Re: [RDA-L] (Online) qualifier for series
Adam Sschiff said:
>The PCC decision applies only to bibliographic records for remote
>electronic resources being authenticated according to the
>provider-neutral policy.
SLC creates records for remote electronic aggregators and publishers.
Some publishers produce print and electronic versions simultaneously.
Should we qualify the series in the records for the electronic
version, or use the same form of series for both print and electronic
versions?
Why should provider neutral records be different from provider
specific records? If an additional provider shows up, isn't the
existing single provider record edited?
Does RDA have anything to say on the subject>
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] (Online) qualifier for series
Hmmm. Doesn't the provider-neutral e-monograph report say that "All e-monographic resources cataloged on OCLC should follow the Prover-Neutral model from Day One, even if the resource is available from only one provider at the time of ctatloging."? And that basically OCLC will "neutralize" any provider-specific records? So if not qualifying the series by "(online)" is part of the provider-neutral policy, why would you have any motivation for not following the policy since OCLC will change your record anyway, whether or not you are a PCC library? greta de groat Stanford University Libraries Adam L. Schiff wrote: Earlier LAC was very responsive in answering questions about standards, but I've received no response to twice asking whether LAC will follow the PCC decision to stop qualifying remote electronic series as "(online)", but use the print form of the series. (Since we provide MARC records to several electroninc publishers, some of whom also do print versions, we need to know.) This is not quite an accurate statement of PCC policy as I understand it from discussions at various meetings. The PCC decision applies only to bibliographic records for remote electronic resources being authenticated according to the provider-neutral policy. Non-BIBCO libraries who are trained and authorized to create series authority records are still free to create series authorities for e-series and qualify them with (Online) if there is also a print manifestation of the series. There are many more NACO participants than BIBCO participants. Existing series authority records with (Online) qualifiers will not be cancelled either. --Adam Schiff ** * Adam L. Schiff * * Principal Cataloger* * University of Washington Libraries * * Box 352900 * * Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * * (206) 543-8409 * * (206) 685-8782 fax * * asch...@u.washington.edu * **
Re: [RDA-L] (Online) qualifier for series
Greta, Good questions, to which I don't have answers. It's still not clear how easy it will be for OCLC to collapse multiple records into one, and whether they will enforce a provider-neutral policy on everyone. I don't think it's going to be possible either - the rules in AACR2 and RDA say nothing about this kind of description. If cataloging agencies choose to apply AACR2/RDA rules, it's hard for me to believe that OCLC would not accept such records as valid ones. So I guess we'll have to see how this all plays out and whether future revisions of RDA sanction the description of multiple manifestations on one record. Adam ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, Greta de Groat wrote: Hmmm. Doesn't the provider-neutral e-monograph report say that "All e-monographic resources cataloged on OCLC should follow the Prover-Neutral model from Day One, even if the resource is available from only one provider at the time of ctatloging."? And that basically OCLC will "neutralize" any provider-specific records? So if not qualifying the series by "(online)" is part of the provider-neutral policy, why would you have any motivation for not following the policy since OCLC will change your record anyway, whether or not you are a PCC library? greta de groat Stanford University Libraries Adam L. Schiff wrote: Earlier LAC was very responsive in answering questions about standards, but I've received no response to twice asking whether LAC will follow the PCC decision to stop qualifying remote electronic series as "(online)", but use the print form of the series. (Since we provide MARC records to several electroninc publishers, some of whom also do print versions, we need to know.) This is not quite an accurate statement of PCC policy as I understand it from discussions at various meetings. The PCC decision applies only to bibliographic records for remote electronic resources being authenticated according to the provider-neutral policy. Non-BIBCO libraries who are trained and authorized to create series authority records are still free to create series authorities for e-series and qualify them with (Online) if there is also a print manifestation of the series. There are many more NACO participants than BIBCO participants. Existing series authority records with (Online) qualifiers will not be cancelled either. --Adam Schiff ** * Adam L. Schiff * * Principal Cataloger * * University of Washington Libraries * * Box 352900 * * Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * * (206) 543-8409 * * (206) 685-8782 fax * * asch...@u.washington.edu * **
Re: [RDA-L] (Online) qualifier for series
Adam L. Shift said:
>,,, and whether future revisions of RDA sanction the description
>of multiple manifestations on one record.
The same electcronic item from different providers are not different
manifestations, any more than different pritings of the same edition
are different manifestations. An electronic provider is not a
publisher.
