Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA -- Carrier Type and stereographic

[J. McRee Elrod]

Thomas said of stereographic images in a volume:

>No, that's not what you have. You still need a separate intermediary
>device for the carrier.

Yes, that is what you have.  You need a separate intermediate device
to ser the images *in* the carrier in 3D.  The volume can be pulled
from the shelf and flipped through to select images to be viewed.

How is "other" more helpful to patrons. when what they will find on
the shelf is a volume?  We seem to have lost sight of the purpose of
our bibliographic records in a fog of theory.  Records are created to
facilitate access.  That should include being specific and true in
labels, including not saying "other", when one has a volume.

Field 338 is repeating, and has repeating $a.  A second term could be
added for the medium within the carrier if wished.

We will call a volume a volume, regardless of content.  It will be
interesting to see what MARCReport makes of that.  Clients don't like
it when we lie.

Mac


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA -- Carrier Type and stereographic

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

> -Original Message-
> From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca]
> Sent: October 27, 2012 1:54 PM
> To: Brenndorfer, Thomas
> Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA -- Carrier Type and
> stereographic
> 
> Thomas Brennndorfer said:
> 
> >Carrier Type includes Media Type as a constituent attribute, which
> >means Carrier Type "volume" includes "unmediated" and would therefore
> >exclude "stereographic" for the intermediation attribute. One can't
> >combine "volume" and "stereographic," and "stereographic" by itself
> >would at least point to Carrier Type "other".
> 
> This seems to me to be theory over common sense.  If the stereographic
> images are in a volume, that is what one has.



No, that's not what you have. You still need a separate intermediary device for 
the carrier.


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA -- Carrier Type and stereographic

[J. McRee Elrod]

Thomas Brennndorfer said:

>Carrier Type includes Media Type as a constituent attribute, which
>means Carrier Type "volume" includes "unmediated" and would therefore
>exclude "stereographic" for the intermediation attribute. One can't
>combine "volume" and "stereographic," and "stereographic" by itself
>would at least point to Carrier Type "other".

This seems to me to be theory over common sense.  If the stereographic
images are in a volume, that is what one has. 

It seems to me that an instruction to use the actual carrier would be
fine; less work than adding every possible carrier to every media
category.  Those carriers given under media type are representative,
not exhaustive.  Combinations which have not occurred to us will
happen.

People talk of escaping the "MARC straight jacket{.  RDA as described
by Thomas is even a greater straight jacket.  The least we owe patrons
is truth in description, and that includes calling a volume a volume.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA -- Carrier Type and stereographic

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

Carrier Type includes Media Type as a constituent attribute, which means 
Carrier Type "volume" includes "unmediated" and would therefore exclude 
"stereographic" for the intermediation attribute. One can't combine "volume" 
and "stereographic," and "stereographic" by itself would at least point to 
Carrier Type "other".

The stereographic carriers include "stereograph card," "stereograph disc," and 
"other."
http://www.loc.gov/standards/valuelist/rdacarrier.html


Carrier Type "other" would have to be used with media type "stereographic" for 
carriers that are different from the two defined ones:

Stereograph card - mapped to 007 (non-projected graphic) /01 = h for 
"photoprint ... (opaque stereographs are included here)"
http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd007k.html

Stereograph disc - mapped to 007 (projected graphic) /01 = s for "slide ... 
Includes modern stereographs, e.g. Viewmaster reels"
http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd007g.html

For recording extent, RDA 3.4.4.3 instructions for multiple images in a single 
carrier might be appropriate - basically resulting in something in the form of 
"25 stereograph images in 1 volume", along with using Carrier type = "other" 
and Media type = "stereographic".
Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library


From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Deborah Fritz
Sent: October 25, 2012 11:00 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

On Friday, October 26, 2012, Greta de Groat wrote:
We also ran into problems with a book that consisted almost entirely of 
stereographic images, but volume isn't listed under stereographic carriers so 
we weren't sure we could use 337 stereographic with 338 volume.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscope
Apparently, stereographic images can also appear on slides, printed sheets, and 
iPhones, so, I would say that the carrier list might need updating for this 
media, but until that happens, it seems to me that the only option, to mirror 
the media, would be to use 'other' as the carrier type.

But I'm assuming that you also have text in this resource, so perhaps the logic 
might be that as long as you record *a* carrier type you are covered.

So, I would say to myself "what I have here are still images (Content) that can 
be accessed using a stereographic viewer (Media) or can be viewed unmediated 
(Media)-although not the way they were intended, although you can apparently 
force your eyes to see stereographically without a viewer-in a volume 
(Carrier)", so:

Content Type (336$a): still image
Content Type (336$a): text
Media Type (337$a): stereographic
Media Type (337$a): unmediated
Carrier Type (338$a): volume
Extent (300$a): [n] pages
Nature of the Content(500$a): Stereographic images with commentary text

So, let me ask Greta's question again: is it ok to list a Media Type, without 
also listing its specifically corresponding Carrier Type, as long as you *do* 
list a carrier type for other contents?

Deborah

-  - -
Deborah Fritz
TMQ, Inc.
debo...@marcofquality.com<mailto:debo...@marcofquality.com>
www.marcofquality.com<http://www.marcofquality.com>

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Greta de Groat
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 5:39 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

We also ran into problems with a book that consisted almost entirely of 
stereographic images, but volume isn't listed under stereographic carriers so 
we weren't sure we could use 337 stereographic with 338 volume.

Greta de Groat
Stanford University Libraries

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

[J. McRee Elrod]

Deborah Fritz said concerning stereographic images in a volume:

>Apparently, stereographic images can also appear on slides, printed sheets,
>and iPhones, so, I would say that the carrier list might need updating for
>this media, but until that happens, it seems to me that the only option, to
>mirror the media, would be to use 'other' as the carrier type. 

I nearly always agree with the brilliant Deborah.  But in this case, I
think it would be better to be truthful, and more helpful, to use
"volume", even if it means mixing and matching.  "Other" is not
helpful to anybody.  A volume is what one has in this case.

I supposed it is a matter of being pragmatic vs. obeying the letter of
rules. The world of library resources is far too varied to force into
preconceived categories, without some leeway.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

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

[Deborah Fritz]

On Friday, October 26, 2012, Greta de Groat wrote:

We also ran into problems with a book that consisted almost entirely of
stereographic images, but volume isn't listed under stereographic carriers
so we weren't sure we could use 337 stereographic with 338 volume.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscope

Apparently, stereographic images can also appear on slides, printed sheets,
and iPhones, so, I would say that the carrier list might need updating for
this media, but until that happens, it seems to me that the only option, to
mirror the media, would be to use 'other' as the carrier type. 

 

But I'm assuming that you also have text in this resource, so perhaps the
logic might be that as long as you record *a* carrier type you are covered.

 

So, I would say to myself "what I have here are still images (Content) that
can be accessed using a stereographic viewer (Media) or can be viewed
unmediated (Media)-although not the way they were intended, although you can
apparently force your eyes to see stereographically without a viewer-in a
volume (Carrier)", so:

 

Content Type (336$a): still image

Content Type (336$a): text

Media Type (337$a): stereographic

Media Type (337$a): unmediated

Carrier Type (338$a): volume

Extent (300$a): [n] pages

Nature of the Content(500$a): Stereographic images with commentary text

 

So, let me ask Greta's question again: is it ok to list a Media Type,
without also listing its specifically corresponding Carrier Type, as long as
you *do* list a carrier type for other contents?

 

Deborah

 

-  - -

Deborah Fritz

TMQ, Inc.

 <mailto:debo...@marcofquality.com> debo...@marcofquality.com

 <http://www.marcofquality.com> www.marcofquality.com

 

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Greta de Groat
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 5:39 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

 

We also ran into problems with a book that consisted almost entirely of
stereographic images, but volume isn't listed under stereographic carriers
so we weren't sure we could use 337 stereographic with 338 volume.

Greta de Groat
Stanford University Libraries

 

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

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
> Sent: October 25, 2012 1:52 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
...

> It also occurs to me that RDA 6.9.1.3 states, " Record as many [content
> type] terms as are applicable to the resource being described " so a
> computer game, for example, could be described:
> 
> 336 $a computer $b c $2 rdacontent
> 336 $a interactive $b i $2 rdacontent
> 

In the RDA-ONIX Framework these are isolated attributes and not really suitable 
as Content Type terms. The goal in the RDA-ONIX Framework is to create a 
"BaseContentCategory" that concatenates multiple primary values found under 
each attribute for Content Type.

Each combination of primary values from the different attribute categories can 
produce one and only one BaseContentCategory, which will get a label of some 
kind. One needs to avoid duplication of labels for different combinations of 
primary values -- it is this phenomenon that is at the source of the complaints 
over wordy Content Types. For example, "cartographic three-dimensional form" 
concatenates a set of primary values. That unique set of primary values needs a 
unique label (although what ultimately gets displayed to end-users can be 
modified-- the underlying values being pointed to, however, have to be 
maintained and those together form the unique label that gets put into the 336 
field).

RDA-ONIX Framework:
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2007/5chair10.pdf

"Interactive" is a primary value found under the Interaction attribute (not 
used in RDA). The idea is that this likely wouldn't stand alone but would be 
found with other values to create a BaseContentCategory. In other words, if one 
is looking to create a term for a Content Type, one can't just say "not 
applicable" to all the other attributes if in fact some do apply. Using 
"interactive" alone means that all of the other attributes are not applicable.

"Computer" is a value not found in the list of primary values (it's part of an 
open value set from the Form/Genre attribute), and so its use forms a 
"QualifiedContentCategory."

If a QualifiedContentCategory can be built out of both "computer" and 
"interactive" (and whatever other attributes apply) then only one label can be 
used, and this goes into a single Content Type (336) element.

As soon as we get into mutually exclusive primary values do we get into 
multiple Content Types (for example, "language" and "music" are mutually 
exclusive primary values under the 'Character' attribute and would by necessity 
lead to two separate Content Type labels, once other applicable attributes are 
concatenated to form the single label for each Content Type).

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

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

[J. McRee Elrod]

Ben Abrahamse suggested for computer games:

>336 $a computer $b c $2 rdacontent
>336 $a interactive $b i $2 rdacontent

Neither "computer" nor "interactive" are RDA content terms, nor do
they seem to me to be content.  For a computer game, I would go with
336 $acomputer program.  

For patron access, I would have 655  0 $aComputer games.  (There are
also more exact headings of types of computer games.)  Let's face it:
the RDA sometimes obscure media terms are largely useless for patrons.  
For patron access, we need icons or better GMDs, used with 655 genre
headings.

>.. under RDA we're supposed to "record the extent of the resource by
>giving the number of units and an appropriate term for the type of
>carrier"

RDA also says (if not rewritten):

3.4.1.5 --> Overview

 Other Terms Used to Designate the Type of Unit
  Use a term in common usage (including a trade name, if applicable)
  to designate the type of unit  ...

In my view, this would justify  Blu-ray, CD-ROM, DVD, PDF, VHS, etc.
as unit names, just as you have been doing for SMDs with AACR2.   That
is what SLC intends to do.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

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

[JSC Secretary]

Ben,

Re:  "Finally--I certainly agree with you about DVD's, and I don't really
think RDA content/media/carrier vocabularies improve upon that situation.
 If anything they go backwards--under AACR2 it was common to code the 300
$a as "1 CD-ROM" or "1 DVD-ROM", but under RDA we're supposed to "record
the extent of the resource by giving the number of units and an appropriate
term for the type of carrier" which leads us to record "1 computer disc".
 The only way I've figured out to indicate "DVD" vs "Blu-Ray" or "CD-ROM"
vs "DVD-ROM" is with a note."

You can say 1 CD-ROM or 1 DVD-ROM.  See RDA 3.4.1.5, condition c).

Judy Kuhagen


On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:

> Certainly, more form/genre term would be helpful; but if "interactive
> material" (or whatever it was called) was a content type, we could use
> form/genre headings to record and provide access to specific genres of
> games and interactive documents (of which there are many).
>
> I appreciate what you are saying about the difficulty of creating a
> generalized vocabulary.  It has always been my understanding (or my hope)
> that these lists were not meant to be canonical for all time--that we
> should expect new terms to come into the vocabulary as people find new uses
> for it.
>
> I think that if content type is meant to categorize "the fundamental form
> of communication in which the content is expressed and the human sense
> through which it is intended to be perceived" then none of the existing
> content type express the fact that ludic material is meant to be
> "perceived" through interaction.  "Text" implies static content (and
> anyways not all game are textual in nature--have you ever played Set?  If
> not, I recommend it for any cataloger--in fact, I use it my cataloging
> class to demonstrate what "facets" are.)
>
> It also occurs to me that RDA 6.9.1.3 states, " Record as many [content
> type] terms as are applicable to the resource being described " so a
> computer game, for example, could be described:
>
> 336 $a computer $b c $2 rdacontent
> 336 $a interactive $b i $2 rdacontent
>
>
> Finally--I certainly agree with you about DVD's, and I don't really think
> RDA content/media/carrier vocabularies improve upon that situation.  If
> anything they go backwards--under AACR2 it was common to code the 300 $a as
> "1 CD-ROM" or "1 DVD-ROM", but under RDA we're supposed to "record the
> extent of the resource by giving the number of units and an appropriate
> term for the type of carrier" which leads us to record "1 computer disc".
>  The only way I've figured out to indicate "DVD" vs "Blu-Ray" or "CD-ROM"
> vs "DVD-ROM" is with a note.
>
> In any case this is an interesting discussion, so thank you.
>
> ==Ben
>
>
> Benjamin Abrahamse
> Cataloging Coordinator
> Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
> MIT Libraries
> 617-253-7137
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jonathan Rochkind [mailto:rochk...@jhu.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 1:31 PM
> To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> Cc: Benjamin A Abrahamse
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
>
> On 10/25/2012 1:20 PM, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:
> > " If a library holds software, mightn't a user want to see a list of
> > all the software the library holds, whether games or word processors
> > or what have you"
> >
> > I suppose.  But that seems to me like a less direct, or usual user
> > task than, "Show me what games your library has."  (Which currently
> > cannot be answered, for computer games or otherwise, by the RDA
> > content/media/carrier vocabulary.)
>
> I'm not sure it seems to me like less direct or less usual, probably
> depends on the environment (maybe in a public library it's a usual
> question?). But at any rate.
>
> You can't do that with AACR2/MARC GMDs/SMDs either, can you?
>
> Perhaps the right place to record something to answer this question is
> actually in a 6xx/LCSH $v form/genre heading?
>
> I know LC is doing work on revising the LCSH form/genre heading thesaurus
> too -- like I said, this is a difficult thing to make a generalizable
> taxonomy for. Perhaps that's the right place for there to be a 'games'
> heading (entered in a 655), as 'game' is really more of a 'genre' having to
> do with the content and the author's intentions for it's use, than i

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

[J. McRee Elrod]

Greta de Groat said:

>... there are some gaping [33X] holes.

Agreed.  See MRI 1.1C for terms added in brackets which SLC needs. We
don't find "other" or "object" very informative . We very much hope
catataloguers will use the option to use exact trade names as SMD
(unit name) rather than repeating a generic term from 338.

http://special-cataloguing.com/mris

We would use any combination of 33X terms from the three lists which
seem to best describe the resource.  So what if the writers did not
expect stereooptic images to be in a volume?  The world of library
resources is too rich a varied to be covered by any preconceived list.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

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

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

The RDA-ONIX Framework allows for a genre attribute to be part of Content Type.

http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2007/5chair10.pdf

This has already happened with "cartographic" and "computer" (as in "computer 
dataset" and "computer program" Content types)-- see Recommendation #3 in the 
document.

