[RDA-L] Uniform titles in RDA

[Shorten, Jay]

Is it now RDA practice to enter the uniform title with articles? Example:  LCCN 
2013002020 OCLC 828333810 has a 240 14 The new school counselor rather than 240 
10 New school counselor

Jay Shorten
Cataloger, Monographs and Electronic Resources
Associate Professor of Bibliography
Catalog Department
University Libraries
University of Oklahoma

jshor...@ou.edu

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

[Shorten, Jay]

I am cataloguing a photocopy of a thesis for which there is no record for the 
original thesis, so no "linking" is possible. How and where do I indicate the 
photocopied nature of the item? My attempt is:

246 _0 1948 [the date of the original thesis]
246 _3 [198-?] [an estimate as to when it was photocopied]

530 Photocopy of original thesis.

Also my Form fixed-field is r, and my 007 is t $b a . And if it's relevant, my 
502 for the thesis is: $b Th. D. $c Theological Seminary of the Presbyterian 
Church $d 1948.

Have I forgot anything?



Jay Shorten
Cataloger, Monographs and Electronic Resources
Associate Professor of Bibliography
Catalog Department
University Libraries
University of Oklahoma

jshor...@ou.edu

Re: [RDA-L] Size of PDF files

[Shorten, Jay]

What about using the 256 field? I know it has been deprecated in AACR2, but it 
seems to have been restored for RDA, as the MARC Bibliographic to RDA Mapping 
in the tools for 3.19.4 leads to the 256 field. Though if I can continue to use 
the 300, that’s great.

Jay Shorten
Cataloger, Monographs and Electronic Resources
Associate Professor of Bibliography
Catalog Department
University Libraries
University of Oklahoma

jshor...@ou.edu

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam Schiff
Sent: 22 May 2013 13:30
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Size of PDF files

Kyley,

Agreed that your display in 300 field does look clear and informative.  Our ILS 
vendors really do need to catch up with display of data in the new MARC fields. 
 We are able at least to suppress the $2 rda, which is really not useful to 
users at all other than catalogers.

Adam

[RDA-L] Recall: [RDA-L] Size of PDF files

[Shorten, Jay]

Shorten, Jay would like to recall the message, "[RDA-L] Size of PDF files".

Re: [RDA-L] Size of PDF files

[Shorten, Jay]

What about the 256 field? I know it has been deprecated in AACR2, but it seems 
to have been restored for RDA, as the MARC Bibliographic to RDA Mapping in the 
tools for 3.19.4 leads to the 256 field.

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam Schiff
Sent: 22 May 2013 13:30
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Size of PDF files

Kyley,

Agreed that your display in 300 field does look clear and informative.  Our ILS 
vendors really do need to catch up with display of data in the new MARC fields. 
 We are able at least to suppress the $2 rda, which is really not useful to 
users at all other than catalogers.

Adam

From: Felix, Kyley
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 3:57 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Size of PDF files

Hello Adam

We have made a decision in this library not to show those fields as they may 
look like gobbledegook to the users. If the users could see the 347 field it 
would look like this from the OPAC:

Digital file characteristics: text file PDF 3.97 MB rda

Whereas if I put the information in the 300 field it would look like this on 
the OPAC:

Physical description: 1 online resource (ix, 153 pages) : text file, PDF (3.97 
MB).

I think the physical description field looks clearer because of the punctuation 
and also users are familiar with this field.

Regards,

Kyley Felix
Librarian
Parliamentary Library
Parliament House
Harvest Tce
Perth WA 6000
Phone: (08) 9222 7393











From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam Schiff
Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013 5:50 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Size of PDF files

Why not turn on the 34X fields for display in your catalog?  This is where the 
data belongs in an RDA record.

Adam Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Seattle, WA 98195-2900

From: Felix, Kyley
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:13 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Size of PDF files

I’m cataloguing a lot of PDF files in my library. I want to make it easy for 
users to see the size of the documents. This is what I am thinking of doing in 
the 300 and 347 fields. The 347 field is hidden from the user so I want the 
file size also showing in the 300 field. I wasn’t sure if this is the best way 
to do it. Also not sure whether the file size should be within the brackets 
with the extent? I’m unable to find examples where both the number of pages and 
the file size are used.