I absolutely agree with Greta that the policy should be uniformly
applied, and that includes retrospective change.
With the lost of James' online index, I'm at a loss to find what RDA
says which might be relevant.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] (Online) qualifier for series
Adam L. Shift said: I hope I haven't shifted too much from post to post, but nevertheless, my name remains Schiff. It's German for "ship." ,,, and whether future revisions of RDA sanction the description of multiple manifestations on one record. The same electcronic item from different providers are not different manifestations, any more than different pritings of the same edition are different manifestations. An electronic provider is not a publisher. Mac, I think you are making an overgeneralization. Sometimes the electronic "items" are identical in every way, and sometimes they are not. I also think you need to be careful of your language, since I don't think it's correct to say that you're talking about an "item" in the FRBR sense. They aren't a single item in the FRBR sense if they are files sitting on different computers/servers, any more than two copies of the same printed manifestation are the same "item" (a good analogy might be this: two photocopies of the same copy of a book are also separate items, not the same item; so two copies of an electronic file residing on different computers must also be separate items). If the provider changes the display format, the fonts, the searching mechanisms, etc., I would argue that they have created a new manifestation. The provider often presents a resource with a different title from another provider's version: doesn't this also create a different manifestation? I agree with you that the identical PDF file accessible from two different URIs is a single manifestation, but I do believe that it's not uncommon for the same expression to be presented online in different manifestations from different providers. Adam ** * Adam L. Schiff * * Principal Cataloger* * University of Washington Libraries * * Box 352900 * * Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * * (206) 543-8409 * * (206) 685-8782 fax * * asch...@u.washington.edu * **
Re: [RDA-L] (Online) qualifier for series
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
The same electcronic item from different providers are not different
manifestations, any more than different pritings of the same edition
are different manifestations. An electronic provider is not a
publisher.
It depends on whether the electronic item is a copy, a transformation,
or a re-creation. Every time someone digitizes a book using photographic
techniques, you can have significant differences. The digital files may
have been based on the same manifestation, but they may not be
interchangeable due to missing pages, blurring, etc. If you transform a
PDF to text, you will have lost all of the typography and any
illustrations. If, however, one is a mere copy of the other, without any
changes (sometimes called a "bit-wise copy") then you've got the same
manifestation.
In other words, for digital it's actually more complex than with
physical, and there are more ways that seemingly "same" things can
actually be different.
kc
I absolutely agree with Greta that the policy should be uniformly
applied, and that includes retrospective change.
With the lost of James' online index, I'm at a loss to find what RDA
says which might be relevant.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
---
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
kco...@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
Re: [RDA-L] (Online) qualifier for series
J. McRee Elrod wrote: Adam L. Schiff said: ...and whether future revisions of RDA sanction the description of multiple manifestations on one record. The same electronic item from different providers are not different manifestations, any more than different pritings of the same edition are different manifestations. An electronic provider is not a publisher. I absolutely agree with Greta that the policy should be uniformly applied, and that includes retrospective change. Just what is the uniform title intended to do here? To serve as a one-line identifier for what's being catalogued; to provide a linking point for the work content; or to provide a linking point for the expression embodied? Until we have that clear (and RDA discussions have failed to make that clear to me -- perhaps on account of my inattention, but I can usually follow clear exposition) we'll go on making ad-hoc and conflicting decisions. FWIW I don't think the application of FRBR categories provides us with the tools to make the distinctions people are talking about here -- they're not subtle enough, at least not within the framework of the MARC21 bibliographic format. And the success will depend on the display created, a matter which RDA chose not to address, but crucial to the outcome. Hal Cain Dalton McCaughey Library Parkville, Victoria, Australia h...@dml.vic.edu.au
Re: [RDA-L] (Online) qualifier for series
