes?  In AACR2 we touch on this scenario under 1.1G,
although in the context of lacking a collective title.

Heartened by the success of the re-issue, the original orchestra puts
the symphony back into its repertoire.  A video recording and soundtrack
of a new performance are made, with respective issuances of each on DVD
and CD.  Do the visual aspects of the video recording constitute a new
work?  Or is the video recording two works -- the visual imagery and the
soundtrack?  What is the CD a manifestation of?  Does it trace its FRBR
lineage as an expression of the visual work or as an expression of the
symphonic work, or as both?  Would the answers be different if you were
only aware of the CD and not the video recording?

I suspect these questions or ones similar to them have been posed by
others.  Some might argue that these questions point to the
unworkability of the FRBR model.  I would argue differently, that they
merely highlight the challenges of translating a conceptual model into a
workaday application.  We have to remember that models are intentionally
a simplification of the real world to afford a better understanding.  As
a model, FRBR is highly successful if it forces us to re-examine and
reconsider the bibliographic relationships involved with the examples
above.  We just need to be careful to ask and answer these kinds of
questions before implementing a working code based on the FRBR model.
The code will need to provide the demarcations (or at least guidance)
between instances when different manifestations represent the embodiment
of the same or different expressions, and instances when different
manifestations embody expressions that are the realization of the same
or different works.

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-Original Message-
I wrote:

I suspect that the addition of intellectual content in the form of music
to create "Fast food nation the symphony" would render it a new, though
related, work - W2

The realization of W2 by Orchestra X would be an expression
(contribution of performance aspects) - E1
The realization of W2 by Orchestra Y would be another expression
(contribution of different performance aspects) - E2

The embodiment of E1 on CD would be a manifestation (one physical
carrier) - M1
The embodiment of E1 on LP would be another manifestation (different
physical carrier) - M2

The copy of M1 that you bought is the item -- I1
The copy of M1 that you checked out from the library is another item --
I2

John Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
Schenectady NY 12308
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
518-388-6623
___

Katherine Jane Howard wrote:

In Karen's examples below, I would suggest that "Fast Food Nation: The
Symphony" would be an Expression.  The version by the Berlin
Philharmonic Orchestra conducted by Sir Simon Rattle would be a
Manifestation.  The copy of that recording on Deutsche Grammophon
available in your local library would be an "Item".

Happy to be corrected!

Quoting Karen Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> So: Fast Food Nation [note: I made up the part about revised edition]
>
> Actual-factual paperback sitting on my shelf: Item
> Paperback: Manifestation
> Hardcover: Manifestation
> Unabridged audiobook: Manifestation [right..?]
> Abridged audiobook: ? Expression?
> Pback + hardcover + audiobook, same imprint, no changes (or maybe a
> corrected index..?): Expression
> Significantly revised edition, pback, hardcover, audiobook: New
> expression
> All expres

Re: [RDA-L] Expression and Manifestation

[Myers, John F.]

I suspect that the addition of intellectual content in the form of music
to create "Fast food nation the symphony" would render it a new, though
related, work - W2

 

The realization of W2 by Orchestra X would be an expression
(contribution of performance aspects) - E1

The realization of W2 by Orchestra Y would be another expression
(contribution of different performance aspects) - E2

 

The embodiment of E1 on CD would be a manifestation (one physical
carrier) - M1

The embodiment of E1 on LP would be another manifestation (different
physical carrier) - M2

 

The copy of M1 that you bought is the item -- I1

The copy of M1 that you checked out from the library is another item --
I2

 

 

John Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
Schenectady NY 12308
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
518-388-6623

 



Katherine Jane Howard wrote:



In Karen's examples below, I would suggest that "Fast Food Nation: The
Symphony" would be an Expression.  The version by the Berlin
Philharmonic Orchestra conducted by Sir Simon Rattle would be a
Manifestation.  The copy of that recording on Deutsche Grammophon
available in your local library would be an "Item".