300 (10 a) 1 online resource (v, 23 pages), 840 KB : (20 b) text file, PDF.

347 (10 a) text file (20 b) PDF (30 c) 840 KB

Your thoughts would be appreciated.

Kyley Felix
Librarian
Parliamentary Library
Parliament House
Harvest Tce
Perth WA 6000
Phone: (08) 9222 7393




-
PARLIAMENT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
CONDITIONS OF USE, PUBLICATION, OR DISCLOSURE OF THIS EMAIL
APPLICABLE TO RECIPIENT

The content of this email (including any attachments)

- is provided for the use of the intended recipient only; and
- mere receipt in no way authorises any recipient to disclose or publish all or 
part of it to another person or in any form.

If this email relates to matters that were, or are being, considered by one or 
both Houses of Parliament or a committee of either or both Houses, any 
unauthorised use, publication or disclosure may amount to a breach of the 
privileges of the House(s).

A person who is not an intended recipient is requested to advise the sender and 
delete this email immediately.

Although this email has been scanned for viruses, this email is not guaranteed 
to be free of viruses and should be vetted by your own security mechanisms. The 
Parliament of Western Australia accepts no liability for any loss or damage 
arising from the use of this email or its attachments.

-
PARLIAMENT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
CONDITIONS OF USE, PUBLICATION, OR DISCLOSURE OF THIS EMAIL
APPLICABLE TO RECIPIENT

The content of this email (including any attachments)

- is provided for the use of the intended recipient only; and
- mere receipt in no way authorises any recipient to disclose or publish all or 
part of it to another person or in any form.

If this email relates to matters that were, or are being, considered by one or 
both Houses of Parliament or a committee of either or both Houses, any 
unauthorised use, publication or disclosure may amount to a breach of the 
privileges of the House(s).

A person who is not an intended recipient is requested to advise the sender and 
delete this email immediately.

Although this email has been

Re: [RDA-L] Title main entry equivalent in RDA?

[Shorten, Jay]

OK, it looks like the LC-PCC policy statement for 19.2.1.1.1 restores AACR2 
21.1C1c through the back entrance, at least for corporate bodies:



Applicability, 2b: Do not consider the corporate body to be the creator if 
there is any doubt that a work falls into any of the categories. The corporate 
body may be eligible for use as an access point under another instruction in 
RDA chapters 19-21.



Jay Shorten

Cataloger, Monographs and Electronic Resources

Associate Professor of Bibliography

Catalog Department

University Libraries

University of Oklahoma



jshor...@ou.edu

[RDA-L] Title main entry equivalent in RDA?

[Shorten, Jay]

I'd like someone to confirm my understanding of the rules. The AACR2 rules for 
title main entry are as follows:

AACR2 21.1C.
Entry under Title
21.1C1.   Enter a work under its title proper or, when appropriate, uniform 
title (see chapter 25) if:
a) the personal authorship is unknown (see 21.5) or diffuse (see 21.6C2), and 
the work does not emanate from a corporate body
or
b) it is a collection of works by different persons or bodies (see 21.7)
or
c) it emanates from a corporate body but does not fall into any of the 
categories given in 21.1B2 and is not of personal authorship
or
d) it is accepted as sacred scripture by a religious group (see 21.37).

According to the links the RDA toolkit took me to, there is no equivalent of 
21.1C1c.

21.1C1a = RDA 6.27.1.8

If the work has been attributed to one or more persons, families, or corporate 
bodies, but there is uncertainty as to the probable person, family, or body 
responsible, construct the authorized access point representing the work by 
using the preferred title for the work (see 6.2.2).

If reference sources indicate that one person, family, or corporate body is 
probably responsible for creating the work, construct the authorized access 
point representing the work by combining (in this order):
a) the authorized access point representing that person (see 9.19.1), family 
(see 10.10.1), or corporate body (see 11.13.1)
b) the preferred title for the work (see 6.27.1.2).