The other attributes mapped to Content Type reflect elementary aspects of human 
perception and communication:

Character; Sensory Mode; ImageDimensionality; ImageMovement.

I view "computer dataset" and "computer program" as Content Types that are not 
to be perceived directly by human beings, but rather content that is "processed 
or performed" by computers. The Content Type "cartographic dataset" also fits 
here.


Once the content escapes the encoded level and enters the mind of the audience 
or viewer then the Content Type shifts to the human senses involved.

In the RDA-ONIX Framework "interaction" and "purpose" are unexplored attributes 
that can be part of a Content Type.

I suppose one could build an RDA-ONIX Content Type mixing interaction, purpose 
and genre like "interactive recreational videogame".


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library


> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind
> Sent: October 25, 2012 1:31 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
> 
> On 10/25/2012 1:20 PM, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:
> > " If a library holds software, mightn't a user want to see a list of
> > all the software the library holds, whether games or word processors
> > or what have you"
> >
> > I suppose.  But that seems to me like a less direct, or usual user
> > task than, "Show me what games your library has."  (Which currently
> > cannot be answered, for computer games or otherwise, by the RDA
> > content/media/carrier vocabulary.)
> 
> I'm not sure it seems to me like less direct or less usual, probably
> depends on the environment (maybe in a public library it's a usual
> question?). But at any rate.
> 
> You can't do that with AACR2/MARC GMDs/SMDs either, can you?
> 
> Perhaps the right place to record something to answer this question is
> actually in a 6xx/LCSH $v form/genre heading?
> 
> I know LC is doing work on revising the LCSH form/genre heading thesaurus
> too -- like I said, this is a difficult thing to make a generalizable
> taxonomy for. Perhaps that's the right place for there to be a 'games'
> heading (entered in a 655), as 'game' is really more of a 'genre' having to
> do with the content and the author's intentions for it's use, than it is a
> form/format/carrier having to do with the physical properties of the item,
> that the RDA vocabularies we're talking about focus on.
> 
> This stuff is really tricky to encompass with standardized shareable
> general and universal vocabularies, it's probably not possible to do so
> completely (and nothing libraries have tried yet comes close either. For
> instance, trying to display or limit by whether an item is a "DVD" (let
> alone blue-ray vs standard dvd!), which seems to me to be a VERY common
> user need in contemporary libraries accross communities and types (public
> as well as academic) --  is a somewhat herculean task with our legacy
> metadata).

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

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

Certainly, more form/genre term would be helpful; but if "interactive material" 
(or whatever it was called) was a content type, we could use form/genre 
headings to record and provide access to specific genres of games and 
interactive documents (of which there are many).

I appreciate what you are saying about the difficulty of creating a generalized 
vocabulary.  It has always been my understanding (or my hope) that these lists 
were not meant to be canonical for all time--that we should expect new terms to 
come into the vocabulary as people find new uses for it.

I think that if content type is meant to categorize "the fundamental form of 
communication in which the content is expressed and the human sense through 
which it is intended to be perceived" then none of the existing content type 
express the fact that ludic material is meant to be "perceived" through 
interaction.  "Text" implies static content (and anyways not all game are 
textual in nature--have you ever played Set?  If not, I recommend it for any 
cataloger--in fact, I use it my cataloging class to demonstrate what "facets" 
are.)

It also occurs to me that RDA 6.9.1.3 states, " Record as many [content type] 
terms as are applicable to the resource being described " so a computer game, 
for example, could be described:

336 $a computer $b c $2 rdacontent
336 $a interactive $b i $2 rdacontent


Finally--I certainly agree with you about DVD's, and I don't really think RDA 
content/media/carrier vocabularies improve upon that situation.  If anything 
they go backwards--under AACR2 it was common to code the 300 $a as "1 CD-ROM" 
or "1 DVD-ROM", but under RDA we're supposed to "record the extent of the 
resource by giving the number of units and an appropriate term for the type of 
carrier" which leads us to record "1 computer disc".  The only way I've figured 
out to indicate "DVD" vs "Blu-Ray" or "CD-ROM" vs "DVD-ROM" is with a note.

In any case this is an interesting discussion, so thank you.

==Ben


Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137


-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Rochkind [mailto:rochk...@jhu.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 1:31 PM
To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
Cc: Benjamin A Abrahamse
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

On 10/25/2012 1:20 PM, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:
> " If a library holds software, mightn't a user want to see a list of 
> all the software the library holds, whether games or word processors 
> or what have you"
>
> I suppose.  But that seems to me like a less direct, or usual user 
> task than, "Show me what games your library has."  (Which currently 
> cannot be answered, for computer games or otherwise, by the RDA 
> content/media/carrier vocabulary.)

I'm not sure it seems to me like less direct or less usual, probably depends on 
the environment (maybe in a public library it's a usual question?). But at any 
rate.

You can't do that with AACR2/MARC GMDs/SMDs either, can you?

Perhaps the right place to record something to answer this question is actually 
in a 6xx/LCSH $v form/genre heading?

I know LC is doing work on revising the LCSH form/genre heading thesaurus too 
-- like I said, this is a difficult thing to make a generalizable taxonomy for. 
Perhaps that's the right place for there to be a 'games' heading (entered in a 
655), as 'game' is really more of a 'genre' having to do with the content and 
the author's intentions for it's use, than it is a form/format/carrier having 
to do with the physical properties of the item, that the RDA vocabularies we're 
talking about focus on.

This stuff is really tricky to encompass with standardized shareable general 
and universal vocabularies, it's probably not possible to do so completely (and 
nothing libraries have tried yet comes close either. For instance, trying to 
display or limit by whether an item is a "DVD" (let alone blue-ray vs standard 
dvd!), which seems to me to be a VERY common user need in contemporary 
libraries accross communities and types (public as well as academic) --  is a 
somewhat herculean task with our legacy metadata).

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

[Jonathan Rochkind]

On 10/25/2012 1:20 PM, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:

" If a library holds software, mightn't a user want to see a list of
all the software the library holds, whether games or word processors
or what have you"

I suppose.  But that seems to me like a less direct, or usual user
task than, "Show me what games your library has."  (Which currently
cannot be answered, for computer games or otherwise, by the RDA
content/media/carrier vocabulary.)


I'm not sure it seems to me like less direct or less usual, probably 
depends on the environment (maybe in a public library it's a usual 
question?). But at any rate.


You can't do that with AACR2/MARC GMDs/SMDs either, can you?

Perhaps the right place to record something to answer this question is 
actually in a 6xx/LCSH $v form/genre heading?


I know LC is doing work on revising the LCSH form/genre heading 
thesaurus too -- like I said, this is a difficult thing to make a 
generalizable taxonomy for. Perhaps that's the right place for there to 
be a 'games' heading (entered in a 655), as 'game' is really more of a 
'genre' having to do with the content and the author's intentions for 
it's use, than it is a form/format/carrier having to do with the 
physical properties of the item, that the RDA vocabularies we're talking 
about focus on.


This stuff is really tricky to encompass with standardized shareable 
general and universal vocabularies, it's probably not possible to do so 
completely (and nothing libraries have tried yet comes close either. For 
instance, trying to display or limit by whether an item is a "DVD" (let 
alone blue-ray vs standard dvd!), which seems to me to be a VERY common 
user need in contemporary libraries accross communities and types 
(public as well as academic) --  is a somewhat herculean task with our 
legacy metadata).

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

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

" If a library holds software, mightn't a user want to see a list of all the 
software the library holds, whether games or word processors or what have you "

I suppose.  But that seems to me like a less direct, or usual user task than, 
"Show me what games your library has."  (Which currently cannot be answered, 
for computer games or otherwise, by the RDA content/media/carrier vocabulary.)

--Ben


Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 1:17 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

On 10/25/2012 12:57 PM, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:
> Yes, a computer game is a "computer program" but I don't think most 
> users think of it that way.

I am not sure if that's true or not.  If a library holds software, mightn't a 
user want to see a list of all the software the library holds, whether games or 
word processors or what have you?

(Whether the phrase 'computer program' or 'software' is used is an 
implementation issue, not a key feature of the taxonomy).

Certainly within that, you might also want to see the software by category.  
But nobody's shocked to find games in the 'app store' for instance, alongside 
all sorts of other software.  ("What, that's not an app! It's a game!")

In general, dealing with form/format/genre is one of the most difficult 
taxonomic tasks in bibliographic metadata management. Because it ends up being 
so context-dependent: What the 'right' taxonomy for users is depends on the 
nature, size and diversity of the collection, the nature of the user community 
using it, and even on the individual user and her use case.  There isn't some 
'obvious' one true taxonomy of form/format/genre , that if only the standard 
would use it all would be well!

For those who find it economic to custom label all their records with GMD's 
customized for their environment, that's just great, and I don't see any reason 
they should stop just because RDA doesn't say "you are allowed to create your 
own local vocabulary and use it in your local records, it's just not RDA's 
vocabulary when you do that." RDA doesn't have to say that, it's just a fact.

But this is not economically feasible for many of us, there is a need for 
metadata describing form/format/carrier/genre that can be shared, and can be 
used in systems that span individual contexts.

So RDA attempts to at least describe the materials with rational and consistent 
form/format/carrier/genre vocabularies that attempt to be generalizable. This 
results in a system that you probably _wouldn't_ want to show to users directly 
-- user's own mental models of this stuff are _not_ rational and consistent, 
and vary incredibly from community to community to context and context.  The 
idea is that hopefully there is enough rational and consistent information in 
the RDA encodings that local system-specific rules can be created to transform 
them into what is useful for the user community -- without un-economic 
individual record-by-record attention, and with the ability to change these 
transformation rules at a later date when needs change without having to 
individually re-describe record-by-record.

No doubt RDA's vocabularies are not perfect for this (indeed the nature of the 
endeavor is such that "perfection" is impossible, but no doubt they can be 
improved), but this _approach_ is the only one that seems plausible to result 
in useful generalized shareable metadata on form/format/carrier/genre.

>
> =
>
> Benjamin Abrahamse
>
> Cataloging Coordinator
>
> Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
>
> MIT Libraries
>
> 617-253-7137
>
> *From:*Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and 
> Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] *On Behalf Of *Greta de 
> Groat
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 25, 2012 12:39 PM
> *To:* RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
>
> I've been creating constant data forms for my most commonly used 
> formats, with the 33x fields already filled in--that's even faster.
>
> I really like the 33x fields for many of the materials that i catalog, 
> but there are some gaping holes.
>
> There isn't a content type that's appropriate for video/computer games 
> or other interactive materials--we've been using Computer program 
> combined with Two-dimensional moving image, which might be technically 
> appropriate bu

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

[Jonathan Rochkind]

On 10/25/2012 12:57 PM, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:

Yes, a computer game is a "computer program" but I don't think most
users think of it that way.


I am not sure if that's true or not.  If a library holds software, 
mightn't a user want to see a list of all the software the library 
holds, whether games or word processors or what have you?


(Whether the phrase 'computer program' or 'software' is used is an 
implementation issue, not a key feature of the taxonomy).


Certainly within that, you might also want to see the software by 
category.  But nobody's shocked to find games in the 'app store' for 
instance, alongside all sorts of other software.  ("What, that's not an 
app! It's a game!")


In general, dealing with form/format/genre is one of the most difficult 
taxonomic tasks in bibliographic metadata management. Because it ends up 
being so context-dependent: What the 'right' taxonomy for users is 
depends on the nature, size and diversity of the collection, the nature 
of the user community using it, and even on the individual user and her 
use case.  There isn't some 'obvious' one true taxonomy of 
form/format/genre , that if only the standard would use it all would be 
well!


For those who find it economic to custom label all their records with 
GMD's customized for their environment, that's just great, and I don't 
see any reason they should stop just because RDA doesn't say "you are 
allowed to create your own local vocabulary and use it in your local 
records, it's just not RDA's vocabulary when you do that." RDA doesn't 
have to say that, it's just a fact.


But this is not economically feasible for many of us, there is a need 
for metadata describing form/format/carrier/genre that can be shared, 
and can be used in systems that span individual contexts.


So RDA attempts to at least describe the materials with rational and 
consistent form/format/carrier/genre vocabularies that attempt to be 
generalizable. This results in a system that you probably _wouldn't_ 
want to show to users directly -- user's own mental models of this stuff 
are _not_ rational and consistent, and vary incredibly from community to 
community to context and context.  The idea is that hopefully there is 
enough rational and consistent information in the RDA encodings that 
local system-specific rules can be created to transform them into what 
is useful for the user community -- without un-economic individual 
record-by-record attention, and with the ability to change these 
transformation rules at a later date when needs change without having to 
individually re-describe record-by-record.


No doubt RDA's vocabularies are not perfect for this (indeed the nature 
of the endeavor is such that "perfection" is impossible, but no doubt 
they can be improved), but this _approach_ is the only one that seems 
plausible to result in useful generalized shareable metadata on 
form/format/carrier/genre.




=

Benjamin Abrahamse

Cataloging Coordinator

Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems

MIT Libraries

617-253-7137

*From:*Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] *On Behalf Of *Greta de Groat
*Sent:* Thursday, October 25, 2012 12:39 PM
*To:* RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
*Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

I've been creating constant data forms for my most commonly used
formats, with the 33x fields already filled in--that's even faster.

I really like the 33x fields for many of the materials that i catalog,
but there are some gaping holes.

There isn't a content type that's appropriate for video/computer games
or other interactive materials--we've been using Computer program
combined with Two-dimensional moving image, which might be technically
appropriate but is also misleading and doesn't really get at the nature
of the material.

Three-dimensional moving image is somewhat misleading in that it appears
to be intended for films, but is apparently not appropriate for
3-dimensional games, which uses the term in a somewhat different fashion
(the ability to move in 3 dimensions in the game space).

In the media types, Computer appears to be only for the data and
programs (..."designed for use with a computer..."), but not for the
computer itself (i.e. if you are cataloging an iPad).  We've concluded
that it's Other, but that's not very useful.  Similarly, the computer
carriers in the carrier type appear to be the storage media but not the
computer itself.   It's not even clear to me from RDA whether hard
drives or flash drives can be considered carrier types since they aren't
on the list and it doesn't say that you are permitted to consider
anything but the listed carriers under the listed

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

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

There should be a "content type" for interactive or ludic material like games 
and such.  Since this material can be expressed through various media (e.g.: 
computer games as "computer", board or card games as "unmediated") it really 
belongs at the level of content.

Yes, a computer game is a "computer program" but I don't think most users think 
of it that way.

=

Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Greta de Groat
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 12:39 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

I've been creating constant data forms for my most commonly used formats, with 
the 33x fields already filled in--that's even faster.

I really like the 33x fields for many of the materials that i catalog, but 
there are some gaping holes.

There isn't a content type that's appropriate for video/computer games or other 
interactive materials--we've been using Computer program combined with 
Two-dimensional moving image, which might be technically appropriate but is 
also misleading and doesn't really get at the nature of the material.

Three-dimensional moving image is somewhat misleading in that it appears to be 
intended for films, but is apparently not appropriate for 3-dimensional games, 
which uses the term in a somewhat different fashion (the ability to move in 3 
dimensions in the game space).

In the media types, Computer appears to be only for the data and programs 
(..."designed for use with a computer..."), but not for the computer itself 
(i.e. if you are cataloging an iPad).  We've concluded that it's Other, but 
that's not very useful.  Similarly, the computer carriers in the carrier type 
appear to be the storage media but not the computer itself.   It's not even 
clear to me from RDA whether hard drives or flash drives can be considered 
carrier types since they aren't on the list and it doesn't say that you are 
permitted to consider anything but the listed carriers under the listed 
type--it does say in 3.1.4.5 that you can use another term in the Extent 
element but it's not clear how that relates to 3.3.