hal Cain wrote: Just what is the uniform title intended to do here? To serve as a one-line identifier for what's being catalogued; to provide a linking point for the work content; or to provide a linking point for the expression embodied? This is a really important point. In my reading of our history, the "uniform title" has traditionally been intended to do _several_ things, things that sometimes work at cross-purposes. Many of these things haven't really been "specified", so much as they are tradition -- and in the current environment, often applied mechanistically without thinking about intent. We need to become clear on what uniform title is supposed to do -- and I believe, once we have that clarity, it will also be clear that "uniform title" alone can't do all the things it's been implicitly depended upon (or hoped for?) to do. We need instead one mechanism for collocating works, another for collocating expressions, another to serve as user-presentable display label (supporting doing this in multiple languages!), another to say what language an expression is in, and another to do... whatever it is that music catalogers do with uniform title (there are probably half a dozen different things just in music cataloging practice, none of which I understand!) Jonathan Until we have that clear (and RDA discussions have failed to make that clear to me -- perhaps on account of my inattention, but I can usually follow clear exposition) we'll go on making ad-hoc and conflicting decisions. FWIW I don't think the application of FRBR categories provides us with the tools to make the distinctions people are talking about here -- they're not subtle enough, at least not within the framework of the MARC21 bibliographic format. And the success will depend on the display created, a matter which RDA chose not to address, but crucial to the outcome. Hal Cain Dalton McCaughey Library Parkville, Victoria, Australia h...@dml.vic.edu.au
Re: [RDA-L] (Online) qualifier for series
RDA doesn't define a "uniform title," but instead (well, I think of it as instead) has "title of the work". I think this will be an improvement, in part because every Work should have a title, whereas uniform titles were the exception rather than the rule. Oftentimes the title of the work will be the same as the "title proper", which is associated with the manifestation. There doesn't, however, seem to be a specific title for the expression. Maybe someone here could clarify this for us. kc Jonathan Rochkind wrote: hal Cain wrote: Just what is the uniform title intended to do here? To serve as a one-line identifier for what's being catalogued; to provide a linking point for the work content; or to provide a linking point for the expression embodied? This is a really important point. In my reading of our history, the "uniform title" has traditionally been intended to do _several_ things, things that sometimes work at cross-purposes. Many of these things haven't really been "specified", so much as they are tradition -- and in the current environment, often applied mechanistically without thinking about intent. We need to become clear on what uniform title is supposed to do -- and I believe, once we have that clarity, it will also be clear that "uniform title" alone can't do all the things it's been implicitly depended upon (or hoped for?) to do. We need instead one mechanism for collocating works, another for collocating expressions, another to serve as user-presentable display label (supporting doing this in multiple languages!), another to say what language an expression is in, and another to do... whatever it is that music catalogers do with uniform title (there are probably half a dozen different things just in music cataloging practice, none of which I understand!) Jonathan Until we have that clear (and RDA discussions have failed to make that clear to me -- perhaps on account of my inattention, but I can usually follow clear exposition) we'll go on making ad-hoc and conflicting decisions. FWIW I don't think the application of FRBR categories provides us with the tools to make the distinctions people are talking about here -- they're not subtle enough, at least not within the framework of the MARC21 bibliographic format. And the success will depend on the display created, a matter which RDA chose not to address, but crucial to the outcome. Hal Cain Dalton McCaughey Library Parkville, Victoria, Australia h...@dml.vic.edu.au -- --- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant kco...@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet fx.: 510-848-3913 mo.: 510-435-8234
Re: [RDA-L] (Online) qualifier for series
But "uniform title" has been used for lots of things other than "title of the work", exactly. Especially by music catalogers. Either those uses are going to be left un-filled by RDA or these catalogers are going to continue using the "title of work" to do things that aren't about naming the title of the work at all. Probably the latter. Which will just confuse things even more in our data model, not less. Jonathan Karen Coyle wrote: RDA doesn't define a "uniform title," but instead (well, I think of it as instead) has "title of the work". I think this will be an improvement, in part because every Work should have a title, whereas uniform titles were the exception rather than the rule. Oftentimes the title of the work will be the same as the "title proper", which is associated with the manifestation. There doesn't, however, seem to be a specific title for the expression. Maybe someone here could clarify this for us. kc Jonathan Rochkind wrote: hal Cain wrote: Just what is the uniform title intended to do here? To serve as a one-line identifier for what's being catalogued; to provide a linking point for the work content; or to provide a linking point for the expression embodied? This is a really important point. In my reading of our history, the "uniform title" has traditionally been intended to do _several_ things, things that sometimes work at cross-purposes. Many of these things haven't really been "specified", so much as they are tradition -- and in the current environment, often applied mechanistically