Happy to be corrected!


Quoting Karen Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> So: Fast Food Nation [note: I made up the part about revised edition]
>
> Actual-factual paperback sitting on my shelf: Item
> Paperback: Manifestation
> Hardcover: Manifestation
> Unabridged audiobook: Manifestation [right..?]
> Abridged audiobook: ? Expression?
> Pback + hardcover + audiobook, same imprint, no changes (or maybe a
> corrected index..?): Expression
> Significantly revised edition, pback, hardcover, audiobook: New
> expression
> All expressions: the Work
> The movie... ??
> A symphony... ???
>
> Is that at least partly right?
>

Re: [RDA-L] Questions about RDA

[Myers, John F.]

Well said Karen!!  I would add the two following points:

 

1)  Edition is a very print-centric concept and we are trying to apply
FRBR and its Group 1 entities across a broad spectrum of bibliographic
resources, like music and moving images, to which "edition" is not
appropriate terminology.

 

2) Edition, even within the confines of printed material, is variously
applied to resources that might qualify as works, expressions, or
manifestations in the hierarchy of FRBR Group 1 entities. 

 

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian

Schaffer Library, Union College

807 Union St.

Schenectady NY 12308

 

518-388-6623

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Karen Schneider
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 8:46 AM
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Questions about RDA

 

The FRBR term 'expression,' for what AACR2 defined as a type of reprint,
represents a concept to which a specific name had not been given before.
Other terms used in RDA, 

however, represent concepts which already have well established names.
Would it make the use of the code easier if the established name were
used instead of a new name for the same concept? For example, should the
term 'edition' be used instead of 'manifestation?'

 

Please forgive (and correct) me if my interpretation of FRBR is too
crude and reductive, or simply wrongheaded, but what struck me as I read
the most excellent "FRBR: A Guide for the Perplexed" last week (Robert
Maxwell, ALA 2008) is that it's not that "expression" is a concept
without a specific name, it's a concept that however implicit in our
culture has not been articulated in AACR2-a new, henceforth previously
nameless idea, and one so foreign to our current system design that what
organizations testing FRBR are referring to "FRBR problems" are, I am
beginning to suspect, examples of the gaps in our conceptual
infrastructure. Maxwell documents what he calls "grassroots" efforts to
express the implicit-he notes that in AACR days there was the common
practice of noting a different format through a long dash on a catalog
card, and mentions that recent efforts to include different
manifestations on the same record are part of the same activity. 

 

The concept of "manifestation" goes so much farther than the attribute
of "Edition/Issue designation" (FRBR 4.3.3 - I googled that and it came
right up... we live in such convenient times!). The fact that we can
see, feel, and touch The Concept That Dare Not Speak Its Name
illustrates (to me at least) how important, even revolutionary (or at
least evolutionary) FRBR is to our mental model of the very architecture
of information.  I understand how difficult it is to pin down the edges
of what an expression is, but I think it is our job to help establish
that concept in our practices and system architecture.

 

Karen G. Schneider

[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Re: Implementing RDA

[Myers, John F.]

A casual reading of the charge leads me to believe that the ALCTS
Implementation TF is not intent on developing a document that would
serve as a U.S. "application profile" for RDA.  Their role appears to be
more along the line of facilitating communication, education, and
training efforts among the various parties and constituencies in the
U.S. who are affected by or affecting the implementation of RDA.

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-Original Message-
J. McRee Elrod wrote:

http://www.ala.org/ala/alctscontent/CCS/rdaimplement/rda.cfm

Ms Miska's task force on implementation of RDA in the United States
has 20 members, a large group to hammer out a practical document.

I'm unclear on the relationship of the work this task force would
produce in relation to the work of the joint implementation task force
of the four Anglo national libraries.  Would US libraries follow a
path different from LC and the other national libraries?

Re: GLBTRT Task Force on RDA and Gender in Authority Records

[Myers, John F.]