We also ran into problems with a book that consisted almost entirely of 
stereographic images, but volume isn't listed under stereographic carriers so 
we weren't sure we could use 337 stereographic with 338 volume.

Greta de Groat
Stanford University Libraries
On 10/24/2012 12:54 PM, Joan Wang wrote:
Very cool! Thanks for letting us know.

Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Adam L. Schiff 
mailto:asch...@u.washington.edu>> wrote:
Another aspect I have not seen mentioned, is that AACR2 style GMDs
only had to be assigned to nonbook materials.  RDA 33X must be
assigned to all library resources, a major increase in effort.  Not
only it is three terms for one, but they must be assigned to many more
records.

For users of OCLC Connexion, there is a macro that makes adding these terms, 
along with their coded values, take about 3 seconds.  This is not huge increase 
of effort.  The macro pulls up a pulldown menu and you just select the terms 
you need and click add.

**
* 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<mailto:asch...@u.washington.edu>   * 
**



--
Joan Wang, Ph.D.
Cataloger -- CMC
Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office)
6725 Goshen Road
Edwardsville, IL 62025
618.656.3216x409
618.656.9401Fax

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

[Greta de Groat]

I've been creating constant data forms for my most commonly used 
formats, with the 33x fields already filled in--that's even faster.


I really like the 33x fields for many of the materials that i catalog, 
but there are some gaping holes.


There isn't a content type that's appropriate for video/computer games 
or other interactive materials--we've been using Computer program 
combined with Two-dimensional moving image, which might be technically 
appropriate but is also misleading and doesn't really get at the nature 
of the material.


Three-dimensional moving image is somewhat misleading in that it appears 
to be intended for films, but is apparently not appropriate for 
3-dimensional games, which uses the term in a somewhat different fashion 
(the ability to move in 3 dimensions in the game space).


In the media types, Computer appears to be only for the data and 
programs (..."designed for use with a computer..."), but not for the 
computer itself (i.e. if you are cataloging an iPad).  We've concluded 
that it's Other, but that's not very useful.  Similarly, the computer 
carriers in the carrier type appear to be the storage media but not the 
computer itself.   It's not even clear to me from RDA whether hard 
drives or flash drives can be considered carrier types since they aren't 
on the list and it doesn't say that you are permitted to consider 
anything but the listed carriers under the listed type--it does say in 
3.1.4.5 that you can use another term in the Extent element but it's not 
clear how that relates to 3.3.


We also ran into problems with a book that consisted almost entirely of 
stereographic images, but volume isn't listed under stereographic 
carriers so we weren't sure we could use 337 stereographic with 338 volume.


Greta de Groat
Stanford University Libraries

On 10/24/2012 12:54 PM, Joan Wang wrote:

Very cool! Thanks for letting us know.

Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System

On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Adam L. Schiff 
mailto:asch...@u.washington.edu>> wrote:


Another aspect I have not seen mentioned, is that AACR2 style GMDs
only had to be assigned to nonbook materials.  RDA 33X must be
assigned to all library resources, a major increase in effort.
 Not
only it is three terms for one, but they must be assigned to
many more
records.


For users of OCLC Connexion, there is a macro that makes adding
these terms, along with their coded values, take about 3 seconds.
 This is not huge increase of effort.  The macro pulls up a
pulldown menu and you just select the terms you need and click add.

**
* 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   
* **





--
Joan Wang, Ph.D.
Cataloger -- CMC
Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office)
6725 Goshen Road
Edwardsville, IL 62025
618.656.3216x409
618.656.9401Fax

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

[Mike Tribby]

>I don't think AACR2 used to be revised through populist revolutions either ...

True enough, but the cost for access to AACR2 was less than the cost of access 
to RDA, which, despite the constant hymns to its wonderfulness, is still too 
expensive for many libraries and other agencies who might like to see _all_ of 
the rules when undertaking cataloging.




Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses

mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com

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

[J. McRee Elrod]

John, vendors can't use OCLC, because OCLC will not allow us to keep
records.  SLC must keep records in order to resupply in case of system
crash, or migration from a system which can't do MARC out.

We used to have to keep records for cumulating print products, still
true when we originally explored using OCLC.

Then there are the small libraries which can't afford OCLC.

Sorry, 33X is going to be a lot more work for many of us.

   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

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

[Gene Fieg]

I always liked the French way of doing this |h texte imprime.

Beautiful.

On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Adam L. Schiff
wrote:

>  Another aspect I have not seen mentioned, is that AACR2 style GMDs
>> only had to be assigned to nonbook materials.  RDA 33X must be
>> assigned to all library resources, a major increase in effort.  Not
>> only it is three terms for one, but they must be assigned to many more
>> records.
>>
>
> For users of OCLC Connexion, there is a macro that makes adding these
> terms, along with their coded values, take about 3 seconds.  This is not
> huge increase of effort.  The macro pulls up a pulldown menu and you just
> select the terms you need and click add.
>
> 
> * 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   * 
> 
>



-- 
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu

Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email.  The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University.  It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.

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

[Joan Wang]

Very cool! Thanks for letting us know.

Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System

On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Adam L. Schiff wrote:

> Another aspect I have not seen mentioned, is that AACR2 style GMDs
>> only had to be assigned to nonbook materials.  RDA 33X must be
>> assigned to all library resources, a major increase in effort.  Not
>> only it is three terms for one, but they must be assigned to many more
>> records.
>>
>
> For users of OCLC Connexion, there is a macro that makes adding these
> terms, along with their coded values, take about 3 seconds.  This is not
> huge increase of effort.  The macro pulls up a pulldown menu and you just
> select the terms you need and click add.
>
> 
> * 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   * 
> 
>



-- 
Joan Wang, Ph.D.
Cataloger -- CMC
Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office)
6725 Goshen Road
Edwardsville, IL 62025
618.656.3216x409
618.656.9401Fax

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

[Adam L. Schiff]

Another aspect I have not seen mentioned, is that AACR2 style GMDs
only had to be assigned to nonbook materials.  RDA 33X must be
assigned to all library resources, a major increase in effort.  Not
only it is three terms for one, but they must be assigned to many more
records.


For users of OCLC Connexion, there is a macro that makes adding these 
terms, along with their coded values, take about 3 seconds.  This is not 
huge increase of effort.  The macro pulls up a pulldown menu and you just 
select the terms you need and click add.


**
* 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] Additional work required by RDA

[J. McRee Elrod]

Richard Moore said:

>I don't think AACR2 used to be revised through populist revolutions
>either ...

AACR2 was departed from by LCRIs, rule interpretations of other
cataloguing agencies, and what I call cataloguer nullifiction.

I hope cataloguer nullification will hold to a minimum those long
phrases replacing ISBD inclusions.  Those phrases do do work
internationally; we can not send a record for a French resource to a
Quebec library with English phrases, even if they would accept them
for English resources.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

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

[J. McRee Elrod]

John Myers said:

>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.

In our experience, because Library of Congress and Library and
Archives Canada mainly do text, a higher percentage of nonbook
materials needing GMDs receive original cataloguing.  So it is not
extra work to use more exact GMDs.  We advise qualifying the AACR2
List 2 GMDs, as opposed to substituting something totally different,
to maintain some consistency, e.g., [videorecording (DVD)].  This
follows the AACR2 pattern of [text (large print)].

>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  ...

Yes,  Abandoning that simple workable solution, which can function
regardless of the sophistication of the library's ILS, is a bad idea.

The work-a-round John suggests, like most work-a-rounds, us a lot of
trouble to replace a pragmatic solution that functioned well.

Another aspect I have not seen mentioned, is that AACR2 style GMDs
only had to be assigned to nonbook materials.  RDA 33X must be
assigned to all library resources, a major increase in effort.  Not
only it is three terms for one, but they must be assigned to many more
records.

A better solution would have been to develop a new GMD list composed
of carrier (what is needed to use this resource) qualified by content,
to be applied only where direct use is not possible.  Some of the
shorter terms in 338 and 336 could be used, but 337 is a waste of
effort, as well as having the nonsensical "computer" for "electronic".
  
For systems which can manage it, substituting a fixed field based icon
is a workable solution.  In nuMARC, SMD (aka unit name) may be
separately coded, allowing to it be also displayed after 245$a, or
above other data as suggested by ISBD and the MRIs.  Not all systems
have that display mapping ability, which made the 245$h such a good
solution for anyone.  Margaret Mann knew end of title was where such
clarifying information was needed.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

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

[Kevin M Randall]

Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz wrote:

> Kevin tried to be sarcastic in my opinion. However, he forgot that RDA is
> basically AACR2 in a new uniform with "sophisticated" jargon that even
> LC instructors have problem with (just came back from the RDA training
> module 1 part 2). Let's not kid ourselves. RDA people just took AACR2
> apart added several new fields and reinvented English language so it
> sounds "cool." It is also, in their opinion, a way forward away from strict
> rules of AACR2. However, the reality of cataloging and its purpose on top
> of financial abilities of many libraries is just that obnoxious cloud
> hanging over implementation of RDA.


If you want to see AACR2 in a new uniform, I suggest taking a look at the first 
draft of AACR3.  Now *that* really does look like just a slightly spiffed-up 
AACR2.

But after the initial, negative response to AACR3, the JSC and the editor went 
back to the drawing board, and came up with a *drastically* revised concept.  
Yes, in RDA many of the specifics in the instructions, and the results of the 
cataloger's work, look pretty much the same as in AACR2.  But remember that one 
major goal was to be able to use RDA to produce metadata that could work 
together with our legacy data.  But the emphasis on the FRBR entities, and the 
references to distinct named elements, bears no resemblance whatsoever to AACR2.

This is something that I addressed in an article titled "RDA: End of the World 
Postponed?" in The Serials Librarian, v. 61, issue 3/4 (2011).  
http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/wser20/61/3-4

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
k...@northwestern.edu
(847) 491-2939

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

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

[Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz]

Kevin tried to be sarcastic in my opinion. However, he forgot that RDA is
basically AACR2 in a new uniform with "sophisticated" jargon that even LC
instructors have problem with (just came back from the RDA training module
1 part 2). Let's not kid ourselves. RDA people just took AACR2 apart added
several new fields and reinvented English language so it sounds "cool." It
is also, in their opinion, a way forward away from strict rules of AACR2.
However, the reality of cataloging and its purpose on top of financial
abilities of many libraries is just that obnoxious cloud hanging over
implementation of RDA.

Wait a minute, did I say cloud, a computing cloud, a cataloging cloud, is
this what the RDA envision in the future - a cataloging cloud miraculously
floating above every and each library in the world?

Wojciech

On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Kevin M Randall wrote:

> Martin Kelleher wrote:
>
> > Well no - AACR2 has spent about 10 years being revised, ending up with
> > something I know I'm not especially happy with, and I'm under the
> > general impression has a lukewarm reception at the best of times... so
> > maybe that's part of the problem!
>
> After its original publication in 1978, AACR2 was continually revised from
> 1982 through 2005.
>
> And by the way people are carrying on about RDA, you would think that
> AACR2 was the greatest thing ever produced.
>
> Kevin M. Randall
> Principal Serials Cataloger
> Northwestern University Library
> k...@northwestern.edu
> (847) 491-2939
>
> Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
>



-- 
Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz
New York Public Library
Library Services Center
31-11 Thompson Ave.
Long Island City, N.Y. 11101
(917) 229-9603
e-mail: wojciechsiemaszkiew...@nypl.org
Please note, any opinions expressed above do not necessarily reflect those
of The New York Public Library.

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

[James Weinheimer]

On 24/10/2012 16:33, Kelleher, Martin wrote:

> "Try buying a television set on Best Buy's website to see this in action"
>
> I Put in "Dracula DVD" on Best buy (54 entries)  then I tried "Dracula 
> video"! 
>
> 1 entry:
>
> $14.99   Special Offers:   
> •Free Shipping 
> Castlevania: The Dracula X Chronicles — PRE-OWNED
> SKU: 1481313  Platform: PSP   Rating: T=TeenRelease Date: 9/29/2010 


And it works right now in Worldcat. Here is Dracula
http://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=dracula, and you
can limit by Video, limit to Christopher Lee, limit to 2001, and you get
two videos with Christopher Lee. It took just a few seconds and I see no
problem with it. Could this be improved with RDA and FRBR? Maybe, but it
needs to be kept in mind that the catalog system is also not the best
and it can also be improved a lot, especially the user interface. But it
works great.

So long as you have an appropriate system, the facets work today. You do
not have to build them by hand.

-- 
*James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com
*First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
*Cooperative Cataloging Rules*
http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
*Cataloging Matters Podcasts*
http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html

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

[Kevin M Randall]

Martin Kelleher wrote:

> Well no - AACR2 has spent about 10 years being revised, ending up with
> something I know I'm not especially happy with, and I'm under the
> general impression has a lukewarm reception at the best of times... so
> maybe that's part of the problem!

After its original publication in 1978, AACR2 was continually revised from 1982 
through 2005.

And by the way people are carrying on about RDA, you would think that AACR2 was 
the greatest thing ever produced.

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
k...@northwestern.edu
(847) 491-2939

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! 

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

[Kelleher, Martin]

"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."

More or less correct - and 1) is a common issue, otherwise RDA would never have 
attempted to rectify the issue. However 2) changing 1 statement is easier than 
fiddling with 3 seperate fields, and we were hoping RDA would advance in some 
way which would save doing either.

"Try buying a television set on Best Buy's website to see this in action"

I Put in "Dracula DVD" on Best buy (54 entries)  then I tried "Dracula 
video"! 

1 entry:

$14.99   Special Offers:   
•Free Shipping 
Castlevania: The Dracula X Chronicles — PRE-OWNED
SKU: 1481313  Platform: PSP   Rating: T=TeenRelease Date: 9/29/2010

;-)

Cheers

Martin Kelleher
Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian
University of Liverpool

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Myers, John F.
Sent: 24 October 2012 14:44
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

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.]

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

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

The values presented here go beyond both what was in the GMD and what is in the 
336-337-338 elements.

These fields contain "general" terms. For specificity, one has to use other 
elements. MARC fixed fields mirrors these other format elements and organize 
them, and this is how we generate the terms and icons that have completely 
replaced the GMD.

With the examples below there are other RDA elements that need to be called 
upon:

Mode of Issuance for serial, for example. There are numerous elements in RDA 3 
for video characteristics, digital file characteristics, sound characteristics.

Our system picks out a combination of values to produce terms and icons as 
specific as "Blu-ray disc".

We also use local fields and item-level fields (collection, material type) for 
whatever inhouse organization we need.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin 
[mart...@liverpool.ac.uk]
Sent: October-24-12 8:20 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

Hi Tom

Actually, I guess I’m not that bothered about whether it’s in the title field 
or not and come to think of it, I’m not even that keen on keeping the old 
terminologies, and I’ve mentioned a few times what I was hoping RDA might go 
for –

audio CD
electronic book
electronic journal
DVD video

And other well known compound terms. But having 3 fields which you then want 
your system to translate into various results for various uses – why not cut to 
the chase, do it the other way around, and get your system to identify single, 
simple terms in whatever ways you need it to?  More work for the cataloguer, 
and probably more work for the system librarian, doing it RDA, surely?

