Re: [RDA-L] edition statements
You can string them along separating one from the other by a comma 250;__; $a Updated edition, First edition. Sometime after the 2nd qtr OCLC update in 2104 you'll be able to repeat the 250 field. 250:__; $a Updated edition. 250;__; $a First edition. Guy Frost Associate Professor of Library Science Catalog Librarian Odum Library/Valdosta State University Valdosta, Georgia 31698-0150 229.259.5060 gfr...@valdosta.edu FDLP 0125 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA on behalf of Baumgarten, Richard, JCL baumgart...@jocolibrary.org Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 10:24 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] edition statements I cannot find anywhere in 2.5 about a situation where the title page says updated edition and the verso says First edition. The title was previously published. Do I record both statements or only the statement that I know to be true? Richard Baumgarten Cataloger Johnson County Library P.O. Box 2901 Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66201-1301 (913) 826-4494 baumgart...@jocolibrary.org
Re: [RDA-L] edition statements
Thanks. My instinct was to what you suggested, but I wanted to be sure. Richard Baumgarten Cataloger Johnson County Library P.O. Box 2901 Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66201-1301 (913) 495-2454 baumgart...@jocolibrary.org From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Guy Vernon Frost Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 9:49 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] edition statements You can string them along separating one from the other by a comma 250;__; $a Updated edition, First edition. Sometime after the 2nd qtr OCLC update in 2104 you'll be able to repeat the 250 field. 250:__; $a Updated edition. 250;__; $a First edition. Guy Frost Associate Professor of Library Science Catalog Librarian Odum Library/Valdosta State University Valdosta, Georgia 31698-0150 229.259.5060 gfr...@valdosta.edumailto:gfr...@valdosta.edu FDLP 0125 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA on behalf of Baumgarten, Richard, JCL baumgart...@jocolibrary.orgmailto:baumgart...@jocolibrary.org Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 10:24 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] edition statements I cannot find anywhere in 2.5 about a situation where the title page says updated edition and the verso says First edition. The title was previously published. Do I record both statements or only the statement that I know to be true? Richard Baumgarten Cataloger Johnson County Library P.O. Box 2901 Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66201-1301 (913) 826-4494 baumgart...@jocolibrary.orgmailto:baumgart...@jocolibrary.org
Re: [RDA-L] edition statements
Isn't that perhaps a case of RDA 2.5.6 Designation of a Named Revision of an Edition, i.e. could it be the updated edition of the first edition? If so, then I think the solution would be First edition, updated edition, because 2.5.6 comes after 2.5.2 according to D.1.1. As far as I know, 2.5.6 isn't capitalized. The example Roads revised in 2.5.6.3 seems to be a mistake. Heidrun On 18.10.2013 16:48, Guy Vernon Frost wrote: You can string them along separating one from the other by a comma 250;__; $a Updated edition, First edition. Sometime after the 2nd qtr OCLC update in 2104 you'll be able to repeat the 250 field. 250:__; $a Updated edition. 250;__; $a First edition. Guy Frost Associate Professor of Library Science Catalog Librarian Odum Library/Valdosta State University Valdosta, Georgia 31698-0150 229.259.5060 gfr...@valdosta.edu FDLP 0125 *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA on behalf of Baumgarten, Richard, JCL baumgart...@jocolibrary.org *Sent:* Friday, October 18, 2013 10:24 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* [RDA-L] edition statements I cannot find anywhere in 2.5 about a situation where the title page says updated edition and the verso says First edition. The title was previously published. Do I record both statements or only the statement that I know to be true? Richard Baumgarten Cataloger Johnson County Library P.O. Box 2901 Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66201-1301 (913) 826-4494 baumgart...@jocolibrary.org -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] edition statements