If:
the person, family, or corporate body responsible for the work is unknown
or
the work originates from an unnamed group
then:
construct the authorized access point representing the work by using the 
preferred title for the work (see 6.2.2).

21.1C1b = RDA 6.27.1.4
If the work is a compilation of works by different persons, families, or 
corporate bodies, construct the authorized access point representing the work 
by using the preferred title for the compilation.

21.1C1d = RDA 6.30.1.2
For a work that is accepted as sacred scripture by a religious group, construct 
the authorized access point representing the work by using the preferred title 
for the work.
[Exception for a sacred scripture that is attributed by that religion to one 
person.]

Also, AACR2 21.1B2 = RDA 19.2.1.1.1
but the RDA rule lacks the AACR2 sentence "In case of doubt about whether a 
work falls into one or more of these categories, treat it as if it does not."

Therefore I conclude that most, works from a corporate body will be corporate 
body main entry, with perhaps the exception being a document that some 
identified person wrote, or co-wrote (identification coming from either the 
document itself or from reference sources.)

Jay Shorten
Cataloger, Monographs and Electronic Resources
Associate Professor of Bibliography
Catalog Department
University Libraries
University of Oklahoma

jshor...@ou.edu

[RDA-L] Request to check RDA record for provider-neutral e-book

[Shorten, Jay]

I have created a record for the provider-neutral e-book OCLC #842051596. Would 
someone be so kind as to look it over just to make sure I haven't forgotten 
something? Also, does anyone have a handy list of traps to avoid when creating 
an RDA record, something like, "Be sure you don't forget to do this RDA 
practice because we didn't do it in AACR2" & "Be sure you don't do this AACR2 
practice because we don't do it in AACR2"?

Jay Shorten
Cataloger, Monographs and Electronic Resources
Associate Professor of Bibliography
Catalog Department
University Libraries
University of Oklahoma

jshor...@ou.edu

[RDA-L] RDA headings in bib record?

[Shorten, Jay]

OCLC 663441379 (LCCN  2010045710), besides the erroneous “p.” and “ill.” in the 
300 (if it’s an RDA record, shouldn’t these be spelled out?) has an RDA-style 
name heading (Rawson, Claude ‡q (Claude Julien), ‡d 1935-) instead of the form 
currently in the authority file, “Rawson, Claude Julien”. Surely we are not 
supposed to use RDA authority forms, even in RDA records?

(And I would have edited the capitalization of the 245a and 490. The title page 
reads “THE CAMBRIDGE COMPANION TO ENGLISH POETS”, not “The Cambridge Companion 
to English Poets”, so since we are changing capitalization anyway, I can’t see 
why we should not take it as far as we can go and transcribe it in the 
customary AACR2 manner.)

Jay Shorten
Cataloger, Monographs and Electronic Resources
Associate Professor of Bibliography
Catalog Department
University Libraries
University of Oklahoma

jshor...@ou.edu

[RDA-L] An other title information question

[Shorten, Jay]

OCLC 714614925 / ISBN 9783706905909 has as a 245:

Geschichte des portugiesischen Kinos : ‡b mit Personen- und Filmregister und 44 
Abbildungen

The 245 means “with a name and film index and 44 illustrations”. This was not 
the kind of thing that was traditionally considered other title information in 
AACR2. I say “traditionally” because I can’t find a rule that explicitly states 
this; the closest I can come to is 1.1.F.14.

Nevertheless, is this kind of statement now to be recorded according to the 
provisions of 2.3.4.3?