And if you didn’t want it in the 245, you’d want it higher than 330, and 
preferably not dispersed between multiple fields, I think. I wonder whether 
relying primarily on icons would be better or worse? My gut reaction would be 
that iconography is more readily dismissed or ignored, not least because it 
relegates essential information outside of the core informational format (the 
text record)

Cheers

Martin Kelleher
Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian
University of Liverpool



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Meehan, Thomas
Sent: 24 October 2012 12:02
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

Hello,

I would like to quickly say that I think that the abandonment of the GMD and 
the adoption of a more logically designed system is one of the better bits of 
RDA (I am not an unalloyed fan of RDA, but I do think it is moving in the right 
direction, too slowly if anything). Briefly my thoughts, with apologies if any 
or all of this has already been said:

• GMD is not a part of the title so should never be included in with 
the data elements for the title.

• GMD basically uses vague library jargon. “Electronic resource” has 
already been discussed already as being largely meaningless except in specific 
contexts. “Music” is another example: it could mean sheet music, CDs, LPs, or 
an mp3 download depending on who you asked.

• GMDs are already being circumvented/ignored, both for search and 
display:

o   For searching, our old catalogue uses a combination of 008 and record 
format to power our ebook search. Our discovery interface (Primo) can identify 
electronic material without reference to GMDs.

o   In terms of display, Primo uses icons and its own system of categories to 
happily distinguish between different formats and (generally at least) present 
them in a reader-friendly way. We have only used GMDs where we can’t get rid of 
them. I notice that the University of Liverpool catalogue also uses icons and 
non-GMD terms for Book, Music, and Film.

o   Indeed, the issue is not now confined to traditional catalogue records as 
data from various sources becomes combined and mixed together. To me, the more 
granular the better to enable a better fit with data from other sources.

• I think this is something best done by a computer which can take the 
three elements and work out what they mean in real terms for the user, 
especially in combination with format information. Being freer from having to 
input display values also has lots of other possibilities: tailoring the 
display for different audiences (e.g. icons for children vs technical 
description for professors), or even different languages.

Even if we do have to keep the GMD, can it pleased be removed far away from the 
title!

Cheers,

Tom


---

Thomas Meehan
Head of Current Cataloguing
Library Services
University College London
Gower Street
London WC1E 6BT

t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk<mailto:t.mee...@ucl

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

[Kelleher, Martin]

Hi Tom

Actually, I guess I’m not that bothered about whether it’s in the title field 
or not and come to think of it, I’m not even that keen on keeping the old 
terminologies, and I’ve mentioned a few times what I was hoping RDA might go 
for –

audio CD
electronic book
electronic journal
DVD video

And other well known compound terms. But having 3 fields which you then want 
your system to translate into various results for various uses – why not cut to 
the chase, do it the other way around, and get your system to identify single, 
simple terms in whatever ways you need it to?  More work for the cataloguer, 
and probably more work for the system librarian, doing it RDA, surely?

And if you didn’t want it in the 245, you’d want it higher than 330, and 
preferably not dispersed between multiple fields, I think. I wonder whether 
relying primarily on icons would be better or worse? My gut reaction would be 
that iconography is more readily dismissed or ignored, not least because it 
relegates essential information outside of the core informational format (the 
text record)

Cheers

Martin Kelleher
Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian
University of Liverpool



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Meehan, Thomas
Sent: 24 October 2012 12:02
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

Hello,

I would like to quickly say that I think that the abandonment of the GMD and 
the adoption of a more logically designed system is one of the better bits of 
RDA (I am not an unalloyed fan of RDA, but I do think it is moving in the right 
direction, too slowly if anything). Briefly my thoughts, with apologies if any 
or all of this has already been said:

· GMD is not a part of the title so should never be included in with 
the data elements for the title.

· GMD basically uses vague library jargon. “Electronic resource” has 
already been discussed already as being largely meaningless except in specific 
contexts. “Music” is another example: it could mean sheet music, CDs, LPs, or 
an mp3 download depending on who you asked.

· GMDs are already being circumvented/ignored, both for search and 
display:

o   For searching, our old catalogue uses a combination of 008 and record 
format to power our ebook search. Our discovery interface (Primo) can identify 
electronic material without reference to GMDs.

o   In terms of display, Primo uses icons and its own system of categories to 
happily distinguish between different formats and (generally at least) present 
them in a reader-friendly way. We have only used GMDs where we can’t get rid of 
them. I notice that the University of Liverpool catalogue also uses icons and 
non-GMD terms for Book, Music, and Film.

o   Indeed, the issue is not now confined to traditional catalogue records as 
data from various sources becomes combined and mixed together. To me, the more 
granular the better to enable a better fit with data from other sources.

· I think this is something best done by a computer which can take the 
three elements and work out what they mean in real terms for the user, 
especially in combination with format information. Being freer from having to 
input display values also has lots of other possibilities: tailoring the 
display for different audiences (e.g. icons for children vs technical 
description for professors), or even different languages.

Even if we do have to keep the GMD, can it pleased be removed far away from the 
title!

Cheers,

Tom


---

Thomas Meehan
Head of Current Cataloguing
Library Services
University College London
Gower Street
London WC1E 6BT

t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk<mailto:t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk>

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin
Sent: 24 October 2012 10:37
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

Hi Richard

Well, can’t help but think that this looks like the Cataloguing worlds 
equivalent of burying under bureaucracy. I was hoping for a populist 
revolution via the RDA list! Ah, well, I guess I’ll go for it.

And maybe if a few others do the same, who knows? Maybe things can change at 
the 11th hour

Martin Kelleher
Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian
University of Liverpool

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: 24 October 2012 10:18
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

Martin

There is a revision process for RDA:

http://www.rda-jsc.org/revision.html

If you wanted to submit a proposal yourself, you would need to discuss doing it 
through CILI

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

[Moore, Richard]

Panizzi's rules, then? ;-)



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin
Sent: 24 October 2012 11:48
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA



Well no - AACR2 has spent about 10 years being revised, ending up with
something I know I'm not especially happy with, and I'm under the
general impression has a lukewarm reception at the best of times... so
maybe that's part of the problem!

 

Martin

 

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: 24 October 2012 11:35
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

 

I don't think AACR2 used to be revised through populist revolutions
either ...

 



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin
Sent: 24 October 2012 10:37
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

Hi Richard

 

Well, can't help but think that this looks like the Cataloguing worlds
equivalent of burying under bureaucracy. I was hoping for a populist
revolution via the RDA list! Ah, well, I guess I'll go for it. 

 

And maybe if a few others do the same, who knows? Maybe things can
change at the 11th hour

 

Martin Kelleher

Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian

University of Liverpool

 

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: 24 October 2012 10:18
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

 

Martin

 

There is a revision process for RDA:

 

http://www.rda-jsc.org/revision.html

 

If you wanted to submit a proposal yourself, you would need to discuss
doing it through CILIP, as the relevant member body of JSC.

 

That's the way RDA gets revised.

 

 

Regards

Richard

 

_

Richard Moore 

Authority Control Team Manager 

The British Library



Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 

E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk <mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk>


 

 



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin
Sent: 24 October 2012 10:02
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

Well, there does seem to be  a large amount of discontent, if not
widespread rejection of the 330s replacing the GMD. And I see a few
others were using similarly user friendly (DVD, book on CD) terms to us,
perhaps similarly hoping as we were that this would be the direction
things would go in. But is there anything we can actually do about it?
Or would that be another 10 year+ revisionary process??

 

Martin Kelleher

Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian

University of Liverpool

 

 

 

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

[Meehan, Thomas]

Hello,

I would like to quickly say that I think that the abandonment of the GMD and 
the adoption of a more logically designed system is one of the better bits of 
RDA (I am not an unalloyed fan of RDA, but I do think it is moving in the right 
direction, too slowly if anything). Briefly my thoughts, with apologies if any 
or all of this has already been said:

* GMD is not a part of the title so should never be included in with 
the data elements for the title.

* GMD basically uses vague library jargon. "Electronic resource" has 
already been discussed already as being largely meaningless except in specific 
contexts. "Music" is another example: it could mean sheet music, CDs, LPs, or 
an mp3 download depending on who you asked.

* GMDs are already being circumvented/ignored, both for search and 
display:

o   For searching, our old catalogue uses a combination of 008 and record 
format to power our ebook search. Our discovery interface (Primo) can identify 
electronic material without reference to GMDs.

o   In terms of display, Primo uses icons and its own system of categories to 
happily distinguish between different formats and (generally at least) present 
them in a reader-friendly way. We have only used GMDs where we can't get rid of 
them. I notice that the University of Liverpool catalogue also uses icons and 
non-GMD terms for Book, Music, and Film.

o   Indeed, the issue is not now confined to traditional catalogue records as 
data from various sources becomes combined and mixed together. To me, the more 
granular the better to enable a better fit with data from other sources.

* I think this is something best done by a computer which can take the 
three elements and work out what they mean in real terms for the user, 
especially in combination with format information. Being freer from having to 
input display values also has lots of other possibilities: tailoring the 
display for different audiences (e.g. icons for children vs technical 
description for professors), or even different languages.

Even if we do have to keep the GMD, can it pleased be removed far away from the 
title!

Cheers,

Tom


---

Thomas Meehan
Head of Current Cataloguing
Library Services
University College London
Gower Street
London WC1E 6BT

t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin
Sent: 24 October 2012 10:37
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

Hi Richard

Well, can't help but think that this looks like the Cataloguing worlds 
equivalent of burying under bureaucracy. I was hoping for a populist 
revolution via the RDA list! Ah, well, I guess I'll go for it.

And maybe if a few others do the same, who knows? Maybe things can change at 
the 11th hour

Martin Kelleher
Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian
University of Liverpool

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: 24 October 2012 10:18
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

Martin

There is a revision process for RDA:

http://www.rda-jsc.org/revision.html

If you wanted to submit a proposal yourself, you would need to discuss doing it 
through CILIP, as the relevant member body of JSC.

That's the way RDA gets revised.


Regards
Richard

_
Richard Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library

Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806
E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk<mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk>



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin
Sent: 24 October 2012 10:02
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
Well, there does seem to be  a large amount of discontent, if not widespread 
rejection of the 330s replacing the GMD. And I see a few others were using 
similarly user friendly (DVD, book on CD) terms to us, perhaps similarly hoping 
as we were that this would be the direction things would go in. But is there 
anything we can actually do about it? Or would that be another 10 year+ 
revisionary process??

Martin Kelleher
Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian
University of Liverpool

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

[Kelleher, Martin]

Well no – AACR2 has spent about 10 years being revised, ending up with 
something I know I’m not especially happy with, and I’m under the general 
impression has a lukewarm reception at the best of times... so maybe that’s 
part of the problem!

Martin

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: 24 October 2012 11:35
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

I don't think AACR2 used to be revised through populist revolutions either ...


From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin
Sent: 24 October 2012 10:37
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
Hi Richard

Well, can’t help but think that this looks like the Cataloguing worlds 
equivalent of burying under bureaucracy. I was hoping for a populist 
revolution via the RDA list! Ah, well, I guess I’ll go for it.

And maybe if a few others do the same, who knows? Maybe things can change at 
the 11th hour

Martin Kelleher
Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian
University of Liverpool

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: 24 October 2012 10:18
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

Martin

There is a revision process for RDA:

http://www.rda-jsc.org/revision.html

If you wanted to submit a proposal yourself, you would need to discuss doing it 
through CILIP, as the relevant member body of JSC.

That's the way RDA gets revised.


Regards
Richard

_
Richard Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library

Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806
E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk<mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk>



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin
Sent: 24 October 2012 10:02
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
Well, there does seem to be  a large amount of discontent, if not widespread 
rejection of the 330s replacing the GMD. And I see a few others were using 
similarly user friendly (DVD, book on CD) terms to us, perhaps similarly hoping 
as we were that this would be the direction things would go in. But is there 
anything we can actually do about it? Or would that be another 10 year+ 
revisionary process??

Martin Kelleher
Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian
University of Liverpool

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

[Moore, Richard]

I don't think AACR2 used to be revised through populist revolutions
either ...



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin
Sent: 24 October 2012 10:37
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA



Hi Richard

 

Well, can't help but think that this looks like the Cataloguing worlds
equivalent of burying under bureaucracy. I was hoping for a populist
revolution via the RDA list! Ah, well, I guess I'll go for it. 

 

And maybe if a few others do the same, who knows? Maybe things can
change at the 11th hour

 

Martin Kelleher

Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian

University of Liverpool

 

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: 24 October 2012 10:18
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

 

Martin

 

There is a revision process for RDA:

 

http://www.rda-jsc.org/revision.html

 

If you wanted to submit a proposal yourself, you would need to discuss
doing it through CILIP, as the relevant member body of JSC.

 

That's the way RDA gets revised.

 

 

Regards

Richard

 

_

Richard Moore 

Authority Control Team Manager 

The British Library



Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 

E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk <mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk>


 

 



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin
Sent: 24 October 2012 10:02
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

Well, there does seem to be  a large amount of discontent, if not
widespread rejection of the 330s replacing the GMD. And I see a few
others were using similarly user friendly (DVD, book on CD) terms to us,
perhaps similarly hoping as we were that this would be the direction
things would go in. But is there anything we can actually do about it?
Or would that be another 10 year+ revisionary process??

 

Martin Kelleher

Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian

University of Liverpool

 

 

 

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

[Kelleher, Martin]

Hi Richard

Well, can’t help but think that this looks like the Cataloguing worlds 
equivalent of burying under bureaucracy. I was hoping for a populist 
revolution via the RDA list! Ah, well, I guess I’ll go for it.

And maybe if a few others do the same, who knows? Maybe things can change at 
the 11th hour

Martin Kelleher
Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian
University of Liverpool

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard
Sent: 24 October 2012 10:18
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

Martin

There is a revision process for RDA:

http://www.rda-jsc.org/revision.html

If you wanted to submit a proposal yourself, you would need to discuss doing it 
through CILIP, as the relevant member body of JSC.

That's the way RDA gets revised.


Regards
Richard

_
Richard Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library

Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806
E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk<mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk>



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin
Sent: 24 October 2012 10:02
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
Well, there does seem to be  a large amount of discontent, if not widespread 
rejection of the 330s replacing the GMD. And I see a few others were using 
similarly user friendly (DVD, book on CD) terms to us, perhaps similarly hoping 
as we were that this would be the direction things would go in. But is there 
anything we can actually do about it? Or would that be another 10 year+ 
revisionary process??

Martin Kelleher
Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian
University of Liverpool

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

[Moore, Richard]

Martin
 
There is a revision process for RDA:
 
http://www.rda-jsc.org/revision.html
 
If you wanted to submit a proposal yourself, you would need to discuss
doing it through CILIP, as the relevant member body of JSC.
 
That's the way RDA gets revised.
 
 
Regards
Richard
 
_
Richard Moore 
Authority Control Team Manager 
The British Library

Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806
E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk <mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk>


 





From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin
Sent: 24 October 2012 10:02
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA



Well, there does seem to be  a large amount of discontent, if not
widespread rejection of the 330s replacing the GMD. And I see a few
others were using similarly user friendly (DVD, book on CD) terms to us,
perhaps similarly hoping as we were that this would be the direction
things would go in. But is there anything we can actually do about it?
Or would that be another 10 year+ revisionary process??

 

Martin Kelleher

Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian

University of Liverpool

 

 

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

[Kelleher, Martin]

Well, there does seem to be  a large amount of discontent, if not widespread 
rejection of the 330s replacing the GMD. And I see a few others were using 
similarly user friendly (DVD, book on CD) terms to us, perhaps similarly hoping 
as we were that this would be the direction things would go in. But is there 
anything we can actually do about it? Or would that be another 10 year+ 
revisionary process??

