Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
used to indicate a publication and copyright date. While it is technically correct that both dates are given in this record, in the past we've mainly seen and used t in the dtst field when those dates differ, even by a year. What I'm seeing now is this sort of transcription (an older record still using 260): 260 Stanford, California : |b Stanford University Press, |c [2012], ©2012. Trying to make sense out of this coding I viewed this record in LC's catalog they have used 008 dtst s with: 264 _1 |a Stanford, California : |b Stanford University Press, |c [2012] [title in question is Competitive strategies for the 21st century : theory, history, and practice] OCLC770694281 LC 2011052146 The 008 dtst coding of the record in LC's database (as opposed to the record we downloaded from OCLC which apparently has been edited separately) looks more correct to me. The former coding in OCLC looks like overkill -- How useful/necessary/correct is it to code this dtst to other than s have duplicate dates in the 008 date area? This raises the larger question: for those working up training for your copy catalogers, at what point do you tell your people to leave copy as is, even if that isn't what you would personally prefer? To the average library user, both transcriptions give essentially the same information. At this point, given the variety of 260/264 interpretations/transcriptions, I'm seriously debating telling my copy catalogers If the 008/260 in the LC copy record adequately conveys the book in hand is essentially correct, leave it. While I appreciate cataloger discretion when I am creating a record or editing existing copy, I'm finding it exceedingly difficult to create these local copycat editing guidelines for the plethora of interpretations we're seeing. Impatiently waiting for RDA postings from ALA Midwinter to be posted. //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135 -- Nancy Lorimer Head, Music Technical Services Stanford Music Library nlori...@stanford.edu 650-725-8819
Re: [RDA-L] punctuation in 511 notes
I disagree. RDA is format neutral; there is no reason why ISBD rules should be used within it. Appendix D covers the usage of RDA under ISBD, and that is where such rules should stay. RDA has no other examples in ISBD format. Why should we make an exception here? Nancy Lorimer On 11/1/2012 7:35 AM, Paradis Daniel wrote: My understanding is that there is indeed a contradiction between the examples and the practice recommended by ISBD. RDA examples should be given using ISBD punctuation. The consolidated edition of ISBD says that within notes, it is recommended, where appropriate, that the prescribed punctuation of areas 1-6 be followed (p. 199). Notes on performer, narrators and presenters are usually given in a format where the prescribed punctuation for statements of responsibility of area 1 would be appropriate. The prescribed punctuation is to precede each subsequent statement of responsibility by a space, semicolon, space (ISBD, p. 43). The examples of notes on statements of responsibility in rule 7.1.4 of ISBD, including a note on performers, follow the recommended prescribed punctuation. This punctuation is not mandatory but it would make sense that RDA illustrates the practice recommended by ISBD. Daniel Paradis Bibliothécaire Direction du traitement documentaire des collections patrimoniales Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec 2275, rue Holt Montréal (Québec) H2G 3H1 Téléphone : 514 873-1101, poste 3721 Télécopieur : 514 873-7296 daniel.para...@banq.qc.ca mailto:daniel.para...@banq.qc.ca http://www.banq.qc.ca http://www.banq.qc.ca/ *De :*Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] *De la part de* McRae, Rick *Envoyé :* 1 novembre 2012 09:44 *À :* RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca *Objet :* [RDA-L] punctuation in 511 notes Greetings: 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. I'm not losing sleep about this or anything, but it is a quandary of sorts, and it would be good to hear how others resolve this seemingly mixed message. Thank you and best regards, Rick McRae Catalog / Reference Librarian Sibley Music Library EastmanSchoolof Music (585) 274-1370 -- Nancy Lorimer Head, Music Technical Services Stanford Music Library nlori...@stanford.edu 650-725-8819
Re: [RDA-L] Browse and search RDA test data
This is an alternative rule to 1.7.1 General rules on transcription in RDA. The rule reads: When the instructions in chapters 2-4 specify transcription of an element as it appears on the source of information, apply the general guidelines on capitalization, punctuation, symbols, abbreviations, etc., given under 1.7.2-1.7.9http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp1#rda1-890. When the guidelines given under 1.7.2-1.7.9 refer to an appendix, apply the additional instructions given in that appendix as applicable to the element being transcribed. Alternatives If the agency creating the data has established in-house guidelines for capitalization, punctuation, numerals, symbols, abbreviations, etc., or has designated a published style manual, etc., (e.g., The Chicago Manual of Style) as its preferred guide, use those guidelines or that style manual in place of the instructions given under 1.7.2-1.7.9 and in the appendices.http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=lcpschp1#lcps1-734 If data are derived from a digital source of information using an automated scanning, copying, or downloading process (e.g., by harvesting embedded metadata or automatically generating metadata), transcribe the element as it appears on the source of information, without modification.http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=lcpschp1#lcps1-5074 During the test period (at least), some institutions established in-house guidelines that prescribed transcribing the capitalization as it appeared on an item, whether digital or physical. Nancy Lorimer On 1/11/2011 10:53 AM, Karen Coyle wrote: Thanks, Bernhard. This is very useful. I was rather surprised (in my first foray into the data) to see some titles presented in all upper case: 100 1\$aGentry, Paul,$ephotographer. 