without thinking about intent. We need to become clear on what uniform title is supposed to do -- and I believe, once we have that clarity, it will also be clear that "uniform title" alone can't do all the things it's been implicitly depended upon (or hoped for?) to do. We need instead one mechanism for collocating works, another for collocating expressions, another to serve as user-presentable display label (supporting doing this in multiple languages!), another to say what language an expression is in, and another to do... whatever it is that music catalogers do with uniform title (there are probably half a dozen different things just in music cataloging practice, none of which I understand!) Jonathan Until we have that clear (and RDA discussions have failed to make that clear to me -- perhaps on account of my inattention, but I can usually follow clear exposition) we'll go on making ad-hoc and conflicting decisions. FWIW I don't think the application of FRBR categories provides us with the tools to make the distinctions people are talking about here -- they're not subtle enough, at least not within the framework of the MARC21 bibliographic format. And the success will depend on the display created, a matter which RDA chose not to address, but crucial to the outcome. Hal Cain Dalton McCaughey Library Parkville, Victoria, Australia h...@dml.vic.edu.au -- --- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant kco...@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet fx.: 510-848-3913 mo.: 510-435-8234
Re: [RDA-L] (Online) qualifier for series
According to the FRBR-RDA Mapping (5JSC/RDA/FRBR to RDA mapping/Rev), there is no attribute in RDA that corresponds to the FRBR attribute "Title of the expression" (FRBR 4.3.1). Presumably, this is because RDA continues the Anglo-American tradition of identifying expressions by means of additions to the title of the work realized in the expression (e.g., War and Peace becomes Война и мир. English). Ed Jones -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 8:44 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] (Online) qualifier for series RDA doesn't define a "uniform title," but instead (well, I think of it as instead) has "title of the work". I think this will be an improvement, in part because every Work should have a title, whereas uniform titles were the exception rather than the rule. Oftentimes the title of the work will be the same as the "title proper", which is associated with the manifestation. There doesn't, however, seem to be a specific title for the expression. Maybe someone here could clarify this for us. kc Jonathan Rochkind wrote: > hal Cain wrote: >> >> Just what is the uniform title intended to do here? To serve as a >> one-line identifier for what's being catalogued; to provide a linking >> point for the work content; or to provide a linking point for the >> expression embodied? >> > > This is a really important point. In my reading of our history, the > "uniform title" has traditionally been intended to do _several_ > things, things that sometimes work at cross-purposes. Many of these > things haven't really been "specified", so much as they are tradition > -- and in the current environment, often applied mechanistically > without thinking about intent. > > We need to become clear on what uniform title is supposed to do -- and > I believe, once we have that clarity, it will also be clear that > "uniform title" alone can't do all the things it's been implicitly > depended upon (or hoped for?) to do. We need instead one mechanism > for collocating works, another for collocating expressions, another to > serve as user-presentable display label (supporting doing this in > multiple languages!), another to say what language an expression is > in, and another to do... whatever it is that music catalogers do with > uniform title (there are probably half a dozen different things just > in music cataloging practice, none of which I understand!) > > Jonathan > > >> Until we have that clear (and RDA discussions have failed to make that >> clear to me -- perhaps on account of my inattention, but I can usually >> follow clear exposition) we'll go on making ad-hoc and conflicting >> decisions. >> >> FWIW I don't think the application of FRBR categories provides us with >> the tools to make the distinctions people are talking about here -- >> they're not subtle enough, at least not within the framework of the >> MARC21 bibliographic format. And the success will depend on the display >> created, a matter which RDA chose not to address, but crucial to the >> outcome. >> >> Hal Cain >> Dalton McCaughey Library >> Parkville, Victoria, Australia >> h...@dml.vic.edu.au >> > > -- --- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant kco...@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet fx.: 510-848-3913 mo.: 510-435-8234
Re: [RDA-L] (Online) qualifier for series