From a patron's point of view, but probably not according to the rules, would be Revised first edition, or First edition, revised. kathie Kathleen Goldfarb Technical Services Librarian College of the Mainland Texas City, TX 77539 409 933 8202 P Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Guy Vernon Frost Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 9:49 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] edition statements You can string them along separating one from the other by a comma 250;__; $a Updated edition, First edition. Sometime after the 2nd qtr OCLC update in 2104 you'll be able to repeat the 250 field. 250:__; $a Updated edition. 250;__; $a First edition. Guy Frost Associate Professor of Library Science Catalog Librarian Odum Library/Valdosta State University Valdosta, Georgia 31698-0150 229.259.5060 gfr...@valdosta.edu FDLP 0125 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA on behalf of Baumgarten, Richard, JCL baumgart...@jocolibrary.org Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 10:24 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] edition statements I cannot find anywhere in 2.5 about a situation where the title page says updated edition and the verso says First edition. The title was previously published. Do I record both statements or only the statement that I know to be true? Richard Baumgarten Cataloger Johnson County Library P.O. Box 2901 Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66201-1301 (913) 826-4494 baumgart...@jocolibrary.org
Re: [RDA-L] edition statements
That makes the most sense to me. I guess if you want to stick with the language of the subject you’d put “updated first edition” or “first edition, updated”. If you’re going to put in edition twice, it only makes sense to me to put “first edition, updated edition” as is updated edition of the first edition. “Updated edition, First edition” sounds like the 1st edition of the updated edition (of possibly another edition?) to me. Martin Kelleher Metadata Manager University of Liverpool From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Goldfarb, Kathie Sent: 18 October 2013 16:36 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] edition statements From a patron’s point of view, but probably not according to the rules, would be Revised first edition, or First edition, revised. kathie Kathleen Goldfarb Technical Services Librarian College of the Mainland Texas City, TX 77539 409 933 8202 P Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Guy Vernon Frost Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 9:49 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] edition statements You can string them along separating one from the other by a comma 250;__; $a Updated edition, First edition. Sometime after the 2nd qtr OCLC update in 2104 you'll be able to repeat the 250 field. 250:__; $a Updated edition. 250;__; $a First edition. Guy Frost Associate Professor of Library Science Catalog Librarian Odum Library/Valdosta State University Valdosta, Georgia 31698-0150 229.259.5060 gfr...@valdosta.edumailto:gfr...@valdosta.edu FDLP 0125 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA on behalf of Baumgarten, Richard, JCL baumgart...@jocolibrary.orgmailto:baumgart...@jocolibrary.org Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 10:24 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] edition statements I cannot find anywhere in 2.5 about a situation where the title page says updated edition and the verso says First edition. The title was previously published. Do I record both statements or only the statement that I know to be true? Richard Baumgarten Cataloger Johnson County Library P.O. Box 2901 Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66201-1301 (913) 826-4494 baumgart...@jocolibrary.orgmailto:baumgart...@jocolibrary.org
Re: [RDA-L] edition statements
But since first edition often means first printing, only updated edition is relevant. Peter Van: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] namens Kelleher, Martin [mart...@liverpool.ac.uk] Verzonden: vrijdag 18 oktober 2013 17:51 Aan: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Onderwerp: Re: [RDA-L] edition statements That makes the most sense to me. I guess if you want to stick with the language of the subject you’d put “updated first edition” or “first edition, updated”. If you’re going to put in edition twice, it only makes sense to me to put “first edition, updated edition” as is updated edition of the first edition. “Updated edition, First edition” sounds like the 1st edition of the updated edition (of possibly another edition?) to me. Martin Kelleher Metadata Manager University of Liverpool From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Goldfarb, Kathie Sent: 18 October 2013 16:36 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] edition statements From a patron’s point of view, but probably not according to the rules, would be Revised first edition, or First edition, revised. kathie Kathleen Goldfarb Technical Services Librarian College of the Mainland Texas City, TX 77539 409 933 8202 P Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Guy Vernon Frost Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 9:49 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] edition statements You can string them along separating one from the other by a comma 250;__; $a Updated edition, First edition. Sometime after the 2nd qtr OCLC update in 2104 you'll be able to repeat the 250 field. 