Re: [RDA-L] Understanding RDA (was: New to list)
Mark said: ,,,describe WEMI as levels of information about the thing being cataloged: for the book in hand, the work is the idea conveyed by the uniform (preferred) title or name-title heading; the expression describes in broad and narrow strokes the content, the language, the mode of communication of that idea (text, English, any included index and bibliography); the manifestation is the description of the carrier and other aspects of that particular edition (x number of pages, includes this series statement and that statement of responsibility); and the item points to information particular to the piece in hand (missing pages, signature by the author). Excellent!! But as long as we are in MARC creating records for editions, largely irrelevant to our daily work, apart from navigating RDA if/when some must. Mac
[RDA-L] Understanding RDA
Just as a knowledge of yee olde unit card helps one understand AACR2,
a knowledge of AACR2 helps one understand RDA. How library school
students coming to RDA without background will understand it, I've no
idea.
For example, you know how I feel about dividing non cast credits
between 245$c and 508 for video recordings.
RDA says at 2.4.1 (which I assume applies to 245$c):
2,4,1 A statement of responsibility is a statement relating to the
identification and/or function of any persons, families, or corporate
bodies responsible for the creation of, or contributing to the
realization of, the intellectual or artistic content of a resource.
But RDA says at 2.4.1.1:
For statements identifying persons who have contributed to the
artistic and/or technical production of a motion picture or video
recording, see the instructions given under 7.21.
The above would seem to me to instruct that all responsible persons
for a video be in a note. Shouldn't there be other in front of
persons if some were to be given in the statement of responsibility?
RDA says at 7.24.1.1 (which I assume applies to 508):
Artistic and/or technical credits are listings of persons, families,
or corporate bodies (other than the cast) who have *contributed* to
the artistic and/or technical production of a motion picture or video
recording ...
*Emphasis mine.
This says nothing about putting some contributors in a statement of
responsibility. But appendix examples show a 245$c for a video,
Unless one knows the distinctions made in AACR2 between statement of
responsibility and credits note, the RDA instructions are too vague
to follow. The general instruction, the reference to 7.24.1.1, and
7.24.1.1 all speak of contributors with no distinction made.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Understanding RDA
I agree, i found 2.4 incomprehensible when applied to moving images.
What i could piece together of the rules did not agree with the
examples. My suspicion is that the intent is to separate the creators
from the contributors and somehow end up with a statement of
responsibility exactly like we had in AACR2. How do you decide what is
a creator and what is a contributor? My guess here (though nothing
explicitly stated this) is that perhaps the roles that the JSC
arbitrarily decided belonged to the work were creators and those roles
they decided were at the expression or manifestation level were
contributors. However logical this may have seemed to them, to moving
image catalogers this seems entirely illogical and has little relation
to the nature of moving image works. There may be major and minor
creators/contributors ow whatever you want to call them, but we perceive
almost all of them as associated with the work.
I did report this in the comment period since it clearly met the
criteria for inconsistency. I have no idea whether it has been
addressed in the tweaks that have been done since the comment period
closed. I will be anxiously awaiting the release to see if this is any
clearer.
Greta de Groat
Stanford University Libraries
Former OLAC Liaison to CC:DA
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Just as a knowledge of yee olde unit card helps one understand AACR2,
a knowledge of AACR2 helps one understand RDA. How library school
students coming to RDA without background will understand it, I've no
idea.
For example, you know how I feel about dividing non cast credits
between 245$c and 508 for video recordings.
RDA says at 2.4.1 (which I assume applies to 245$c):
2,4,1 A statement of responsibility is a statement relating to the
identification and/or function of any persons, families, or corporate
bodies responsible for the creation of, or contributing to the
realization of, the intellectual or artistic content of a resource.
But RDA says at 2.4.1.1:
For statements identifying persons who have contributed to the
artistic and/or technical production of a motion picture or video
recording, see the instructions given under 7.21.
The above would seem to me to instruct that all responsible persons
for a video be in a note. Shouldn't there be other in front of
persons if some were to be given in the statement of responsibility?
RDA says at 7.24.1.1 (which I assume applies to 508):
Artistic and/or technical credits are listings of persons, families,
or corporate bodies (other than the cast) who have *contributed* to
the artistic and/or technical production of a motion picture or video
recording ...
*Emphasis mine.
This says nothing about putting some contributors in a statement of
responsibility. But appendix examples show a 245$c for a video,
Unless one knows the distinctions made in AACR2 between statement of
responsibility and credits note, the RDA instructions are too vague
to follow. The general instruction, the reference to 7.24.1.1, and
7.24.1.1 all speak of contributors with no distinction made.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Understanding RDA
Greta de Groat wrote in part: I did report this in the comment period since it clearly met the criteria for inconsistency. I have no idea whether it has been addressed in the tweaks that have been done since the comment period closed. I will be anxiously awaiting the release to see if this is any clearer. Unless I completely missed something, I have seen no mention of changes made to the current AACR2-based split responsibility (245 $c/508) practice for motion pictures and videorecordings in the following sources, all I believe issued after the RDA draft comment period ended: - Changes to AACR2 Instructions http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/5sec7rev.pdf - JSC's Minutes of March 2009 Meeting http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/5m266-283.pdf - Issues deferred until after the first release of RDA http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/5sec6rev.pdf I have no clue if the JSC will do any more tweaking on the RDA text between today and the June release; they may too busy with the present review and testing of the online product to bother with any more changes for now. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex Assistant Librarian 30 Wilson Library Contract Cataloging 309 19th Ave. S. Phone: 612-625-8546 Minneapolis, MN 55455