RDA has both authorized access point for work and authorized access point for expression. There are no rules at present for authorized access points for specific manifestations or items. Adam ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Wed, 22 Jul 2009, Karen Coyle wrote: RDA doesn't define a "uniform title," but instead (well, I think of it as instead) has "title of the work". I think this will be an improvement, in part because every Work should have a title, whereas uniform titles were the exception rather than the rule. Oftentimes the title of the work will be the same as the "title proper", which is associated with the manifestation. There doesn't, however, seem to be a specific title for the expression. Maybe someone here could clarify this for us. kc Jonathan Rochkind wrote: hal Cain wrote: Just what is the uniform title intended to do here? To serve as a one-line identifier for what's being catalogued; to provide a linking point for the work content; or to provide a linking point for the expression embodied? This is a really important point. In my reading of our history, the "uniform title" has traditionally been intended to do _several_ things, things that sometimes work at cross-purposes. Many of these things haven't really been "specified", so much as they are tradition -- and in the current environment, often applied mechanistically without thinking about intent. We need to become clear on what uniform title is supposed to do -- and I believe, once we have that clarity, it will also be clear that "uniform title" alone can't do all the things it's been implicitly depended upon (or hoped for?) to do. We need instead one mechanism for collocating works, another for collocating expressions, another to serve as user-presentable display label (supporting doing this in multiple languages!), another to say what language an expression is in, and another to do... whatever it is that music catalogers do with uniform title (there are probably half a dozen different things just in music cataloging practice, none of which I understand!) Jonathan Until we have that clear (and RDA discussions have failed to make that clear to me -- perhaps on account of my inattention, but I can usually follow clear exposition) we'll go on making ad-hoc and conflicting decisions. FWIW I don't think the application of FRBR categories provides us with the tools to make the distinctions people are talking about here -- they're not subtle enough, at least not within the framework of the MARC21 bibliographic format. And the success will depend on the display created, a matter which RDA chose not to address, but crucial to the outcome. Hal Cain Dalton McCaughey Library Parkville, Victoria, Australia h...@dml.vic.edu.au -- --- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant kco...@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet fx.: 510-848-3913 mo.: 510-435-8234
Re: [RDA-L] (Online) qualifier for series
Adam, that's odd, because the RDA list of elements says title proper is in the manifestation group. kc Adam L. Schiff wrote: RDA has both authorized access point for work and authorized access point for expression. There are no rules at present for authorized access points for specific manifestations or items. Adam ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Wed, 22 Jul 2009, Karen Coyle wrote: RDA doesn't define a "uniform title," but instead (well, I think of it as instead) has "title of the work". I think this will be an improvement, in part because every Work should have a title, whereas uniform titles were the exception rather than the rule. Oftentimes the title of the work will be the same as the "title proper", which is associated with the manifestation. There doesn't, however, seem to be a specific title for the expression. Maybe someone here could clarify this for us. kc Jonathan Rochkind wrote: hal Cain wrote: Just what is the uniform title intended to do here? To serve as a one-line identifier for what's being catalogued; to provide a linking point for the work content; or to provide a linking point for the expression embodied? This is a really important point. In my reading of our history, the "uniform title" has traditionally been intended to do _several_ things, things that sometimes work at cross-purposes. Many of these things haven't really been "specified", so much as they are tradition -- and in the current environment, often applied mechanistically without thinking about intent. We need to become clear on what uniform title is supposed to do -- and I believe, once we have that clarity, it will also be clear that "uniform title" alone can't do all the things it's been implicitly depended upon (or hoped for?) to do. We need instead one mechanism for collocating works, another for collocating expressions, another to serve as user-presentable display label (supporting doing this in multiple languages!), another to say what language an expression is in, and another to do... whatever it is that music catalogers do with uniform title (there are probably half a dozen different things just in music cataloging practice, none of which I understand!) Jonathan Until we have that clear (and RDA discussions have failed to make that clear to me -- perhaps on account of my inattention, but I can usually follow clear exposition) we'll go on making ad-hoc and conflicting decisions. FWIW I don't think the application of FRBR categories provides us with the tools to make the distinctions people are talking about here -- they're not subtle enough, at least not within the framework of the MARC21 bibliographic format. And the success will depend on the display created, a matter which RDA chose not to address, but crucial to the outcome. Hal Cain Dalton McCaughey Library Parkville, Victoria, Australia h...@dml.vic.edu.au -- --- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant kco...@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet fx.: 510-848-3913 mo.: 510-435-8234 -- --- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant kco...@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet fx.: 510-848-3913 mo.: 510-435-8234
Re: [RDA-L] (Online) qualifier for series