Martin Kelleher
Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian
University of Liverpool

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer
Sent: 24 October 2012 07:58
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

On 23/10/2012 23:25, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:


Contradicted by the RDA examples that are compared side-by-side with MARC:

http://www.rdatoolkit.org/examples/MARC





For display and for data input, assuming these RDA examples will be comparable 
to actual display and input mechanisms, the RDA method appears much simpler. 
There are no punctuation rules to worry about separating elements. There are 
clear demarcations between transcribed elements and recorded elements. There is 
some added redundancy (such as with authorized access point for the work and 
Creator having the same Person involved), but these serve to illuminate what 
entities are being presented and how data elements logically flow together, 
which can facilitate better workforms and machine processing.



Overall, much simpler.


Punctuation was always the easiest part of the records for me. I never 
"worried" about punctuation and when there did happen to be some detail I 
couldn't remember, it was very easy to look it up. Punctuation has meaning only 
to catalogers. I still say that cataloging punctuation could disappear tomorrow 
and nobody would even notice--except catalogers.

I'll leave it up to each person to decide for themselves if RDA is simpler. 
Certainly from all I have seen, the examples from the RDA Toolkit, discussions 
on this list and others, it seems to this cataloger at least, that RDA will be 
far more complicated. Whether it is true that data elements logically (or 
illogically) flow together as opposed to AACR2's very practical emphasis on 
workflow, plus adding the relationship designators to authors, and the 
relationship of all of that data to the WEMI, it becomes much more difficult to 
conclude that RDA is actually simpler.

Added complications would not be a problem if it were clearly seen to be 
creating something that will be much more useful to the users of our records. 
That has yet to be demonstrated. There is also the proviso that libraries will 
have the actual resources (that is, enough trained catalogers) to implement all 
of it in a decent manner, also called "sustainability". Unfortunately, there is 
no indication that RDA can provide any of that.

--
James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com<mailto:weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com>
First Thus http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
Cooperative Cataloging Rules http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Cataloging Matters Podcasts 
http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html

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

[James Weinheimer]

On 23/10/2012 23:25, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:

> Contradicted by the RDA examples that are compared side-by-side with MARC:
> http://www.rdatoolkit.org/examples/MARC
>
>
> For display and for data input, assuming these RDA examples will be 
> comparable to actual display and input mechanisms, the RDA method appears 
> much simpler. There are no punctuation rules to worry about separating 
> elements. There are clear demarcations between transcribed elements and 
> recorded elements. There is some added redundancy (such as with authorized 
> access point for the work and Creator having the same Person involved), but 
> these serve to illuminate what entities are being presented and how data 
> elements logically flow together, which can facilitate better workforms and 
> machine processing.
>
> Overall, much simpler.


Punctuation was always the easiest part of the records for me. I never
"worried" about punctuation and when there did happen to be some detail
I couldn't remember, it was very easy to look it up. Punctuation has
meaning only to catalogers. I still say that cataloging punctuation
could disappear tomorrow and nobody would even notice--except catalogers.

I'll leave it up to each person to decide for themselves if RDA is
simpler. Certainly from all I have seen, the examples from the RDA
Toolkit, discussions on this list and others, it seems to this cataloger
at least, that RDA will be far more complicated. Whether it is true that
data elements logically (or illogically) flow together as opposed to
AACR2's very practical emphasis on workflow, plus adding the
relationship designators to authors, and the relationship of all of that
data to the WEMI, it becomes much more difficult to conclude that RDA is
actually simpler.

Added complications would not be a problem if it were clearly seen to be
creating something that will be much more useful to the users of our
records. That has yet to be demonstrated. There is also the proviso that
libraries will have the actual resources (that is, enough trained
catalogers) to implement all of it in a decent manner, also called
"sustainability". Unfortunately, there is no indication that RDA can
provide any of that.

-- 
*James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com
*First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
*Cooperative Cataloging Rules*
http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
*Cataloging Matters Podcasts*
http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html

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

[J. McRee Elrod]

Thomas said:

>How about not jamming unrelated data into a single element to drive 
>display needs.

The GMD has its own MARC21 subfield, thus not "jammed". It is where it
is needed a early warning, as suggested by Margaret Mann (her example
was literary genre when not clear from the title).
 
>There are SEVERAL data elements to choose from and to work with. 

If one has a ILS capable of such.  We are creating a great divide
among libraries.

>Each RDA Content and Carrier term is built out of subordinate
>elements in the RDA-ONIX Framework.

Some equipment has content (e-readers, e-players, lap-tops, etc.) for
which the RDA content terms work (text, performed music, computer
program).  A microfiche reader lacks content, so a null value is
needed.

Since equipment is used directly, the term fits quite well under
"unmediated".  It is certainly more exact than "object" or "other".

Yes, SMD (aka unit name) might serve as early warning.  Perhaps in
nuMARC it might have it's own distinct subfield code, so that it could
be mapped to after title proper,r or at head of other data (as
suggested by ISBD Area 0), if one has an ILS which can do that.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

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

[Amanda Xu]

Whatever field(s) and subfield(s) we choose to display in the 1st line for 
title display, search and discovery are critical for users.  

Re-Packing SMD (special material designation) from meaningful 33X into 245$h 
[GMD] is logical based on demo records shared by Steven Arakawa from Yale Univ. 
Library if such choices enable a user's task completion for the following:

1) playing Jazz music via mp3 audio or mp4 video player such as iPod; 
2) viewing online map via browser;
3) reading eBook via eBook Reader such as Kindle Fire, etc.

So far, the discussions are very intriguing and rich.  But whatever we do, the 
1st line has to be clear to the user at least which devices, browsers, eReaders 
to be invoked for the user's task completion, e.g. playing, viewing, reading, 
etc. in addition to transcribing the title proper as it appears.   

The creative use of content type and media type based on the demos for music, 
online map, and ebook is sense-making as well, particularly if we look at  them 
via index definition of the title display and search. 

It's another story for discovery.  At least, they are registered as:

1) RDA Content Type, http://metadataregistry.org/vocabulary/show/id/45.html; 
2) RDA Media Type, http://metadataregistry.org/vocabulary/show/id/37.html;
3) RDA Carrier Type, 
http://metadataregistry.org/vocabulary/show/id/46.html

Thanks a lot for sharing them!!!

Amanda Xu Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 23, 2012, at 1:27 PM, "Arakawa, Steven"  wrote:

> We don't display the new 3xx fields in our OPAC either; I've always thought 
> it was obvious from the controlled, technical vocabulary used in $a & $2 that 
> 336-338 $a and $2 were not intended for display. However, in our system the 
> fields are keyword indexed. In the current and near future catalog, they 
> should be relatively easy to apply to keyword filters running in the 
> background. 
> 
> Although the $a terms may be incomprehensible to the public, locally you 
> could selectively add $3 to 338 with more appropriate carrier terms and 
> include the more specific terms in the display; you would have more control 
> over the terminology that best suits your user community. The 338 $3 carrier 
> term could be keyword indexed and could be set to display with the brief 
> title and/or as part of a labeled, full record display with the $3 terms for 
> content and media type.
> 
> The MARC Authorities example 338 ## $asheet$2rdacarrier$3liner notes
> 
> Other possibilities? (throwing these out for consideration).  At your next 
> cataloger cocktail party, think up your own opac labels and index displays!
> 
> For jazz performance recordings on an Ipod
> 
> 336 ## $aperformed music$2rdacontent$3jazz
> 337 ## $aaudio$2rdamedia$3mp3 audio
> 338 ## $aother$2rdacarrier$3Ipod
> 
> Public labels in record display:
> Format: jazz
> Access via: mp3 audio
> On: Ipod
> 
> Index display:   
> (Ipod)  
> 
> For an online map:
> 336 ## $acartographic image$2rdacontent$3e-map
> 337 ## $acomputer$2rdamedia$3any university computer
> 338 ## $aonline resource$2rdacarrier$3Internet website 
> 
> Public labels:
> Format: e-map
> Access via: any university computer
> On: Internet website
> 
> Index display: (Internet website)
> 
> For an e-book:
> 336 ## $atext$2rdacontent$3e-book
> 337 ## $acomputer$rdamedia$3e-reader
> 338 ## $acomputer card$2rdacarrier$3Kindle 
> 
> Public labels:
> Format: e-book
> Access via: e-reader
> On: Kindle 
> 
> Index display: (Kindle)
> 
> Steven Arakawa 
> Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation
> Catalog & Metadata Services, SML, Yale University
> P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240  
> (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu
> 
> 
> -Original Message-----
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kathleen Lamantia
> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 9:02 AM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
> 
> Or, you can just keep it locally, which is what we plan to do.
> 
> When staff have a patron standing in front of them, or on the phone, seeking 
> help, they use the #h [gmd] description to quickly distinguish which type of 
> material is wanted by the patron.  That is supposed to be the basis of the 
> entire FRBR/RDA changeover.
> 
> If I told them they had to read 336, 337 and 338 to determine item type, 
> especially once I showed them the terms used ("oh yes and and 'unmediated 
> text' is a book") they would troop down to Tech Services en masse and ask me 
> if I had lost my mind.
> 
> In the OPAC, III's field 30 Mat Type generates an a very specific ic

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

[J. McRee Elrod]

Thomas Brenndorfer said:

>The focus is on controlled terms and data normalization. That's what
>data management is about.

But why use poor terminology which requires translation for display?  
Why not use succinct understandable terms to begin with?

Smaller libraries will have little option but to display the data as
is, and often in field tag order.  Even where translation and place of
display  mapping is possible for the public, the cataloguer would
probably not have an interface which displays and allows entry of
sensible terms.

What I see in TLC's ITS is the RDA awful terminology, after collation.  
"Other" for a piece of equipment?  How helpful is that?  To what would
you translate it, since more than equipment would be "other"?

Data "normalization" does not excuse poor terminology nor inexactness.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

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

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

>From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
>[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On >Behalf Of James Weinheimer
>Sent: October 23, 2012 5:14 PM
>To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
>Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA




>My experience has shown that fewer and fewer people even understand what it 
>means to search by author, even less >by subject, and with very few 
>exceptions, a search by title, other than a few major keywords of the item, is 
>too >weird for them even to imagine. To focus on practical considerations, and 
>going back to a recent discussion on >Autocat discussing Eric Miller's talk at 
>LC about the new Bibliographic Framework, he said that what needs to be >made 
>is something *simple* because if what catalogers make is too complicated, no 
>web master will ever be able to >implement it. (I also wonder if regular 
>catalogers can either) His advice makes perfect sense to me. RDA is >*anything 
>but* simple. 


Contradicted by the RDA examples that are compared side-by-side with MARC:
http://www.rdatoolkit.org/examples/MARC


For display and for data input, assuming these RDA examples will be comparable 
to actual display and input mechanisms, the RDA method appears much simpler. 
There are no punctuation rules to worry about separating elements. There are 
clear demarcations between transcribed elements and recorded elements. There is 
some added redundancy (such as with authorized access point for the work and 
Creator having the same Person involved), but these serve to illuminate what 
entities are being presented and how data elements logically flow together, 
which can facilitate better workforms and machine processing.

Overall, much simpler.


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

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

[James Weinheimer]

On 23/10/2012 19:45, J. McRee Elrod wrote:

> Thomas Brenndorfer said:
>> Perhaps the biggest frustration I get in these discussion is the
>> conflation of issues. A discussion of controlled vocabulary terms
>> shouldn't be bogged down by display issues.
> Display issues?  The function of 245$h or 33X would seem to me to
> facilitate discovery of desired resources.  It would seem to me that
> how they are displayed is central to their serving their purpose.
>
> The major problems we see with 33X is that some terms are too long for
> convenient display, are redundant, or are obscure (e,g,,"tactile three
> dimensional object"; "object" would suffice).  
>
> Relator terms have the same problems.  It is not necessary to include
> "film" or "sound film" in relator terms; it is clear from the record
> what is directed or composed; "director" or "composer" would suffice.


This has turned into an interesting thread. In an ideal world, display
*can* be rather unimportant so long as the information is input
consistently. Information that is consistent in a computer  can display
in almost any way someone would want. So, if the text says "mediated" or
whatever is beside the point. It is similar to arguing whether a
computer code in the 008 field should be "1" "9" "z" or "§". It really
doesn't matter. It's only a code.

The moment inconsistency is introduced, the task of display becomes far
more complex. So for me, the question of what a cataloger actually
enters into a 33x field is rather unimportant: the computer can display
it--or not--however you want. Yet, we should not ignore that this also
concerns consistency with what is in the *totality* of the database,
that is: what the public works with every day--not only the newest
records--and this in turn brings up the issue of the incorrectly termed
"legacy data". This however, is a topic few catalogers seem to want to
discuss, although the public will see it in *every single search* until
the end of time. Not a minor concern, I think.

At the same time, from a theoretical point of view, the traditional GMDs
really have conflated different aspects of an item, and this can be
demonstrated clearly, as has been shown with particular clarity in the
examples of [electronic resource]. I am sure we have all wrestled with
this in our own practice.

An auxiliary point is the idea of turning our "text" into "data". Here,
we have an assumption that in the linked data universe, people will
*not* be looking at entire records, so that someone will not even be
able to examine an entire record to learn that the relationship of John
Huston to Moby Dick is that he was director and not an actor. They may
only see the name (perhaps through a URI) "John Huston". If the other
fields of a record are not readily seen because of linked data, then it
can be argued that the information for roles (or whatever) must be
carried within the data, itself (in this case, along with John Huston's
heading).

In my own opinion, the real question is: is all of this a problem only
from the theoretical point of view, or is it a problem for the actual
public? Unfortunately, we don't have any research and have only
anecdotal evidence.

My experience has shown that fewer and fewer people even understand what
it means to search by author, even less by subject, and with very few
exceptions, a search by title, other than a few major keywords of the
item, is too weird for them even to imagine. To focus on practical
considerations, and going back to a recent discussion on Autocat
discussing Eric Miller's talk at LC about the new Bibliographic
Framework, he said that what needs to be made is something *simple*
because if what catalogers make is too complicated, no web master will
ever be able to implement it. (I also wonder if regular catalogers can
either) His advice makes perfect sense to me. RDA is *anything but* simple.

-- 
*James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com
*First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
*Cooperative Cataloging Rules*
http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
*Cataloging Matters Podcasts*
http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html

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

[Joan Wang]

Since we do cataloging based on manifestations, different manifestations of
the same work have different bib-records. So GMD is more helpful for
looking at lists of searching results, for example, a list of titles. When
have the same title, you can make a basic decision based on GMD showing
after the title. You do not have to click each title to see what it is. But
I do not know how the search results would be displayed based on FRBR.