Jay Shorten
Cataloger, Monographs and Electronic Resources
Associate Professor of Bibliography
Catalog Department
University Libraries
University of Oklahoma

jshor...@ou.edu

Re: [RDA-L] Apocrypha

[Shorten, Jay]

Ecclesiasticus = Sirach
1 & 2 Esdras, not part of Catholic canon, but part of Orthodox canon
Wisdom of Solomon = Wisdom
Susanna, Three Children, Bel & Dragon = extra chapters in Daniel
Prayer of Manasses, not part of Catholic canon, but part of Orthodox canon

Jay Shorten
Cataloger, Monographs and Electronic Resources
Associate Professor of Bibliography
Catalog Department
University Libraries
University of Oklahoma

jshor...@ou.edu


From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Elissa Patadal
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 11:03
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Apocrypha

Mark,

With all due respect, I have never heard of several of the books that you 
mentioned as part of the Apocrypha.  My Catholic Study Bible lists only Sirach, 
Wisdom, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, and Judith.


25.18A. Bible

   25.18A1. General rule. Enter a Testament as a subheading of Bible.

Enter a book of the Catholic or Protestant canon as a subheading of the 
appropriate Testament.

   25.18A3. Books. Use the brief citation form of the Authorized Version.

   25.18A5. Apocrypha. Enter the collection known as the Apocrypha

(1-2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Rest of Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, 
Baruch, History of Susanna, Song of the Three Children, Bel and the Dragon, 
Prayer of Manasses, 1-2 Maccabees) under Bible. O.T. Apocrypha.[5] Enter an 
individual book as a further subheading.

   [5] Do not treat an edition of the Bible lacking these books as being 
incomplete.

Elissa Patadal
Co-Director of Library Services
Mid-America Christian University
3500 S.W. 119th Street, Oklahoma City, OK 73170
(405)692-3168 | epata...@macu.edu

[RDA-L] Catholic deuterocanonical Biblical books

[Shorten, Jay]

6.23.2.9.2 says, "For books of the Catholic or Protestant canon, record the 
brief citation form of the Authorized Version as a subdivision of the preferred 
title for the Bible." But 6.23.2.9.4 says, "For an individual book [of the 
Apocrypha] use the name of the book as a further subdivision",  "Apocrypha" 
being defined earlier in the paragraph as including the Deuterocanonicals, 
which seems to contradict 2.9.2 above.

So if I have an edition of (or book about) the Book of Tobit, which is in the 
Catholic canon, which do I use?

Bible. Tobit

or

Bible. Apocrypha. Tobit?


Jay Shorten
Cataloger, Monographs and Electronic Resources
Associate Professor of Bibliography
Catalog Department
University Libraries
University of Oklahoma

jshor...@ou.edu

[RDA-L] RDA capitalization and edition question (basic)

[Shorten, Jay]

LCCN   2010044821 OCLC 671710698 Metal Forming.

The t.p. reads:

METAL FORMING
Mechanics and Metallurgy
FOURTH EDITION

1. What rule in RDA says to transcribe the title as "Metal Forming : Mechanics 
and Metallurgy"  and not "Metal forming : mechanics and metallurgy" ?  Doesn't 
appendix A4 apply here to make the transcription the same as AACR2? The LCPS 
for A.1 does say to "take what you see", but if that were the case, I would 
expect a mechanical transcription of METAL FORMING.

2. What rule in RDA says to transcribe the edition as "Fourth" and not 4th, as 
1.8.5 seems to say, if I have interpreted correctly?

Jay Shorten
Cataloger, Monographs and Electronic Resources
Associate Professor of Bibliography
Catalog Department
University Libraries
University of Oklahoma

jshor...@ou.edu

[RDA-L] Recording series numbering in RDA

[Shorten, Jay]

OCLC #646122824 Hungarian Americans in the current of history has as a 490 1_ 
East European monographs ; ‡v DCCLXVI.



I presume this is done because of RDA rule 1.8.2, and the alternative chosen by 
LC which indicates we record the form of the numeral that appears on the piece, 
whether Arabic or Roman, rather than the basic rule which says to record the 
numeral in the form preferred by the cataloguing agency or the other 
alternative which says to restate the number in Arabic.



If the item also had a series statement in the book that used “766”, which form 
would we transcribe in the 490?



Jay Shorten

Cataloger, Monographs and Electronic Resources

Associate Professor of Bibliography

Catalog Department

University Libraries

University of Oklahoma



jshor...@ou.edu