The problem with answering Karen's question under the current guidelines
is that there is no coding value for transsexual.  And if one were to
code for such, then the complexity of adequate coding comes into play.
Is a general transsexual code sufficient, or is there a need for
specific FTM and MTF codes?  Then there is the personal perspectives on
gender identity of the individual transsexuals in question.  Do they
wish to be identified as transsexual, as a specific "kind" of
transsexual, or as just their "new" gender?  What is our role in
respecting their self-identification?  Do the information needs of our
users override the identification and privacy concerns of the
transsexuals?


I know that there are countries where such coding is already practiced.
In light of the internationalization goal of RDA, it is unlikely to go
away, so I'm not going to advocate for abandonment of 9.8.0.3.1.
Further, several correspondents have identified circumstances under
which such coding may be used to advantage.  But I also wish that we
become more cognizant that, like many things in this day and age, gender
identity is a category of data that increasingly will fit less well into
the tidy boxes that we catalogers like to create.  The examples cited by
the GLBTRT's response only scratch the surface.  I'm sure that the
alternative to the brevity of the response would be a full-blown
dissertation on gender identity.  The GLBTRT's call for further study
seems well warranted however, even if practical concerns will override
their recommendation to drop the coding.


John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308


518-388-6623
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



-Original Message-
Karen Coyle wrote:


What would be great would be to have the
ability to link that creator to biographical information in a way that
someone approaching a library with a question like: "who were the
transsexual writers in San Francisco in the 1950's?" could get an
answer.


>> This comment was submitted on behalf of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual
and
>> Transgender Round Table of the American Library Association.
>>
>> The current instruction for proposed RDA rule 9.8.0.3.1,  "Record the
>> gender
>> with which a person identifies using am appropriate term from the
list
>> below.
>>female
>>male
>>other
>>not known"
>>
>> does not acknowledge the fluidity and variety of possible gender
>> identity or
>> identities of an individual over time. It also does not address
coding of
>> the variety of gender categories related to bibliographic identities,
the
>> individuals who create them, and the relationships among them. (How,
for
>> example, would we code George Eliot, a woman writing with a male
name, or
>> Barbara Michael, a husband and wife writing novels together under one
>> name?)
>> Furthermore, the limited number of possible values, and the language
used
>> for those values is offensive to many people.
>>
>> This Task Force recommends that RDA not prescribe any coding for
>> gender, and
>> that further study be made of the issues of gender in the context of
>> resource identification and relationships between entities.
>>

Re: Titles - was Variant access points?

[Myers, John F.]

I'm not entirely certain Karen's statements are correct, although I'm
not quite willing to label them "False".  As her second question
highlights, our current Uniform Title constructions encompass the FRBR
concepts of both Work and Expression -- 'Le petit prince' is the Work
title; 'Le petit prince. English' is the Expression title (i.e. the
English language expression of the work, Le petit prince).


Various discussions here and elsewhere have led me to feel RDA has given
short shrift to articulating rules to address Expressions, probably as a
direct consequence of trying to reframe current practice where these
FRBR concepts of Work and Expression are intertwined into a new set of
rules where they are still coupled but meant to be more distinct.
Further, in terms of FRBR itself, I am not entirely certain that the
conceptualization of Expression across the different cataloging
communities is entirely harmonious -- I can understand Expression in
terms of books and I can get my head around it in terms of musical
performances, but putting both together and trying to extend Expression
to other mediums of expression never quite gels for me.  Maybe others
haven't experienced this liability, but it certainly leaves me with a
fair degree of fuzziness when trying to review RDA with respect to
addressing Expression.


Since my earliest exposure to FRBR it has been obvious that in the great
majority of cases, the Group 1 entities "collapse" into essentially the
same thing.  That is, for a give work, it is realized though only one
expression, which is embodied by only one manifestation, which is
exemplified in only one item owned by an agency.  I think the great
challenge to implementing FRBR is conceptualizing and developing data
structures that are simple for this vast majority of works with
"collapsed" Group 1 entities and are simultaneously robust for the
significant works (both in terms of numbers and importance) which are
manifested through a complex tree of multiple expressions,
manifestations, and items.