245 10$aNEW YORK :$bFROM LAND, SEA, AIR /$cPRINCIPAL PHOTOGRAPHY BY PAUL GENTRY. 260 \\$aNew York, NY :$bMud Puddle Books,$c[2007?], ?©2007 100 1\$aDiSanza, James R. 245 10$aBUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION :$bPlans, Processes, and Performance /$cJames R. DiSanza, Nancy J. Legge. 250 \\$aSECOND EDITION. Is this truly RDA compliant? Anyone know? kc Quoting Bernhard Eversberg e...@biblio.tu-bs.de: The official test data as made available by LC last week: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/RDAtest/rdatestrecords.html have been imported into a database and can now be browsed and searched: http://www.biblio.tu-bs.de/db/a30/rdatest.htm There are about 14.000 records, both bib and authority. (The database is much larger. and has all sorts of stuff from various sources.) The internal format of this database is not MARC21, but for every record, you get the MARC record in addition to a legible display. (The other stuff in the database has no MARC data attached.) Not all of the vernacular characters are correctly displayed, esp. the non-European ones. This setup is not for any production purposes, many details might be improved, given more time. On the initial display, you see a menu in the main panel and the content type index in the right hand panel. From the menu, select Index by all types to get the index of all types, including the authority data. Click the Menu tab to get back to the menu, not the browser back button! (If you are interested: Under the Intern tab, you see the internal record structure. Click the Edit+ button at the bottom to get a labeled display.) B.Eversberg -- Nancy Lorimer Head, Music Technical Services Stanford Music Library (650)725-8819 nlori...@stanford.edu
Re: Cataloger Scenarios added to wiki
Hi Diane, I have one comment for you about your choice of “Preferred title of work” in Scenarios 1 2. The titles you have given are: Bluebeard: a novel Our collective environment: essays in honor of Pauline Warner From my reading of RDA, I believe these titles should simply be: Bluebeard Our collective environment I think the relevant instruction here is 6.2.1.2 (Title proper of the original edition), which states: “If no title of the original language edition is established as being one by which the work is best known, or in case of doubt, choose the title proper of the original edition (see 2.3.1) as the preferred title.” The second part of each of these titles does not seem to me to be part of the title proper, as is defined in instruction 2.3.1.1, but instead are other title information as defined in 2.3.3.1, and thus do not belong in the preferred title of the work record. The texts for these instructions (from the 2005 version of Pt 1, the latest I can find!) are as follows: 2.3.1.1. Definition The title proper is the chief title of a resource (i.e., the title normally used when citing the resource). For purposes of description, the title proper includes any alternative title but excludes parallel titles and other title information (see 2.3.2 and 2.3.3). A file name or data set name is not considered a title proper unless it is the only title appearing in the resource. 2.3.3.1. Definition Other title information is information that appears in conjunction with, and is subordinate to, the title proper of the resource. Other title information may include any phrase appearing in conjunction with a title proper, parallel title, or series title that is indicative of the character, contents, etc., of the resource or the motives for, or occasion of, its production or publication. Other title information includes subtitles, avant-titres, etc., but does not include variations on the title proper (e.g., spine titles, sleeve titles). I would suggest that the second part of the title for Scenario 2, “Essays in honor of Pauline Warner” might be a candidate for a variant title. Nancy Lorimer Diane I. Hillmann wrote: Folks: As part of the thinking we've been doing about the DCMI-RDA Task Group work, I've developed a couple of cataloger scenarios and added them to the DC-RDA TG wiki: http://www.dublincore.org/dcmirdataskgroup/Scenarios Please feel free to comment and make suggestions for improvement, and also send along some additional scenarios if you feel so moved. I can add them to the wiki, or, if you've put them someplace else, we can link to them. Unfortunately I can't really open the wiki up to more more editors (and truly, it's an old version of MoinMoin and has it's own issues, so you might not want to mess with it). Diane -- Nancy Lorimer Head, Music Technical Services Stanford Music Library [EMAIL PROTECTED]