Thanks,
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System

On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Kathleen Lamantia <
klaman...@starklibrary.org> 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.
>
> I did not explain all this earlier out of respect for the time of list
> readers.  I apologize if there was confusion.
>
> Kathleen F. Lamantia, MLIS
> Technical Services Librarian
> Stark County District Library
> 715 Market Avenue North
> Canton, OH 44702
> 330-458-2723
> klaman...@starklibrary.org
> Inspiring Ideas * Enriching Lives * Creating Community
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jonathan Rochkind [mailto:rochk...@jhu.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 3:34 PM
> To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> Cc: Kathleen Lamantia
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
>
> You have "DVD", "Compact Disc"  and "Comic Book" as GMD's in 245$h?
>
> This is curious to me, and I wonder what your data source is for records
> with these GMD's. None of those are on the 'standard' list of GMDs, and you
> won't generally find any of those used as GMD's on MARC from OCLC or LC.
>
> The actual standard GMD's are much less useful for patrons in most
> environments then the ones you use as examples, and indeed the
> not-so-useful nature of the standard GMD's most of us have is, in my
> impression, part of what motivated trying to come up with a more reasonable
> and flexible system for recording form/format data, which was actually a
> multi-year (10? more?) process/discussion, one product of which is the RDA
> 3xx vocabularies.
>
> On 10/23/2012 2:36 PM, Kathleen Lamantia wrote:
> > Agreed, and thank you for the suggestion.
> >
> > But, back to the original question - why do the extra work?
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Kathleen F. Lamantia, MLIS
> > Technical Services Librarian
> > Stark County District Library
> > 715 Market Avenue North
> > Canton, OH 44702
> > 330-458-2723
> > klaman...@starklibrary.org
> > Inspiring Ideas * Enriching Lives * Creating Community
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Arakawa, Steven [mailto:steven.arak...@yale.edu]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 2:31 PM
> > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
> >
> > Kevin, you're right--thanks for pointing this out. The example would
> have been helped with an additional 3xx for the primary
> content/media/carrier type. However, I still think the fields themselves
> could be translated into more comprehensible terms in the OPAC, especially
> if labels were assigned.
> >
> > Steven Arakawa
> > Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation Catalog & Metadata
> > Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT
> > 06520-8240
> > (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
> > Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M
> > Randall
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 1:39 PM
> > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
> >
> > Steven Arakawa wrote:
> >
> >> Although the $a terms may be incomprehensible to the public, locally
> >> you cou

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

[Kathleen Lamantia]

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.

I did not explain all this earlier out of respect for the time of list readers. 
 I apologize if there was confusion.  

Kathleen F. Lamantia, MLIS
Technical Services Librarian
Stark County District Library
715 Market Avenue North
Canton, OH 44702
330-458-2723
klaman...@starklibrary.org
Inspiring Ideas ∙ Enriching Lives ∙ Creating Community
 


-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Rochkind [mailto:rochk...@jhu.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 3:34 PM
To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
Cc: Kathleen Lamantia
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

You have "DVD", "Compact Disc"  and "Comic Book" as GMD's in 245$h?

This is curious to me, and I wonder what your data source is for records with 
these GMD's. None of those are on the 'standard' list of GMDs, and you won't 
generally find any of those used as GMD's on MARC from OCLC or LC.

The actual standard GMD's are much less useful for patrons in most environments 
then the ones you use as examples, and indeed the not-so-useful nature of the 
standard GMD's most of us have is, in my impression, part of what motivated 
trying to come up with a more reasonable and flexible system for recording 
form/format data, which was actually a multi-year (10? more?) 
process/discussion, one product of which is the RDA 3xx vocabularies.

On 10/23/2012 2:36 PM, Kathleen Lamantia wrote:
> Agreed, and thank you for the suggestion.
>
> But, back to the original question - why do the extra work?
>
> 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.
>
> Kathleen F. Lamantia, MLIS
> Technical Services Librarian
> Stark County District Library
> 715 Market Avenue North
> Canton, OH 44702
> 330-458-2723
> klaman...@starklibrary.org
> Inspiring Ideas ∙ Enriching Lives ∙ Creating Community
>
>
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: Arakawa, Steven [mailto:steven.arak...@yale.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 2:31 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
>
> Kevin, you're right--thanks for pointing this out. The example would have 
> been helped with an additional 3xx for the primary content/media/carrier 
> type. However, I still think the fields themselves could be translated into 
> more comprehensible terms in the OPAC, especially if labels were assigned.
>
> Steven Arakawa
> Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation Catalog & Metadata 
> Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 
> 06520-8240
> (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and 
> Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M 
> Randall
> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 1:39 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
>
> Steven Arakawa wrote:
>
>> Although the $a terms may be incomprehensible to the public, locally 
>> you could selectively add $3 to 338 with more appropriate carrier 
>> terms and include the more specific terms in the display; you would 
>> have more control over the terminology that best suits your user 
>> community. The 338
>> $3 carrier term could be keyword indexed and could be set to display 
>> with the brief title and/or as part of a labeled, full record display 
>> with the $3 terms for content and media type.
>
> 33X subfield $3 is for "Materials specified", meaning the portion of the 
> resource to which the field applies.  The example:
>
>   338 ## $a sheet $2 rdacarrier $3 liner notes
>
> means that for the resource being described, the carrier type term "sheet" 
> applies to the liner notes, not to the audiodisc or videodisc that it 
> accompanies.
>
> Subfield $3 is not for an alternative term to the one given in $a.  The 
> definition of subfield $3 for the 33X fields parallels the definition in 
> other fields such as 490.
>
> Kevin M. Randall
> Principal Serials Cataloger
> Northwestern University Library
> k...@northwestern.edu
> (847) 491-2939
>
> Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
>

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

[Mike Tribby]

"You have "DVD", "Compact Disc"  and "Comic Book" as GMD's in 245$h?
This is curious to me, and I wonder what your data source is for records with 
these GMD's. None of those are on the 'standard' list of GMDs, and you won't 
generally find any of those used as GMD's on MARC from OCLC or LC."

Perhaps they're for local use with human catalog users. Quaint, huh?


Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses

mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com

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

[Jonathan Rochkind]

You have "DVD", "Compact Disc"  and "Comic Book" as GMD's in 245$h?

This is curious to me, and I wonder what your data source is for records 
with these GMD's. None of those are on the 'standard' list of GMDs, and 
you won't generally find any of those used as GMD's on MARC from OCLC or 
LC.


The actual standard GMD's are much less useful for patrons in most 
environments then the ones you use as examples, and indeed the 
not-so-useful nature of the standard GMD's most of us have is, in my 
impression, part of what motivated trying to come up with a more 
reasonable and flexible system for recording form/format data, which was 
actually a multi-year (10? more?) process/discussion, one product of 
which is the RDA 3xx vocabularies.


On 10/23/2012 2:36 PM, Kathleen Lamantia wrote:

Agreed, and thank you for the suggestion.

But, back to the original question - why do the extra work?

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.

Kathleen F. Lamantia, MLIS
Technical Services Librarian
Stark County District Library
715 Market Avenue North
Canton, OH 44702
330-458-2723
klaman...@starklibrary.org
Inspiring Ideas ∙ Enriching Lives ∙ Creating Community



-Original Message-
From: Arakawa, Steven [mailto:steven.arak...@yale.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 2:31 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

Kevin, you're right--thanks for pointing this out. The example would have been 
helped with an additional 3xx for the primary content/media/carrier type. 
However, I still think the fields themselves could be translated into more 
comprehensible terms in the OPAC, especially if labels were assigned.

Steven Arakawa
Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation Catalog & Metadata Services, 
SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240
(203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 1:39 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

Steven Arakawa wrote:


Although the $a terms may be incomprehensible to the public, locally
you could selectively add $3 to 338 with more appropriate carrier
terms and include the more specific terms in the display; you would
have more control over the terminology that best suits your user
community. The 338
$3 carrier term could be keyword indexed and could be set to display
with the brief title and/or as part of a labeled, full record display
with the $3 terms for content and media type.


33X subfield $3 is for "Materials specified", meaning the portion of the 
resource to which the field applies.  The example:

338 ## $a sheet $2 rdacarrier $3 liner notes

means that for the resource being described, the carrier type term "sheet" 
applies to the liner notes, not to the audiodisc or videodisc that it accompanies.

Subfield $3 is not for an alternative term to the one given in $a.  The 
definition of subfield $3 for the 33X fields parallels the definition in other 
fields such as 490.

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
k...@northwestern.edu
(847) 491-2939

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

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

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kathleen Lamantia
> Sent: October 23, 2012 2:36 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
> 
> Agreed, and thank you for the suggestion.
> 
> But, back to the original question - why do the extra work?
> 
> 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.


Those aren't GMDs as listed in AACR2, but they also shouldn't be stopped in 
local systems. It's a matter of what field you use. Those terms are actually 
nearly identical to our item-level collection codes and they have nothing to do 
with bibliographic fields in our case.


The three terms (336-337-338) can be collapsed to 2 terms, and, for display, 
substitutions can be made (that was the intent of the Joint Steering Committee: 
http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/5m100-128.pdf  - point 103.8.7).


The 337 Media Type value is embedded within the 338 Carrier Type (a "videodisc" 
is a "video" media type), and so it can be dropped from display.


Perhaps part of the confusion may have come from the easy mapping of some 
common GMD values to the 337 Media Type.

These are the easy mappings that can be made:

'videorecording' maps to 'video'

'sound recording' maps to 'audio'

'microform' maps to 'microform'


whereas combining Content Type and Carrier Type can produce some good results:

"spoken word" on "audio disc"

which can be converted for display to "Book on CD".


Keeping the 337 around might make sense if finding the most common mappings of 
336-337-338 to the GMD is important, but the other two elements in 336 and 338 
might be more useful for display in the long run.

In other situations more precise codes may need to be called upon. Our format 
icons are generated from MARC fixed fields, and values deep inside 006, 007 and 
008 are called up to devise very specific icons and display terms.

That specificity in format details is essentially not possible with the 
"general" terms in 336-337-338 so there still needs to be some contemplation of 
how the whole set of RDA elements can be used to create flexible displays. 
There are many other RDA elements that get into detailed format 
characteristics. The assumption for many of these, I think, is that they will 
ultimately depend on controlled vocabulary, data normalization, or something 
equivalent to MARC fixed fields to create the kind of the "on-the-fly" and 
standardized displays that are in much need now because of the increasing 
diversity of format types.

The key though is to separate in our minds the data elements, and how the 
examples for values for each element are portrayed in RDA, and what is 
technically feasible in mapping those element values into different displays.

It's clear from RDA that the listed values for many kinds of elements are not 
intended for ultimate display. For example the qualifiers "(work)" and 
"(expression)" in some relationship designators are not intended for display, 
but are necessary to create underlying unique values that are semantically 
consistent with the entities involved.

Likewise for the Content-Media-Carrier Type values-- these are based upon the 
matrix of underlying elements used in the RDA-ONIX Framework and cannot be 
adjusted at that lower level. They can however be displayed differently.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

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

[Kevin M Randall]

Steven Arakawa wrote:

> Kevin, you're right--thanks for pointing this out. The example would have
> been helped with an additional 3xx for the primary content/media/carrier
> type. However, I still think the fields themselves could be translated into
> more comprehensible terms in the OPAC, especially if labels were
> assigned.

I agree that more context in the examples in MARC documentation would make 
things clearer.  But I don't totally agree with you that "the fields themselves 
could be translated ..."  Rather, I think that they SHOULD be translated 
(and/or turned into icons, etc.).  The intent of the RDA terms in these fields 
is not to display them to the public, but to identify the attributes in the 
metadata.  Public display should be *based on* the metadata, but not 
necessarily *literally reproduce* the metadata.

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
k...@northwestern.edu
(847) 491-2939

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

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

[Kathleen Lamantia]

Agreed, and thank you for the suggestion.

But, back to the original question - why do the extra work?

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.

Kathleen F. Lamantia, MLIS
Technical Services Librarian
Stark County District Library
715 Market Avenue North
Canton, OH 44702
330-458-2723
klaman...@starklibrary.org
Inspiring Ideas ∙ Enriching Lives ∙ Creating Community
 


-Original Message-
From: Arakawa, Steven [mailto:steven.arak...@yale.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 2:31 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

Kevin, you're right--thanks for pointing this out. The example would have been 
helped with an additional 3xx for the primary content/media/carrier type. 
However, I still think the fields themselves could be translated into more 
comprehensible terms in the OPAC, especially if labels were assigned.  

Steven Arakawa
Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation Catalog & Metadata Services, 
SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240
(203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 1:39 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

Steven Arakawa wrote:

> Although the $a terms may be incomprehensible to the public, locally 
> you could selectively add $3 to 338 with more appropriate carrier 
> terms and include the more specific terms in the display; you would 
> have more control over the terminology that best suits your user 
> community. The 338
> $3 carrier term could be keyword indexed and could be set to display 
> with the brief title and/or as part of a labeled, full record display 
> with the $3 terms for content and media type.

33X subfield $3 is for "Materials specified", meaning the portion of the 
resource to which the field applies.  The example:

338 ## $a sheet $2 rdacarrier $3 liner notes

means that for the resource being described, the carrier type term "sheet" 
applies to the liner notes, not to the audiodisc or videodisc that it 
accompanies.

Subfield $3 is not for an alternative term to the one given in $a.  The 
definition of subfield $3 for the 33X fields parallels the definition in other 
fields such as 490.

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
k...@northwestern.edu
(847) 491-2939

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

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

[Arakawa, Steven]

Kevin, you're right--thanks for pointing this out. The example would have been 
helped with an additional 3xx for the primary content/media/carrier type. 
However, I still think the fields themselves could be translated into more 
comprehensible terms in the OPAC, especially if labels were assigned.  

Steven Arakawa 
Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation
Catalog & Metadata Services, SML, Yale University
P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240  
(203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 1:39 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

Steven Arakawa wrote:

> Although the $a terms may be incomprehensible to the public, locally 
> you could selectively add $3 to 338 with more appropriate carrier 
> terms and include the more specific terms in the display; you would 
> have more control over the terminology that best suits your user 
> community. The 338
> $3 carrier term could be keyword indexed and could be set to display 
> with the brief title and/or as part of a labeled, full record display 
> with the $3 terms for content and media type.

33X subfield $3 is for "Materials specified", meaning the portion of the 
resource to which the field applies.  The example:

338 ## $a sheet $2 rdacarrier $3 liner notes

means that for the resource being described, the carrier type term "sheet" 
applies to the liner notes, not to the audiodisc or videodisc that it 
accompanies.

Subfield $3 is not for an alternative term to the one given in $a.  The 
definition of subfield $3 for the 33X fields parallels the definition in other 
fields such as 490.

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
k...@northwestern.edu
(847) 491-2939

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

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

[J. McRee Elrod]

Thomas Brenndorfer said:

>Perhaps the biggest frustration I get in these discussion is the
>conflation of issues. A discussion of controlled vocabulary terms
>shouldn't be bogged down by display issues.

Display issues?  The function of 245$h or 33X would seem to me to
facilitate discovery of desired resources.  It would seem to me that
how they are displayed is central to their serving their purpose.

The major problems we see with 33X is that some terms are too long for
convenient display, are redundant, or are obscure (e,g,,"tactile three
dimensional object"; "object" would suffice).  

Relator terms have the same problems.  It is not necessary to include
"film" or "sound film" in relator terms; it is clear from the record
what is directed or composed; "director" or "composer" would suffice.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

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

[Kevin M Randall]

Steven Arakawa wrote:

> Although the $a terms may be incomprehensible to the public, locally you
> could selectively add $3 to 338 with more appropriate carrier terms and
> include the more specific terms in the display; you would have more
> control over the terminology that best suits your user community. The 338
> $3 carrier term could be keyword indexed and could be set to display with
> the brief title and/or as part of a labeled, full record display with the $3
> terms for content and media type.

33X subfield $3 is for "Materials specified", meaning the portion of the 
resource to which the field applies.  The example:

338 ## $a sheet $2 rdacarrier $3 liner notes

means that for the resource being described, the carrier type term "sheet" 
applies to the liner notes, not to the audiodisc or videodisc that it 
accompanies.

Subfield $3 is not for an alternative term to the one given in $a.  The 
definition of subfield $3 for the 33X fields parallels the definition in other 
fields such as 490.