John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308


518-388-6623
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-Original Message-
Karen Coyle wrote:


I have some comments based on Thomas' excellent post, below. First,
however, I would like to confirm what I think I have understood about
RDA and titles. So, true or false?:


1. The "Work title" is analogous to what we used to consider the
"Uniform title," with the difference that every work will have a work
title, regardless of whether there are multiple expressions.


2. Although FRBR has titles for works, expressions and manifestations,
RDA has only titles for works and manifestations. (Not clear to me if
6.1.3 constructs a title for the expression, or adds expression titles
to work so, "Le Petit Prince. English" -- is that a work variant
title?) [Note: "title of expression" is not listed in the element
table.]

Re: Variant access points?

[Myers, John F.]

I'm several posts behind, catching up on this thread after a
day-and-a-half away from the office.


 


I agree with Kevin Randall.  The transition from the AACR2 rules that
deal with headings to the RDA rules that deal with attributes of a named
entity has not quite been successful.  That is not to say that it will
continue to be unsuccessful, but improvements are clearly in order.
Randall's assessment that keeping the rules "scenario-agnostic" is on
the mark with respect to some of the difficulties.  


 


Based on some discussions at the recent ALA MidWinter meeting, my
initial thought on a reply to the post that started this thread, when it
was queried whether "variant access points" would be cross references in
an authority record or added access points in a bibliographic record was
a perhaps trite, "A resounding yes, or maybe."  I think the answer will
depend on the implementation scenario.  Whereas a fully flat
implementation may require variants as additions to bibliographic
records, a more robust implementation of either case 3 or 2 would
support their presence in authority records.  Just how will records
appear in the 1st implementation scenario?  Ultimately, the answer may
be unrecognizable in terms of our existing data structures of strictly
demarcated bibliographic and authority records.  We may see databases
with highly connected "entity" records for the various FRBR group
entities that would then exist in relative parity towards the end of
generating relational displays on-the-fly to meet user queries. 


 


I have long argued that the RDA development process would have been
better served by a period of considering larger issues before plunging
into the drafts.  The further along we go however, the more I realize
that we are entering uncharted waters, and how does one plan for that?
However many details I feel have been gotten wrong, the drafts and
accompanying documentation have required me to explore realms of
understanding of which I had no prior conception.  And, without the
concrete circumstances of the drafts, I would have been incapable of
considering them on a hypothetical basis.  It requires the push and pull
of varying viewpoints as the text of the drafts is considered to fully
engage the underlying ideas.


 


John Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
Schenectady NY 12308
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
518-388-6623


 





Kevin M. Randall wrote:
Yes, I fully agree that the current organization and wording of the
rules in RDA make things quite confusing.  I think one problem lies in
the fact that they have tried so hard to make sure that the rules will
work for all three database implementation scenarios in 5JSC/Editor/2 (
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/working2.html#ed-2
 ) and in
making the rules "scenario-agnostic" they have also become somewhat
vague.  Consequently, what is lost is any direction in helping us
understand (while casually reading the rules, at least) exactly which
rule applies to which piece of which scenario.  

Sentence case vs. Title case [was: [RDA-L] Measuring quality of cataloguing]

[Myers, John F.]

-Original Message-
Karen Coyle wrote:


Why do libraries not use title case for titles?


I've never gotten the same answer twice. This is something that we've
done for decades (I haven't found the first time that rule was given --
somewhere between Cutter and AACRI). Presumably we do this to make
something better, but what is that thing?