It is my understanding that the AACR2 concept of “uniform title” has no direct equivalent in RDA. In AACR2, a uniform title includes not only the title that is used as the basis of the uniform title but also any addition made to it to make a heading unique (e.g., a date, a qualifier like “Online”) or any subdivision added to it to organize the file (e.g., language, “Vocal score,” “Selections”). In RDA, the authorized access point for a work or an expression includes the authorized access point for the entity responsible for the creation of the work when appropriate, the preferred title for the work and any other element required to uniquely identify the work or the expression (e.g., Form of work, Date of work, Content type, Language of expression). The title portion of such an access point, i.e. the combination of the preferred title and the added elements, does not have a specific name in RDA. Daniel Paradis Service de catalogage Pavillon Roger-Gaudry, local L-981 Universite de Montreal C.P. 6128, succursale Centre-ville Montreal QC H3C 3J7 Telephone: 514 343-6111, ext. 4019 Fax: 514 343-6402 Email: daniel.para...@umontreal.ca http://www.bib.umontreal.ca -Message d'origine- De : Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] De la part de Karen Coyle Envoyé : 22 juillet 2009 11:44 À : RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Objet : Re: [RDA-L] (Online) qualifier for series RDA doesn't define a "uniform title," but instead (well, I think of it as instead) has "title of the work". I think this will be an improvement, in part because every Work should have a title, whereas uniform titles were the exception rather than the rule. Oftentimes the title of the work will be the same as the "title proper", which is associated with the manifestation. There doesn't, however, seem to be a specific title for the expression. Maybe someone here could clarify this for us. kc Jonathan Rochkind wrote: > hal Cain wrote: >> >> Just what is the uniform title intended to do here? To serve as a >> one-line identifier for what's being catalogued; to provide a linking >> point for the work content; or to provide a linking point for the >> expression embodied? >> > > This is a really important point. In my reading of our history, the > "uniform title" has traditionally been intended to do _several_ > things, things that sometimes work at cross-purposes. Many of these > things haven't really been "specified", so much as they are tradition > -- and in the current environment, often applied mechanistically > without thinking about intent. > > We need to become clear on what uniform title is supposed to do -- and > I believe, once we have that clarity, it will also be clear that > "uniform title" alone can't do all the things it's been implicitly > depended upon (or hoped for?) to do. We need instead one mechanism > for collocating works, another for collocating expressions, another to > serve as user-presentable display label (supporting doing this in > multiple languages!), another to say what language an expression is > in, and another to do... whatever it is that music catalogers do with > uniform title (there are probably half a dozen different things just > in music cataloging practice, none of which I understand!) > > Jonathan > > >> Until we have that clear (and RDA discussions have failed to make that >> clear to me -- perhaps on account of my inattention, but I can usually >> follow clear exposition) we'll go on making ad-hoc and conflicting >> decisions. >> >> FWIW I don't think the application of FRBR categories provides us with >> the tools to make the distinctions people are talking about here -- >> they're not subtle enough, at least not within the framework of the >> MARC21 bibliographic format. And the success will depend on the display >> created, a matter which RDA chose not to address, but crucial to the >> outcome. >> >> Hal Cain >> Dalton McCaughey Library >> Parkville, Victoria, Australia >> h...@dml.vic.edu.au >> > > -- --- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant kco...@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet fx.: 510-848-3913 mo.: 510-435-8234
Re: [RDA-L] (Online) qualifier for series
In the case of multi-part monographs, LCNAF has cases of authorized access points for what I take to be manifestation-level entities, e.g. Tolkien, J. R. R. (John Ronald Reuel), 1892-1973. Lord of the rings (Silver anniversary edition) [LCCN n 42024986] which is a controlled heading for a particular edition from a particular publisher. Will these be accommodated in RDA? Or will things like publisher, edition, and year of an edition's first publication be considered attributes of expression-level entities for multi-part monographs? Stephen Adam L. Schiff wrote: RDA has both authorized access point for work and authorized access point for expression. There are no rules at present for authorized access points for specific manifestations or items. Adam ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Wed, 22 Jul 2009, Karen Coyle wrote: RDA doesn't define a "uniform title," but instead (well, I think of it as instead) has "title of the work". I think this will be an improvement, in part because every Work should have a title, whereas uniform titles were the exception rather than the rule. Oftentimes the title of the work will be the same as the "title proper", which is associated with the manifestation. There doesn't, however, seem to be a specific title for the expression. Maybe someone here could clarify this for us. kc Jonathan Rochkind wrote: hal Cain wrote: Just what is the uniform title intended to do here? To serve as a one-line identifier for what's being catalogued; to provide a linking point for the work content; or to provide a linking