250:__; $a Updated edition. 250;__; $a First edition. Guy Frost Associate Professor of Library Science Catalog Librarian Odum Library/Valdosta State University Valdosta, Georgia 31698-0150 229.259.5060 gfr...@valdosta.edumailto:gfr...@valdosta.edu FDLP 0125 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA on behalf of Baumgarten, Richard, JCL baumgart...@jocolibrary.orgmailto:baumgart...@jocolibrary.org Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 10:24 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] edition statements I cannot find anywhere in 2.5 about a situation where the title page says updated edition and the verso says First edition. The title was previously published. Do I record both statements or only the statement that I know to be true? Richard Baumgarten Cataloger Johnson County Library P.O. Box 2901 Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66201-1301 (913) 826-4494 baumgart...@jocolibrary.orgmailto:baumgart...@jocolibrary.org
Re: [RDA-L] edition statements
My choice in Updated edition is from 2.5.2.2 Take designations of edition from the following sources (in order of preference): a) the same source as the title proper The last part of 2.5.2.3 If more than one designation of edition is being recorded, record the statements in the order indicated by the sequence, layout, or typography of the statements on the source of information. because these are located in two places, I would keep them separate. Remember the New Paris Principle Principle of Representation. It's represented differently in two places and should be transcribed as such. Guy Frost Associate Professor of Library Science Catalog Librarian Odum Library/Valdosta State University Valdosta, Georgia 31698-0150 229.259.5060 gfr...@valdosta.edu FDLP 0125 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: Friday, October 18, 2013 11:51 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] edition statements That makes the most sense to me. I guess if you want to stick with the language of the subject you'd put updated first edition or first edition, updated. If you're going to put in edition twice, it only makes sense to me to put first edition, updated edition as is updated edition of the first edition. Updated edition, First edition sounds like the 1st edition of the updated edition (of possibly another edition?) to me. Martin Kelleher Metadata Manager University of Liverpool From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Goldfarb, Kathie Sent: 18 October 2013 16:36 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] edition statements From a patron's point of view, but probably not according to the rules, would be Revised first edition, or First edition, revised. kathie Kathleen Goldfarb Technical Services Librarian College of the Mainland Texas City, TX 77539 409 933 8202 P Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Guy Vernon Frost Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 9:49 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] edition statements You can string them along separating one from the other by a comma 250;__; $a Updated edition, First edition. Sometime after the 2nd qtr OCLC update in 2104 you'll be able to repeat the 250 field. 250:__; $a Updated edition. 250;__; $a First edition. Guy Frost Associate Professor of Library Science Catalog Librarian Odum Library/Valdosta State University Valdosta, Georgia 31698-0150 229.259.5060 gfr...@valdosta.edumailto:gfr...@valdosta.edu FDLP 0125 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA on behalf of Baumgarten, Richard, JCL baumgart...@jocolibrary.orgmailto:baumgart...@jocolibrary.org Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 10:24 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] edition statements I cannot find anywhere in 2.5 about a situation where the title page says updated edition and the verso says First edition. The title was previously published. Do I record both statements or only the statement that I know to be true? Richard Baumgarten Cataloger Johnson County Library P.O. Box 2901 Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66201-1301 (913) 826-4494 baumgart...@jocolibrary.orgmailto:baumgart...@jocolibrary.org
Re: [RDA-L] edition statements
... the title page says updated edition and the verso says First
edition. The title was previously= published. Do I record both
statements or only the statement that I know = to be true?
I side with the minority on this one.
In 250 I would give the one s on the title page recto as peing the
prime source for the description. The verso statement may be a
forgotten carry over from the first printing. You could give it in a
quoted note I suppose, 500 $aFirst edition--Title page verso.
I say this even though 250 is now repeating. Having the First
edition in a 250 would be misleading I suspect.