Here are some of the answers I have gotten:
- It's the same as all of the citation rules (no, it's not; some use
title case for journal titles, but sentence case for article and book
titles).
- It's easier than following the title page title (? easier? You have to
figure out which are the proper names, and in multiple languages)
- It makes for more uniform display in the catalog (this one makes
sense, but to me isn't a deal breaker)
---


The ALA rules of 1941 have the following, "For obvious reasons, it is
not practical to follow the capitalization of the title-page. Rules for
capitalization are provided in Appendix III."  That appendix generally
directs sentence style usage.  Cutter's rules (2nd ed., 1875) concerning
style of entry has a section on capitals that essentially also directs
sentence style.


The conundrum is discerning the "obvious reasons" referenced in the ALA
rules, although I imagine that the possible mix of capitalization
practices on a given title page -- all caps, title case, lower case,
small caps, etc. -- is at the heart of the matter.


Why we would prefer sentence case over title case is debatable.  I can
think of several factors.  First, title case requires making judgments
as to which words should be capitalized, a process that takes time and
that distracts the cataloger from the other important details of the
record.  Second, when cataloging was comprised of typed catalog cards,
minimizing the need for capital letters reduced the complexity of key
combinations and the incidence of double capital letter typos.  Lastly,
sentence case makes it clearer that an embedded title is present.
Cutter and ALA are quite clear in capitalizing the first word of a title
that appears within another title.  In days of typed or even
hand-written cards, offsetting an embedded title by italics or
underlining would have been quite challenging.  Normalizing titles
through sentence case would have been the most viable alternative.
(Post-scriptum, can any of us imagine the nit-picking debates between
catalogers over disagreements as to application of title case?)


Capitalization practice is a detail I hadn't considered, but further
illustrates the need for examining the principles that underlie our
practices.  An examination that I fear has been given short shrift in
the haste to bring RDA to market.  This examination would have been best
performed as a precursor to the drafting process, but I don't agree with
the Working Group's recommendation 3.2.5.  I do not think that it is too
late for this examination or for salutary changes in the final product.
The RDA drafts do not have to go the way of the 1949 draft rules as
would happen under the WG's recommendation.  The drafts have been a
powerful tool in realigning the rules along FRBR and in laying the
groundwork for an entity-relationship implementation.  They have been
equally beneficial in highlighting the unexamined idiosyncrasies of our
existing code, idiosyncrasies that might not have been apparent
beforehand.  We need only the resolve to see the task to completion.



John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308


518-388-6623
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Future of authority control?

[Myers, John F.]

As someone who has witnessed a fair number of publishers' quirks over a
modest number of years, I would have to agree with Mike's assessment.
I'm confident I'm not the only one to see a supposedly unique ISBN
recycled, among other things.  Publishers' efforts at in-house CIP are
laughable not laudable.


Reliance upon publisher data for repurposing in cataloging and other
bibliographic control contexts is one of the premises I saw in the LC
Working Group's report that was most founded on unreasonable optimism.
Publishers create and format bibliographic data for marketing purposes,
not for consistency of access throughout the short and long tails of
resource retrieval.  Reliance upon it will result in a chaotic morass,
not in improved bibliographic or authority control.


John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308


518-388-6623
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



-Original Message-
Mike Tribby responded to Karen Coyle:


Mainstream publishers and
small publishers may have different attitudes about this than publishers
of
scholarly materials, but I think larger publishers of all sorts would
have
difficulties with providing even the carefully defined kind of
information
of which you post.

Re: Direct vs. inverted display of names

[Myers, John F.]

I remember early in my library career and while still in my public
service days, my shock at learning of a high school aged patron looking
up George Washington in the "G" volume of the encyclopedia.  But then my
paper address book had entries formatted directly, even if they were
filed under last initial.  Now my cell phone address book files in
exactly the direct order I've entered names (except for close friends
who have numerical prefixes so they file first and for library
colleagues who have z prefixes so they file together and only a few
clicks up).  I can enter names in my Outlook address book in direct
order and it offers me the option of direct or indirect order indexing
for each entry.  I now look up people in Wikipedia by entering their
name in direct order.  Also I frequently do direct entry keyword
searching in OCLC's authorities rather than inverted format, command
line searching.