point for the expression embodied? This is a really important point. In my reading of our history, the "uniform title" has traditionally been intended to do _several_ things, things that sometimes work at cross-purposes. Many of these things haven't really been "specified", so much as they are tradition -- and in the current environment, often applied mechanistically without thinking about intent. We need to become clear on what uniform title is supposed to do -- and I believe, once we have that clarity, it will also be clear that "uniform title" alone can't do all the things it's been implicitly depended upon (or hoped for?) to do. We need instead one mechanism for collocating works, another for collocating expressions, another to serve as user-presentable display label (supporting doing this in multiple languages!), another to say what language an expression is in, and another to do... whatever it is that music catalogers do with uniform title (there are probably half a dozen different things just in music cataloging practice, none of which I understand!) Jonathan Until we have that clear (and RDA discussions have failed to make that clear to me -- perhaps on account of my inattention, but I can usually follow clear exposition) we'll go on making ad-hoc and conflicting decisions. FWIW I don't think the application of FRBR categories provides us with the tools to make the distinctions people are talking about here -- they're not subtle enough, at least not within the framework of the MARC21 bibliographic format. And the success will depend on the display created, a matter which RDA chose not to address, but crucial to the outcome. Hal Cain Dalton McCaughey Library Parkville, Victoria, Australia h...@dml.vic.edu.au -- --- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant kco...@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet fx.: 510-848-3913 mo.: 510-435-8234 -- Stephen Hearn Authority Control Coordinator/Head, Database Management Section Technical Services, University Libraries, University of Minnesota 160 Wilson Library 309 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 Ph: 612-625-2328 / Fax: 612-625-3428
Re: [RDA-L] (Online) qualifier for series
The “parts” making up a uniform title in AACR2 (e.g., basic title, additions, subdivisions) have been defined in RDA as separate elements (Preferred title for the work, Date of work, Other distinguishing characteristic of the work, Content type, Language of expression, etc.). In these conditions, I doubt that cataloguers could use the “Preferred title for the work” for other reasons than to name the work. Cataloguers will continue to be able to collocate and distinguish works and expressions, though, by combining these elements in authorized access points or as elements in work records. The other uses fulfilled by uniform titles in AACR2 will still be possible in RDA, without confusing the data model. Daniel Paradis Service de catalogage Pavillon Roger-Gaudry, local L-981 Universite de Montreal C.P. 6128, succursale Centre-ville Montreal QC H3C 3J7 Telephone: 514 343-6111, ext. 4019 Fax: 514 343-6402 Email: daniel.para...@umontreal.ca http://www.bib.umontreal.ca -Message d'origine- De : Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] De la part de Jonathan Rochkind Envoyé : 22 juillet 2009 11:45 À : RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Objet : Re: [RDA-L] (Online) qualifier for series But "uniform title" has been used for lots of things other than "title of the work", exactly. Especially by music catalogers. Either those uses are going to be left un-filled by RDA or these catalogers are going to continue using the "title of work" to do things that aren't about naming the title of the work at all. Probably the latter. Which will just confuse things even more in our data model, not less. Jonathan
Re: [RDA-L] (Online) qualifier for series
Excellent! Good job, RDA. :) I think what Daniel describes makes sense. Paradis Daniel wrote: The “parts” making up a uniform title in AACR2 (e.g., basic title, additions, subdivisions) have been defined in RDA as separate elements (Preferred title for the work, Date of work, Other distinguishing characteristic of the work, Content type, Language of expression, etc.). In these conditions, I doubt that cataloguers could use the “Preferred title for the work” for other reasons than to name the work. Cataloguers will continue to be able to collocate and distinguish works and expressions, though, by combining these elements in authorized access points or as elements in work records. The other uses fulfilled by uniform titles in AACR2 will still be possible in RDA, without confusing the data model. Daniel Paradis Service de catalogage Pavillon Roger-Gaudry, local L-981 Universite de Montreal C.P. 6128, succursale Centre-ville Montreal QC H3C 3J7 Telephone: 514 343-6111, ext. 4019 Fax: 514 343-6402 Email: daniel.para...@umontreal.ca http://www.bib.umontreal.ca -Message d'origine- De : Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] De la part de Jonathan Rochkind Envoyé : 22 juillet 2009 11:45 À : RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Objet : Re: [RDA-L] (Online) qualifier for series But "uniform title" has been used for lots of things other than "title of the work", exactly. Especially by music catalogers. Either those uses are going to be left un-filled by RDA or these catalogers are going to continue using the "title of work" to do things that aren't about naming the title of the work at all. Probably the latter. Which will just confuse things even more in our data model, not less. Jonathan