While you might like 250 $a[First edition updated], it does not *say*
that. It will be interesting to see what the next edition, if any, is
called.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Edition statements
Tim Watters posted:
Similarly, identifying abridged vs unabridged audio books is an attribute p=
atrons strongly seek but RDA does not address at all that I can find. I am =
wondering if it could go in a bracketed 250?
I'm with Deborah on this one. Transcribe or supply that abridged edition
statement.
Some over use edition statement I think (we put Widescreen in 538,
not 250). There are times it is very much needed, even if it must be
supplied, e.g., large print, abridged audio books, and e-book
manifestations which differ from the print original and other
e-versions in having added audio/video files.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Edition statements
I agree. Whatever happened to cataloger's judgment in this case? On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Michael Borries michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu wrote: I have in hand the “Second print” of a title. The first printing had 77 pages (according to the bib record; 78 according to Amazon, 81 according to Barnes Noble). The “Second print” has 124 pages, and apparently the same dimensions (at least, the height is the same). I would like to add an explanatory word to the edition statement, something like “Second print [expanded],” but this doesn’t seem to be allowed. 2.5.2.3 allows for adding a word such as “edition” or “version” if needed to make the edition statement clear, but nothing else. Apparently only a 500 note can be used in my situation. This would seem to be less helpful, since it does not put this information in as prominent a position, which would be more helpful to the user (including copy catalogers). I wonder if there shouldn’t be some re-writing here. ** ** Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.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] Edition statements
To answer Mac's questions, there don't seem to have been unnumbered pages
involved (except perhaps in the differing paginations of the bib record,
Amazon, and Barnes Noble). There are lab sheets and tests in the second
print, but not enough, I think, to account for the difference. It's difficult
to know what was added.
The OCLC number is 849655048. The 250 is Second print -- this is what
appears on the piece, so that's what I put in the 250. I added a 500 Second
print expanded from first printing. Interestingly, the copyright had not
changed, so I have two 264s.
Michael S. Borries
Cataloger, City University of New York
151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10010
Phone: (646) 312-1687
Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu
-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 1:40 PM
To: Michael Borries
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Edition statements
Michael Borries posted:
I have in hand the Second print of a title [with more pages than the
first printing].
How about:
250 $a[Enlarged version]
500 %asecond printing.
Although that might make it appear it is the second printing of the enlarged
version.
Perhaps since you have done all that research:
500 $aFirst printed with nn, nn or nn pages.
Perhaps the difference in page numbers is due to counting or not counting
unnumbered pages?
I miss 503, which could have had an explicit statement of printing history.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Edition statements
First, it's your judgment as to what constitutes an edition statement. If you think Second print is an edition statement you can record it as is. And in this case you have a good argument for the resource with the statement Seond print being a different edition. If you're uncomfortable with that you can supply an edition statement, e.g. [Expanded edition]. 2.5.2.2c says you can take an edition statement from other sources aside from the resource itself, and other sources include your own brain. 2.5.2.2c permits this now; in addition the 2013 revision of RDA will add a clarification to 2.5.1.4: Optional addition. If a resource lacks an edition statement but is known to contain significant changes from other editions, supply an edition statement, if it is considered to be important for identification or access. (see http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ALA-10-Sec-final.pdf). Bob Robert L. Maxwell Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept. 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 Michael Borries Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 11:05 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Edition statements I have in hand the Second print of a title. The first printing had 77 pages (according to the bib record; 78 according to Amazon, 81 according to Barnes Noble). The Second print has 124 pages, and apparently the same dimensions (at least, the height is the same). I would like to add an explanatory word to the edition statement, something like Second print [expanded], but this doesn't seem to be allowed. 2.5.2.3 allows for adding a word such as edition or version if needed to make the edition statement clear, but nothing else. Apparently only a 500 note can be used in my situation. This would seem to be less helpful, since it does not put this information in as prominent a position, which would be more helpful to the user (including copy catalogers). I wonder if there shouldn't be some re-writing here. Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City University of New York 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (646) 312-1687 Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edumailto:michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu