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
k...@northwestern.edu
(847) 491-2939

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

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

[Arakawa, Steven]

We don't display the new 3xx fields in our OPAC either; I've always thought it 
was obvious from the controlled, technical vocabulary used in $a & $2 that 
336-338 $a and $2 were not intended for display. However, in our system the 
fields are keyword indexed. In the current and near future catalog, they should 
be relatively easy to apply to keyword filters running in the background. 

Although the $a terms may be incomprehensible to the public, locally you could 
selectively add $3 to 338 with more appropriate carrier terms and include the 
more specific terms in the display; you would have more control over the 
terminology that best suits your user community. The 338 $3 carrier term could 
be keyword indexed and could be set to display with the brief title and/or as 
part of a labeled, full record display with the $3 terms for content and media 
type.

The MARC Authorities example 338 ## $asheet$2rdacarrier$3liner notes

Other possibilities? (throwing these out for consideration).  At your next 
cataloger cocktail party, think up your own opac labels and index displays!

For jazz performance recordings on an Ipod

336 ## $aperformed music$2rdacontent$3jazz
337 ## $aaudio$2rdamedia$3mp3 audio
338 ## $aother$2rdacarrier$3Ipod

Public labels in record display:
Format: jazz
Access via: mp3 audio
On: Ipod

Index display:   
(Ipod)  

For an online map:
336 ## $acartographic image$2rdacontent$3e-map
337 ## $acomputer$2rdamedia$3any university computer
338 ## $aonline resource$2rdacarrier$3Internet website 

Public labels:
Format: e-map
Access via: any university computer
On: Internet website

Index display: (Internet website)

For an e-book:
336 ## $atext$2rdacontent$3e-book
337 ## $acomputer$rdamedia$3e-reader
338 ## $acomputer card$2rdacarrier$3Kindle 

Public labels:
Format: e-book
Access via: e-reader
On: Kindle 

Index display: (Kindle)

Steven Arakawa 
Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation
Catalog & Metadata Services, SML, Yale University
P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240  
(203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kathleen Lamantia
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 9:02 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

Or, you can just keep it locally, which is what we plan to do.

When staff have a patron standing in front of them, or on the phone, seeking 
help, they use the #h [gmd] description to quickly distinguish which type of 
material is wanted by the patron.  That is supposed to be the basis of the 
entire FRBR/RDA changeover.

If I told them they had to read 336, 337 and 338 to determine item type, 
especially once I showed them the terms used ("oh yes and and 'unmediated text' 
is a book") they would troop down to Tech Services en masse and ask me if I had 
lost my mind.

In the OPAC, III's field 30 Mat Type generates an a very specific icon, so we 
are okay there.  We are currently suppressing the 3xxs in the public display.  
They take up too much room in the display because of where they fall, and they 
convey no useful information to searchers.

Kathleen F. Lamantia, MLIS
Technical Services Librarian
Stark County District Library
715 Market Avenue North
Canton, OH 44702
330-458-2723
klaman...@starklibrary.org
Inspiring Ideas ∙ Enriching Lives ∙ Creating Community
 

-Original Message-
From: Kelleher, Martin [mailto:mart...@liverpool.ac.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 8:17 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

Well, it would still be nonstandard, plus probably isn't set up in most systems 
to act like GMDs. Assuming the cataloguers at our institution decide on such a 
direction, we'll probably just keep using $h unless the systems stop accepting 
them. Given the widespread support for GMD, it may be supported for some time 
to come, hopefully until the RDA powers-that-be come up with a more effective 
alternative

Failing that, I guess we could use the same terminologies in one of the 330 
fields, or perhaps a local field, and either suppress from display or delete 
the remainder.

If we're talking revising RDA, I'd prefer to re-instate the GMDs (with revised 
terminology) and abolish the 330s - I think that would be quite a popular 
revision!


Martin Kelleher
Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Elizabeth O'Keefe
Sent: 23 October 2012 13:03
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

How about using the $k subfield instead?

Here is the current MARC definition of this subfield in the 245:

$k - Form
Term that 

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

[Jerri Swinehart]

There is supposed to be an additional field that clarifies what each GMD is
... It's added all the time to videorecording records etc. Masking phrases
for URLs are also a good way to signal to non-library employed users how to
access an electronic resource. We use, "Click here for access."

Thank you.

Jerri Swinehart
MLIS
Metadata Technician
Oakland University
Kresge Library
Technical Services
Rochester, MI 48309-4484
swine...@oakland.edu

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

[Joan Wang]

The major of purpose of GMD is to draw users' attention to material types,
since it is an important factor for users to make a decision on selecting
items. Is there any way for OPAC systems to show material types in a
intuitive and friendly way based on the three 33x fields? Curious.

Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System

On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Robert Maxwell wrote:

>  I would not call this GMD “quite obvious”:
>
> ** **
>
> Trouble blues|h[electronic resource] /|cCurtis Jones.
>
> ** **
>
> This is in a record for streaming audio, that is, a sound recording. 
>
> ** **
>
> On the other hand, our catalog also has this:
>
> ** **
>
> Ariadne auf Naxos|h[electronic resource] =|bAriadne on Naxos.
>
> ** **
>
> Is this for a sound recording of the opera, or a digital score? As it
> happens, it’s neither—it’s a digitized pamphlet about the opera.
>
> ** **
>
> I’d call that fuzzy. Our catalog is overflowing with these. 
>
> ** **
>
> Bob
>
> ** **
>
> Robert L. Maxwell
>
> Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
>
> Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
>
> 6728 Harold B. Lee Library
>
> Brigham Young University
>
> Provo, UT 84602
>
> (801)422-5568 
>
> ** **
>
> "We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves
> to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Jerri Swinehart
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 23, 2012 8:22 AM
> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
>
> ** **
>
> The current GMD isn't fuzzy. It's quite obvious. The material is a sound
> recording, microform, or videorecording, etc. There is an additional field
> on the records (500, 538) that explains what kind of sound recording or
> what kind of microform or what kind of videorecording the material happens
> to be.
>
>  
>
> Non-library employed users aren't going to understand content, medium, and
> carrier. They're going to have to ask the Reference folks for help. 
>
>  
>
> And maybe that's the point of RDA?
>
>  
>
> Thank you.
>
>  
>
> Jerri Swinehart
>
> MLIS
>
> Metadata Technician
>
> Oakland University
>
> Kresge Library
>
> Technical Services
>
> Rochester, MI 48309-4484
>
> swine...@oakland.edu
>
>  
>
>


-- 
Joan Wang
Cataloger -- CMC
Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office)
6725 Goshen Road
Edwardsville, IL 62025
618.656.3216x409
618.656.9401Fax

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

[Robert Maxwell]

I would not call this GMD "quite obvious":

Trouble blues|h[electronic resource] /|cCurtis Jones.

This is in a record for streaming audio, that is, a sound recording.

On the other hand, our catalog also has this:

Ariadne auf Naxos|h[electronic resource] =|bAriadne on Naxos.

Is this for a sound recording of the opera, or a digital score? As it happens, 
it's neither-it's a digitized pamphlet about the opera.

I'd call that fuzzy. Our catalog is overflowing with these.

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to 
the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jerri Swinehart
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 8:22 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

The current GMD isn't fuzzy. It's quite obvious. The material is a sound 
recording, microform, or videorecording, etc. There is an additional field on 
the records (500, 538) that explains what kind of sound recording or what kind 
of microform or what kind of videorecording the material happens to be.

Non-library employed users aren't going to understand content, medium, and 
carrier. They're going to have to ask the Reference folks for help.

And maybe that's the point of RDA?

Thank you.

Jerri Swinehart
MLIS
Metadata Technician
Oakland University
Kresge Library
Technical Services
Rochester, MI 48309-4484
swine...@oakland.edu<mailto:swine...@oakland.edu>

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

[Jerri Swinehart]

The current GMD isn't fuzzy. It's quite obvious. The material is a sound
recording, microform, or videorecording, etc. There is an additional field
on the records (500, 538) that explains what kind of sound recording or
what kind of microform or what kind of videorecording the material happens
to be.

Non-library employed users aren't going to understand content, medium, and
carrier. They're going to have to ask the Reference folks for help.

And maybe that's the point of RDA?

Thank you.

Jerri Swinehart
MLIS
Metadata Technician
Oakland University
Kresge Library
Technical Services
Rochester, MI 48309-4484
swine...@oakland.edu

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

[Kelleher, Martin]

It's just a shame it fails to successfully impart this information in an 
effective and concise fashion, as could have perhaps been managed with more 
commonly employed terminology. :-(

Martin Kelleher
Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian
University of Liverpool

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Myers, John F.
Sent: 23 October 2012 14:58
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

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] Additional work required by RDA

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Elizabeth O'Keefe
> Sent: October 23, 2012 8:03 AM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
> 
...
> 
> Those who feel the 336-338 triad combinations are insufficient to convey
> the nature of a resource (we have this issue with three-dimensional objects
> and with manuscripts) might find the $k subfield in the 245 more hospitable
> to this type of information. Of course, this would necessitate changes to
> RDA, but the revision process is ongoing.
> 

Perhaps, but there are issues of overlap of what each element is supposed to 
convey. As with the GMD, the 336, 337, 338 values are "general". Putting more 
specificity into the GMD is as problematic as putting more specificity into 
336-337-338 elements. There already were many kludges to fix the GMD to get 
some useful specificity such as [videorecording (DVD)] or [sound recording 
(CD)]. For many, the GMD was a hopeless and flawed practice, and certainly a 
big reason to have it changed.

The 336 is also an Expression term that can exist in authority records, whereas 
337 and 338 are Manifestation terms. The 336 Content Type can be a qualifier 
for authorized access points for expressions. There are also some decisions 
that are trigged from the broad categorizations in 336-337-338 such as when to 
create a new record for a serial, and matching the value that is in the Extent 
element. Also, there is a good correspondence between many 336, 337, and 338 
values and MARC fixed fields, so in some ways one would still be making the 
same kinds of decisions about content and carrier. I don't think the 
336-337-338 fields can be ignored because they are interwoven into other parts 
of RDA and there are some dependencies built in.


One useful Content Type term is "spoken word" which I would very much like to 
see displayed more prominently (as opposed to terms like "non-musical sound 
recording").


The "nature of the resource" is also covered by other Work and Expression 
elements, and the RDA-MARC Toolkit map has $k pointing to other possible RDA 
elements. I think more effort needs to be made on the whole form/genre issue as 
RDA 6.3 (Form of Work) and RDA 7.2 (Nature of the Content) only carry forward 
the limited scopes found in AACR2. The problem though is that we jump at the 
idea of a physical location for a field (right after the title) and desire to 
pour into that field that perfect term for the resource. But often that choice 
for a term reflects different aspects of resources. The path we should be 
following is to separate out terms logically, and then build consistent and 
meaningful displays from that process as a secondary step.

For continued local use of $h in 245 I don't see a problem in the short term. 
One way to approach this is to isolate $h properly (no punctuation included) so 
that batch updates can easily delete or change the value in this field.

There does seem to be some confusion though, as the GMD's placement in the 245 
doesn't mean that this term has to be part of the title element ($h was never a 
"transcribed" value like the title proper-- there are separate elements being 
discussed here, even though in MARC the punctuation is entangled). For local 
use of 245$h I would at least end the inclusion of punctuation, as I mentioned, 
and perhaps put the subfield at the end (often 245 $c is dropped from Title 
Browse displays or separated in online catalog displays, so there's room for 
experimentation based upon current system mapping for displays and indexes). 
Locally, we've used many variations over the years, including other fields such 
as 590, 591, 690, 691 to capture aspects of the resource that couldn't be 
captured in traditional MARC fields.

Perhaps the biggest frustration I get in these discussion is the conflation of 
issues. A discussion of controlled vocabulary terms shouldn't be bogged down by 
display issues. For some, the GMD means a field stuck after the title (an 
'early warning' tool); for others it just means that perfect term or phrase 
that captures the essence of the resource (and therefore where it's placed is 
not the issue).

These two aspects for describing general content and carrier terms need to be 
separated.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

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] Additional work required by RDA

[John Hostage]

For some of the background that led to the abandonment of the GMD, see
http://www.rda-jsc.org/rda.html#GMD


--
John Hostage
Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services
Langdell Hall 194
Cambridge, MA 02138
host...@law.harvard.edu
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)

> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Bernhard, Michael
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 18:39
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
> 
> 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] Additional work required by RDA

[Kathleen Lamantia]

Or, you can just keep it locally, which is what we plan to do.

When staff have a patron standing in front of them, or on the phone, seeking 
help, they use the #h [gmd] description to quickly distinguish which type of 
material is wanted by the patron.  That is supposed to be the basis of the 
entire FRBR/RDA changeover.

If I told them they had to read 336, 337 and 338 to determine item type, 
especially once I showed them the terms used ("oh yes and and 'unmediated text' 
is a book") they would troop down to Tech Services en masse and ask me if I had 
lost my mind.

In the OPAC, III's field 30 Mat Type generates an a very specific icon, so we 
are okay there.  We are currently suppressing the 3xxs in the public display.  
They take up too much room in the display because of where they fall, and they 
convey no useful information to searchers.

Kathleen F. Lamantia, MLIS
Technical Services Librarian
Stark County District Library
715 Market Avenue North
Canton, OH 44702
330-458-2723
klaman...@starklibrary.org
Inspiring Ideas ∙ Enriching Lives ∙ Creating Community
 

-Original Message-
From: Kelleher, Martin [mailto:mart...@liverpool.ac.uk] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 8:17 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

Well, it would still be nonstandard, plus probably isn't set up in most systems 
to act like GMDs. Assuming the cataloguers at our institution decide on such a 
direction, we'll probably just keep using $h unless the systems stop accepting 
them. Given the widespread support for GMD, it may be supported for some time 
to come, hopefully until the RDA powers-that-be come up with a more effective 
alternative

Failing that, I guess we could use the same terminologies in one of the 330 
fields, or perhaps a local field, and either suppress from display or delete 
the remainder.

If we're talking revising RDA, I'd prefer to re-instate the GMDs (with revised 
terminology) and abolish the 330s - I think that would be quite a popular 
revision!


Martin Kelleher
Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Elizabeth O'Keefe
Sent: 23 October 2012 13:03
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

How about using the $k subfield instead?

Here is the current MARC definition of this subfield in the 245:

$k - Form
Term that is descriptive of the form of the described materials, determined by 
an examination of their physical character, subject of their intellectual 
content, or the order of information within them (e.g., daybooks, diaries, 
directories, journals, memoranda, etc.).

245 10$aFour years at Yale :$kdiaries,$f1903 Sept. 16-1907 Oct. 5.
245 00$aPL 17 Hearing Files$kCase Files$f1974$pDistrict 6$hmicrofilm
(jacketted in fiche).
245 14$aThe charity ball :$ba comedy in four acts
:$ktypescript,$f1889 /$cby David Belasco and Henry C. DeMille.

Those who feel the 336-338 triad combinations are insufficient to convey the 
nature of a resource (we have this issue with three-dimensional objects and 
with manuscripts) might find the $k subfield in the 245 more hospitable to this 
type of information. Of course, this would necessitate changes to RDA, but the 
revision process is ongoing.

Liz O'Keefe




Elizabeth O'Keefe
Director of Collection Information Systems The Morgan Library & Museum
225 Madison Avenue
New York, NY  10016-3405
 
TEL: 212 590-0380
FAX: 212-768-5680
NET: eoke...@themorgan.org

Visit CORSAIR, the Library’s comprehensive collections catalog, now on the web 
at http://corsair.themorgan.org


>>> "Kelleher, Martin"  10/23/2012 5:05 AM
>>>
"Transcribed information in transcribed fields" only? I can't see the point of 
it either, if it makes the nature of that which you're examining more 
obscure.