In a paper world where indexing was sequential, the logical arrangement
of inverted entry and indexing made sense.  In an electronic world where
indexing is random access, and where relationships are more likely made
apparent via hyperlinks than proximity in an index, the need for
inverted entry is less necessary.  I still worry about the loss of
overall skills of information organization and contextualization, but in
the electronic context, why shouldn't someone be able to look up an
entry under and see that entry as "George Washington"?


John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308


518-388-6623
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: More on RDA literal/non-literal issue

[Myers, John F.]

-Original Message-
Irvin Flack wrote:


So the first step for RDA should be to decide whether the value (in the
abstract sense of the DCAM Resource Model) for each property is a
literal or a non-literal. Then we can say whether the value should be
represented by a literal surrogate (if a literal value) or a non-literal
surrogate (if a non-literal value) in a description. And so on for each
of the properties in RDA.
--


Forgive me if I am misunderstanding, but I would disagree with this.
RDA needs to be platform independent.  The issue of literal vs.
non-literal only has meaning in an electronic environment.  Karen had it
right in her blog posting.  To paraphrase, RDA should treat every value
as a literal, but define data elements in such a way that they are
capable of being treated as non-literal, (even if the feasibility of
some values being treated as a non-literal is small, e.g. title proper).



John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308


518-388-6623
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Recording place of publication

[Myers, John F.]

-Original Message-
Mac wrote:
Any suggested rewordings?
-


I'm a little hesitant to write RIs for a cataloging code that is yet to
be published and is in a state of flux.  I am equally aware that nothing
in this correspondence will directly influence RDA or any hypothesized
RIs.  But I was intrigued by the exercise, as hypothetical as it may be.
I think the following are in line with addressing, in a manner
consistent with RDA's structure, the issues that Mac's original RI
proposal does.  Farther below are some questions, concerns, or launching
points for discussion.  And apologies if this grew a little longer than
I thought or wished it would be.


RI 2.8
Records created by/for [Agency X/Nation X libraries] will not treat this
element as optional.


RI 2.8.0.2
If there are multiple locations of data on the source of information,
use the most complete one, e.g. for resources comprising multiple pages
or page images, use the verso of the title page if necessary.


RI 2.8.0.3, 1st bullet
Also include the larger jurisdiction, in square brackets, when not
present on the source of information.


RI 2.8.0.3, 2nd bullet
Do not record clarifications as a note.  Instead, add them to the
element in square brackets.  Differentiating clarifications (point c)
should always be provided if readily ascertainable.


RI 2.8.1.3, 1st bullet
Include the larger jurisdiction when supplying the place of publication.


RI 2.8.1.3, 2nd bullet
Record in square brackets, "Place of publication unknown," or its
equivalent in the language of the catalog, or the Latin abbreviation
[S.l.] if preferred by the cataloging agency.


--
Now, for some discussion points:


2.8
The suggested RI for 2.8 really is addressing the issue of fullness of
records, which has not yet been addressed very well in the RDA
development process.  How and whether such issue will be taken up in the
RDA preliminaries and/or left to national bodies remains to be seen.


2.8.0.2
I'm not sure the RI for 2.8.0.2 is necessary, as my understanding is
that RDA already includes the verso and recto of the title page in its
use of title page, as opposed to AACR2's misnomer of title page for the
recto only.  But I don't doubt that some clarification will be necessary
since it is possible for publication information to occur on both verso
and recto and we will want to minimize confusion as to which one to
use/prefer.


2.8.0.3, 1st bullet
I think the transcription guidelines in the rule as written adequately
cover both of the concerns about postal codes and prepositions that
Mac's RI addresses.  As mentioned previously, the issue of postal codes
is sufficiently thorny and ongoing however that it might be wise to
address it in the rules at 1.6 concerning transcription.


I would prefer the language of the rule to be modified along the line of
the proposed RI.  How this will play out in the review of the final
drafts remains to be seen.  There is ongoing tension in the rules where
description=strict transcription competes with access=fuller forms;
2.8.0.3 is one of the more obvious instances of such and where the rules
have shifted from AACR2 practice in moving supplied data to another
location in the record.  The issue of larger jurisdictions is one that I
wished had been discussed more before the drafting process was
initiated.  How important are they in building a bibliographic
description and supporting access?  I spend an inordinate amount of time
looking up larger jurisdictions for places I am unfamiliar with (or used
to before discovering Wikipedia as an easy source of such information),
in order to code Ctry in the MARC fixed field.  Why are we coding
something not addressed by our cataloging rules?  Or do our cataloging
rules need to address this?  And if so, how?  What if the cataloging
rules (not MARC) specified that the larger jurisdiction is always
recorded or encoded somehow, but not necessarily in the element for
place of publication?


2.8.0.3, 2nd bullet
I would prefer the language of the rule to be modified along the line of
the proposed RI, with the option to record such information in a note.
This actually was the thrust of a comment by ALA on this rule in its
response.  On a secondary matter, Mac's RI concerning the address of a
publisher could be fitted as a new subsection under this bullet but
would be one of the few instances where I would favor use of a note.


2.8.1.3, 1st bullet
I would prefer the language of the rule to be modified along the line of
the proposed RI.  This was already proposed by CCC in its response.


2.8.1.3, 2nd bullet
At the very least, the clause addressing an equivalent phrase in the
language of the catalog should be added to the rule for
internationalization considerations.  Also, several constituency
responses suggest "Place of publication not given/Place not given/Place
not stated" as alternative phrases in English.


My tongue-in-cheek suggestion to use non-literal va

Re: Recording place of publication

[Myers, John F.]

-Original Message-
Quoting me:
>Records created by/for [Agency X/Nation X libraries] will not treat
>this element as optional.


J. McRee Elrod responded:
Excellent!  There remains the question of which place(s) to
transcribe,  whether to supply jurisdiction if lacking, and what to do
with "WA", an alpha postal code in both the U.S. and Australia.
-


To Mac's questions:


2.8.0.4 specifies the transcription of all places.
2.8.0.3 2nd bullet, section c, largely directs adding a note for
jurisdiction if not on the piece, and for clarifying instances such as
WA (U.S.) and WA (Aus.).
2.8.0.3 specifies transcription in the form in which it appears.


Now, I haven't entirely swallowed the Kool-Aid.  I do have caveats and
qualms:


1) with strings of places of publication approaching the length of some
early title statements, I am brought to remember AACR2 rules about
truncating such title statements and wonder just how many places we will
record in actuality.


2) as expressed earlier, I am uneasy about relegating a supplied
jurisdiction to a note, when long-standing practice indicates it can be
recorded succinctly as bracketed information.  But I can understand the
"strict transcription" viewpoint.  At this point I'll wait to see if and
how ugly the results are before crying havoc.


3) Section 1.6 gathers a number of rules that clarify transcription
questions.  That would be a an excellent place to reinforce the
transcription of postal codes in the form in which they appear.



John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308


518-388-6623
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Recording place of publication

[Myers, John F.]

Maybe our cataloging should include a hot link from our standard
abbreviations to the translation/definition in the appropriate
Wikiwhatever?  Or embed such links as "non-literal value surrogates"?


Irreverently yours (and ducking),


John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308


518-388-6623
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



-Original Message-
Mike Tribby wrote:


What I don't understand is this: if the people who have grown up with
connectivity (the young adults referred to in the AP article) are so
disenchanted with our OPACs because they aren't as quick or facile as
Google
et al. are also the ones who find Latin abbreviations so disorienting as
to
cause them to bolt from the library, why do we then assume that these
same
potential patrons are too befuddled to look up abbrevations like "s.l.,"
"etc.," and even "op. cit." on Google or Wikipedia when they encounter
these
horrifying space and keystroke savers, then click back to the OPAC?