Hear hear to reviving GMDs!

A missed opportunity in RDA was the potential rejigging of GMD into something 
more user friendly - instead, we end up with just the opposite, it's removal 
and replacement with a clutter of significantly less user-friendly codified 
record cloggers (the 330s). 

The original GMD terms ARE unwieldy. What we've done for years is combine 
carrier and content in fairly well known terms, such as:

DVD video
DVD audio
DVD-ROM
Audio CD
Video CD
CD-ROM
Videocassette
Audiocassette

Shocking, I know, but I suspect it helps people to figure out what we've got 
more than the 330s will..

Too late now?

Martin Kelleher
Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource 

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

[Kelleher, Martin]

Well, it would still be nonstandard, plus probably isn't set up in most systems 
to act like GMDs. Assuming the cataloguers at our institution decide on such a 
direction, we'll probably just keep using $h unless the systems stop accepting 
them. Given the widespread support for GMD, it may be supported for some time 
to come, hopefully until the RDA powers-that-be come up with a more effective 
alternative

Failing that, I guess we could use the same terminologies in one of the 330 
fields, or perhaps a local field, and either suppress from display or delete 
the remainder.

If we're talking revising RDA, I'd prefer to re-instate the GMDs (with revised 
terminology) and abolish the 330s - I think that would be quite a popular 
revision!


Martin Kelleher
Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian
University of Liverpool

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Elizabeth O'Keefe
Sent: 23 October 2012 13:03
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

How about using the $k subfield instead?

Here is the current MARC definition of this subfield in the 245:

$k - Form
Term that is descriptive of the form of the described materials, determined by 
an examination of their physical character, subject of their intellectual 
content, or the order of information within them (e.g., daybooks, diaries, 
directories, journals, memoranda, etc.).

245 10$aFour years at Yale :$kdiaries,$f1903 Sept. 16-1907 Oct. 5.
245 00$aPL 17 Hearing Files$kCase Files$f1974$pDistrict 6$hmicrofilm
(jacketted in fiche).
245 14$aThe charity ball :$ba comedy in four acts
:$ktypescript,$f1889 /$cby David Belasco and Henry C. DeMille.

Those who feel the 336-338 triad combinations are insufficient to convey the 
nature of a resource (we have this issue with three-dimensional objects and 
with manuscripts) might find the $k subfield in the 245 more hospitable to this 
type of information. Of course, this would necessitate changes to RDA, but the 
revision process is ongoing.

Liz O'Keefe




Elizabeth O'Keefe
Director of Collection Information Systems The Morgan Library & Museum
225 Madison Avenue
New York, NY  10016-3405
 
TEL: 212 590-0380
FAX: 212-768-5680
NET: eoke...@themorgan.org

Visit CORSAIR, the Library’s comprehensive collections catalog, now on the web 
at http://corsair.themorgan.org


>>> "Kelleher, Martin"  10/23/2012 5:05 AM
>>>
"Transcribed information in transcribed fields" only? I can't see the point of 
it either, if it makes the nature of that which you're examining more 
obscure.

Hear hear to reviving GMDs!

A missed opportunity in RDA was the potential rejigging of GMD into something 
more user friendly - instead, we end up with just the opposite, it's removal 
and replacement with a clutter of significantly less user-friendly codified 
record cloggers (the 330s). 

The original GMD terms ARE unwieldy. What we've done for years is combine 
carrier and content in fairly well known terms, such as:

DVD video
DVD audio
DVD-ROM
Audio CD
Video CD
CD-ROM
Videocassette
Audiocassette

Shocking, I know, but I suspect it helps people to figure out what we've got 
more than the 330s will..

Too late now?

Martin Kelleher
Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: 23 October 2012 01:35
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

Michael Bernhard said:

>Has anyone suggested that RDA be revised to provide for a GMD (in 
>addition to the new 33x fields)?
  
This would be counter to RDA's effort to have only transcribed information in 
transcribed fields.  The same reasoning was behind the abandonment of "[sic]" 
or supplying missing letters in brackets.  I think the reasoning behind no 
additions was to make it easier to use captured data without change.  Use 
without even standardizing punctuation is allowed.

We fail to see what captured data they have in mind.  We find ONIX information 
often not accurate, and more difficult to adapt than to just start from 
scratch, or cut and paste from PDFs.
  
It was very difficult to get the option of adding missing jurisdictions in 
260$a as opposed to a note, but I think that was accepted.

Abandoning the GMD is counter to the findings of a survey done by Jean Riddle 
Weihs, as well contrary to common sense.  Granted GMDs could have been improved 
by making the content/carrier distinction, perhaps even compound GMDs, but with 
shorter and more patron friendly t

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

[Elizabeth O'Keefe]

How about using the $k subfield instead?

Here is the current MARC definition of this subfield in the 245:

$k - Form
Term that is descriptive of the form of the described materials,
determined by an examination of their physical character, subject of
their intellectual content, or the order of information within them
(e.g., daybooks, diaries, directories, journals, memoranda, etc.).

245 10$aFour years at Yale :$kdiaries,$f1903 Sept. 16-1907 Oct. 5.
245 00$aPL 17 Hearing Files$kCase Files$f1974$pDistrict 6$hmicrofilm
(jacketted in fiche).
245 14$aThe charity ball :$ba comedy in four acts
:$ktypescript,$f1889 /$cby David Belasco and Henry C. DeMille.

Those who feel the 336-338 triad combinations are insufficient to
convey the nature of a resource (we have this issue with
three-dimensional objects and with manuscripts) might find the $k
subfield in the 245 more hospitable to this type of information. Of
course, this would necessitate changes to RDA, but the revision process
is ongoing.

Liz O'Keefe




Elizabeth O'Keefe
Director of Collection Information Systems
The Morgan Library & Museum
225 Madison Avenue
New York, NY  10016-3405
 
TEL: 212 590-0380
FAX: 212-768-5680
NET: eoke...@themorgan.org

Visit CORSAIR, the Library’s comprehensive collections catalog, now
on
the web at
http://corsair.themorgan.org


>>> "Kelleher, Martin"  10/23/2012 5:05 AM
>>>
"Transcribed information in transcribed fields" only? I can't see the
point of it either, if it makes the nature of that which you're
examining more obscure.

Hear hear to reviving GMDs!

A missed opportunity in RDA was the potential rejigging of GMD into
something more user friendly - instead, we end up with just the
opposite, it's removal and replacement with a clutter of significantly
less user-friendly codified record cloggers (the 330s). 

The original GMD terms ARE unwieldy. What we've done for years is
combine carrier and content in fairly well known terms, such as:

DVD video
DVD audio
DVD-ROM
Audio CD
Video CD
CD-ROM
Videocassette
Audiocassette

Shocking, I know, but I suspect it helps people to figure out what
we've got more than the 330s will..

Too late now?

Martin Kelleher
Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian
University of Liverpool

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: 23 October 2012 01:35
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA 
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

Michael Bernhard said:

>Has anyone suggested that RDA be revised to provide for a GMD (in 
>addition to the new 33x fields)?
  
This would be counter to RDA's effort to have only transcribed
information in transcribed fields.  The same reasoning was behind the
abandonment of "[sic]" or supplying missing letters in brackets.  I
think the reasoning behind no additions was to make it easier to use
captured data without change.  Use without even standardizing
punctuation is allowed.

We fail to see what captured data they have in mind.  We find ONIX
information often not accurate, and more difficult to adapt than to just
start from scratch, or cut and paste from PDFs.
  
It was very difficult to get the option of adding missing jurisdictions
in 260$a as opposed to a note, but I think that was accepted.

Abandoning the GMD is counter to the findings of a survey done by Jean
Riddle Weihs, as well contrary to common sense.  Granted GMDs could have
been improved by making the content/carrier distinction, perhaps even
compound GMDs, but with shorter and more patron friendly terms
than RDA's 33X.   The GMD in conjunction with a more exact SMD worked
quite well in our experience.  Only systems able to provide
understandable icons will escape the inconvenience of the missing GMD.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   http://www.slc.bc.ca/

  ___} |__ \__

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

[Kelleher, Martin]

"Transcribed information in transcribed fields" only? I can't see the point of 
it either, if it makes the nature of that which you're examining more 
obscure.

Hear hear to reviving GMDs!

A missed opportunity in RDA was the potential rejigging of GMD into something 
more user friendly - instead, we end up with just the opposite, it's removal 
and replacement with a clutter of significantly less user-friendly codified 
record cloggers (the 330s). 

The original GMD terms ARE unwieldy. What we've done for years is combine 
carrier and content in fairly well known terms, such as:

DVD video
DVD audio
DVD-ROM
Audio CD
Video CD
CD-ROM
Videocassette
Audiocassette

Shocking, I know, but I suspect it helps people to figure out what we've got 
more than the 330s will..

Too late now?

Martin Kelleher
Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian
University of Liverpool

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: 23 October 2012 01:35
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

Michael Bernhard said:

>Has anyone suggested that RDA be revised to provide for a GMD (in 
>addition to the new 33x fields)?
  
This would be counter to RDA's effort to have only transcribed information in 
transcribed fields.  The same reasoning was behind the abandonment of "[sic]" 
or supplying missing letters in brackets.  I think the reasoning behind no 
additions was to make it easier to use captured data without change.  Use 
without even standardizing punctuation is allowed.

We fail to see what captured data they have in mind.  We find ONIX information 
often not accurate, and more difficult to adapt than to just start from 
scratch, or cut and paste from PDFs.
  
It was very difficult to get the option of adding missing jurisdictions in 
260$a as opposed to a note, but I think that was accepted.

Abandoning the GMD is counter to the findings of a survey done by Jean Riddle 
Weihs, as well contrary to common sense.  Granted GMDs could have been improved 
by making the content/carrier distinction, perhaps even compound GMDs, but with 
shorter and more patron friendly terms
than RDA's 33X.   The GMD in conjunction with a more exact SMD worked
quite well in our experience.  Only systems able to provide understandable 
icons will escape the inconvenience of the missing GMD.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

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

[J. McRee Elrod]

Michael Bernhard said:

>Has anyone suggested that RDA be revised to provide for a GMD (in
>addition to the new 33x fields)?
  
This would be counter to RDA's effort to have only transcribed
information in transcribed fields.  The same reasoning was behind the
abandonment of "[sic]" or supplying missing letters in brackets.  I
think the reasoning behind no additions was to make it easier to use
captured data without change.  Use without even standardizing
punctuation is allowed.

We fail to see what captured data they have in mind.  We find ONIX
information often not accurate, and more difficult to adapt than to
just start from scratch, or cut and paste from PDFs.
  
It was very difficult to get the option of adding missing
jurisdictions in 260$a as opposed to a note, but I think that was
accepted.

Abandoning the GMD is counter to the findings of a survey done by Jean
Riddle Weihs, as well contrary to common sense.  Granted GMDs could
have been improved by making the content/carrier distinction, perhaps
even compound GMDs, but with shorter and more patron friendly terms
than RDA's 33X.   The GMD in conjunction with a more exact SMD worked
quite well in our experience.  Only systems able to provide
understandable icons will escape the inconvenience of the missing GMD.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

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

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

This map of the GMD to content-media-carrier values, as well as extent values 
might be useful:

http://rdaincanada.wikispaces.com/file/view/gmd_to_cmc_and_extent_20120905.docx

The new 336-337-338 fields align closely to existing MARC categorizations. The 
mapping to the legacy GMD values shows how fluid and unwieldy the GMD was-- 
sometimes it referred to the content type ("text" is not a "material"), 
sometimes to a category that matched a generic intermediary device 
("videorecording" mapped to 337 "video"), and sometimes the GMD got so specific 
that the label "general material type" was inappropriate.

In the ILS I use the GMD display is suppressed and replaced by terms and icons 
that are generated by fixed field values. There is more control and flexibility 
in this approach, and the mess of punctuation getting stuck along with the $h 
value is something that will be great to get rid of. The system even generates 
the term for display after each applicable title in the Title Browse index, 
which mimics the GMD very closely.

The underlying compelling logic (as found in RDA and elsewhere) is that we 
should talk about data elements separate from each other and not get bogged 
down by display decisions in the same breath. We should also talk about data 
elements in light of the entity that is being referred to in each case. One of 
the problems with the GMD was that it shifted its focus to different aspects of 
a resource making its utility unpredictable given new situations (such as all 
the different content types that could be an "electronic resource").

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library


> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Bernhard, Michael
> Sent: October 22, 2012 6:39 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
> 
> 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.)
> 
> Michael Bernhard
> 
> Cataloger, Library Materials Support Services Albuquerque/Bernalillo County
> Library System
> 501 Copper Avenue NW
> Albuquerque, NM  87102
> Tel:  (505) 768-5119
> Email: mbernh...@cabq.gov
> http://www.cabq.gov/library
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 12:35 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
> 
> Buzz Haughton said:
> 
>  * * *
> 
> >I also must re-add $h to all of my 245s when cataloging under RDA,
> >because the collection development librarians want the format included
> >in the title.
> 
> So far all of our clients but one want GMDs.  I agree with your collection
> development librarians.  Even if [338 : 336] terms are mapped to display at
> head of other data, or at end of 245$a, the terms are too long and
> confusing for patrons.  If displayed in tag order (as some systems must), I
> agree they are useless as early warning.
> 
> 
>__   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
>   {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
>   ___} |__ \__

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

[Bernhard, Michael]

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.)

Michael Bernhard

Cataloger, Library Materials Support Services 
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Library System
501 Copper Avenue NW
Albuquerque, NM  87102
Tel:  (505) 768-5119
Email: mbernh...@cabq.gov
http://www.cabq.gov/library

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 12:35 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

Buzz Haughton said:

 * * *

>I also must re-add $h to all of my 245s when cataloging under RDA, 
>because the collection development librarians want the format included 
>in the title.

So far all of our clients but one want GMDs.  I agree with your
collection development librarians.  Even if [338 : 336] terms are mapped
to display at head of other data, or at end of 245$a, the terms are too
long and confusing for patrons.  If displayed in tag order (as some
systems must), I agree they are useless as early warning.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

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

[J. McRee Elrod]

Buzz Haughton said:

>abandonment of 260 and going to this more complicated way to expressing
>publication/copyright year as adding anything in information to the user.

Agreed that it would have been better in terms of consistency with
legagy records to have added 2nd indicators to 260, rather than to
create 264.

The one good change is production information for unpublished
resources, but SLC has been doing that (contra AACR2) for years.  
Since photocopies appeared, and now that theses are printed from
computers, it is silly to pretend a thesis is a manuscript.

>In the public library where I now volunteer as a retired cataloger, I
>must retrofit each and every RDA record I create to eliminate the $c
>in the second 264 and put it into the first; lots of extra manual
>work ...

Why was $c omitted from 264  1?  Publication year should be guessed if
not on the item.  By "second" 264 I assume you mean 264  4 (not 264  2
distributor).  While we do not plan to enter 264  4 $c if the same as
264  1 $c, why must it be removed?

>I also must re-add $h to all of my 245s when cataloging under RDA,
>because the collection development librarians want the format
>included in the title.

So far all of our clients but one want GMDs.  I agree with your
collection development librarians.  Even if [338 : 336] terms are
mapped to display at head of other data, or at end of 245$a, the terms
are too long and confusing for patrons.  If displayed in tag order (as
some systems must), I agree they are useless as early warning.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__