Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors
We are trying to come to grips with this issue as staff adjust to some of the peculiarities of RDA. I would agree that a creator of an illustrated book sans text should be regarded as the creator and given the designator artist. Yet, if you read LC-PCC PS for rule 18.5.1.3 it suggests that illustrators/artists of juvenile material will be coded in the MARC 700 tag with the designator illustrator This is exampled in http://lccn.loc.gov/2012944944. This suggests LC would never regard an illustrated children's book as being created by an artist. I may be wrong in this interpretation and I hope I am. I believe this relegates some artists to a second class status.
Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors
I can see how one would arrive at that reading; I just never took it to mean that LC would never recognize an artist as a creator for children's materials. The more sensible reading, I think--perhaps a bit of a stretch given the current wording of the PS--is that IF there are illustrations in the resource BUT they aren't so predominant or integral as to regard the illustrator as a creator, THEN put the AAP for the illustrator in a 700 field with the relationship designator illustrator. I would still rely on 19.2 for determining who is the creator in any case. Trina Trina Pundurs Serials Cataloger Library Collection Services University of California, Berkeley tpund...@library.berkeley.edu http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/ Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1990 On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 5:56 AM, Don Charuk dcha...@torontopubliclibrary.ca wrote: We are trying to come to grips with this issue as staff adjust to some of the peculiarities of RDA. I would agree that a creator of an illustrated book sans text should be regarded as the creator and given the designator artist. Yet, if you read LC-PCC PS for rule 18.5.1.3 it suggests that illustrators/artists of juvenile material will be coded in the MARC 700 tag with the designator illustrator This is exampled in http://lccn.loc.gov/2012944944. This suggests LC would never regard an illustrated children's book as being created by an artist. I may be wrong in this interpretation and I hope I am. I believe this relegates some artists to a second class status.
Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors
Then, in MARC, it can sometimes be using $e illustrator, but at other times $e artist? Or would one be using both terms? It's somewhat confusing to me. Jack Wu Franciscan University of Steubenville j...@franciscan.edu JSC Secretary jscsecret...@rdatoolkit.org 11/23/2012 8:14 AM Jenny, The LC-PCC PS you cite is in chapter 20, the chapter for contributors, and states the policy requiring an authorized access point for the first illustrator (someone with responsibility for the expression, not the work). If the person involved in your resource has responsibility at the work level as a creator, you would not be consulting chapter 20. Yes, the only creator-level term in appenidx I is artist because illustrator there is the term for a relationship at the expression level. Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Jenny Wright jenny.wri...@bibdsl.co.uk wrote: Hi All I am looking at how to deal with children's picture books using RDA rules, and would like to know what others think. I think of children's picture books as being co-created by the author and the illustrator, and I believe it would be a different work if there were different illustrations, rather than a different expression. My reading of RDA is that if I believe a person to be a co-creator of a work, rather than a contributor to an expression, then the only available relationship designator for the illustrator is artist. However, there is an LC-PCC PS stating Provide an authorized access point in the bibliographic record for an illustrator in all cases of resources intended for children. Give the RDA appendix I designator illustrator in MARC 700 subfield $e. Can anyone help explain this apparent anomaly? Thank you Jenny Wright Development manager Bibliographic Data Services Ltd. Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance
Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors
My understanding is that: If the illustrations are integral to the work, the person who drew/painted them is a creator, or co-creator, and so the relationship designator should be artist. If the illustrations are complementary to the work, and belong at expression level (they contribute to the realisation of the work), then the relationship designator should be illustrator. What is more debatable is how one decides whether the art is integral to the work. Could another artist could draw new comic strips for the same story, or new pictures for a juvenile picture book without changing it to a new work? Jenny Wright Development Manager Bibliographic Data Services Ltd. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jack Wu Sent: 26 November 2012 14:30 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors Then, in MARC, it can sometimes be using $e illustrator, but at other times $e artist? Or would one be using both terms? It's somewhat confusing to me. Jack Wu Franciscan University of Steubenville j...@franciscan.edu JSC Secretary jscsecret...@rdatoolkit.org 11/23/2012 8:14 AM Jenny, The LC-PCC PS you cite is in chapter 20, the chapter for contributors, and states the policy requiring an authorized access point for the first illustrator (someone with responsibility for the expression, not the work). If the person involved in your resource has responsibility at the work level as a creator, you would not be consulting chapter 20. Yes, the only creator-level term in appenidx I is artist because illustrator there is the term for a relationship at the expression level. Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Jenny Wright jenny.wri...@bibdsl.co.uk wrote: Hi All I am looking at how to deal with children's picture books using RDA rules, and would like to know what others think. I think of children's picture books as being co-created by the author and the illustrator, and I believe it would be a different work if there were different illustrations, rather than a different expression. My reading of RDA is that if I believe a person to be a co-creator of a work, rather than a contributor to an expression, then the only available relationship designator for the illustrator is artist. However, there is an LC-PCC PS stating Provide an authorized access point in the bibliographic record for an illustrator in all cases of resources intended for children. Give the RDA appendix I designator illustrator in MARC 700 subfield $e. Can anyone help explain this apparent anomaly? Thank you Jenny Wright Development manager Bibliographic Data Services Ltd. Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk
Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors
And the searcher, in order to search successfully, would have to know this distinction in our use of a different qualifier for the same person under different circumstances, as well, I presume? Jack Wu Franciscan University of Steubenville j...@franciscan.edu Jenny Wright jenny.wri...@bibdsl.co.uk 11/26/2012 9:38 AM My understanding is that: If the illustrations are integral to the work, the person who drew/painted them is a creator, or co-creator, and so the relationship designator should be “artist”. If the illustrations are complementary to the work, and belong at expression level (they contribute to the realisation of the work), then the relationship designator should be “illustrator”. What is more debatable is how one decides whether the art is integral to the work. Could another artist could draw new comic strips for the same story, or new pictures for a juvenile picture book without changing it to a new work? Jenny Wright Development Manager Bibliographic Data Services Ltd. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jack Wu Sent: 26 November 2012 14:30 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors Then, in MARC, it can sometimes be using $e illustrator, but at other times $e artist? Or would one be using both terms? It's somewhat confusing to me. Jack Wu Franciscan University of Steubenville j...@franciscan.edu JSC Secretary jscsecret...@rdatoolkit.org 11/23/2012 8:14 AM Jenny, The LC-PCC PS you cite is in chapter 20, the chapter for contributors, and states the policy requiring an authorized access point for the first illustrator (someone with responsibility for the expression, not the work). If the person involved in your resource has responsibility at the work level as a creator, you would not be consulting chapter 20. Yes, the only creator-level term in appenidx I is artist because illustrator there is the term for a relationship at the expression level. Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Jenny Wright jenny.wri...@bibdsl.co.uk wrote: Hi All I am looking at how to deal with children's picture books using RDA rules, and would like to know what others think. I think of children's picture books as being co-created by the author and the illustrator, and I believe it would be a different work if there were different illustrations, rather than a different expression. My reading of RDA is that if I believe a person to be a co-creator of a work, rather than a contributor to an expression, then the only available relationship designator for the illustrator is artist. However, there is an LC-PCC PS stating Provide an authorized access point in the bibliographic record for an illustrator in all cases of resources intended for children. Give the RDA appendix I designator illustrator in MARC 700 subfield $e. Can anyone help explain this apparent anomaly? Thank you Jenny Wright Development manager Bibliographic Data Services Ltd. Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance
Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors
The distinction between “artist” and “illustrator” currently exists in the choices for main entry heading. Catalogers have to know that an artist can be a main entry heading, and an illustrator can only be an added entry. The distinction comes down to knowing what is the work and what is the expression (that is, in knowing that an illustrator has only contributed to the realization of a work, but is not responsible for the primary intellectual or creative content of the work). These categorizations may seem arbitrary, but they are still the basis for traditional cataloging, and reappear as entity-relationships in RDA. RDA does go a bit further in recognizing that there may be more types of relationships beyond the crude main/added entry distinction. For example, a Creator may also have a Contributor role (as in Composer and Singer). This can be seen in the second RDA/MARC example in http://www.rdatoolkit.org/sites/default/files/6jsc_rda_complete_examples_bibliographic_jul0312_rev.pdf 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 Jack Wu Sent: November 26, 2012 11:08 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors And the searcher, in order to search successfully, would have to know this distinction in our use of a different qualifier for the same person under different circumstances, as well, I presume? Jack Wu Franciscan University of Steubenville j...@franciscan.edumailto:j...@franciscan.edu Jenny Wright jenny.wri...@bibdsl.co.ukmailto:jenny.wri...@bibdsl.co.uk 11/26/2012 9:38 AM My understanding is that: If the illustrations are integral to the work, the person who drew/painted them is a creator, or co-creator, and so the relationship designator should be “artist”. If the illustrations are complementary to the work, and belong at expression level (they contribute to the realisation of the work), then the relationship designator should be “illustrator”. What is more debatable is how one decides whether the art is integral to the work. Could another artist could draw new comic strips for the same story, or new pictures for a juvenile picture book without changing it to a new work? Jenny Wright Development Manager Bibliographic Data Services Ltd. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jack Wu Sent: 26 November 2012 14:30 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors Then, in MARC, it can sometimes be using $e illustrator, but at other times $e artist? Or would one be using both terms? It's somewhat confusing to me. Jack Wu Franciscan University of Steubenville j...@franciscan.edumailto:j...@franciscan.edu JSC Secretary jscsecret...@rdatoolkit.orgmailto:jscsecret...@rdatoolkit.org 11/23/2012 8:14 AM Jenny, The LC-PCC PS you cite is in chapter 20, the chapter for contributors, and states the policy requiring an authorized access point for the first illustrator (someone with responsibility for the expression, not the work). If the person involved in your resource has responsibility at the work level as a creator, you would not be consulting chapter 20. Yes, the only creator-level term in appenidx I is artist because illustrator there is the term for a relationship at the expression level. Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Jenny Wright jenny.wri...@bibdsl.co.ukmailto:jenny.wri...@bibdsl.co.uk wrote: Hi All I am looking at how to deal with children's picture books using RDA rules, and would like to know what others think. I think of children's picture books as being co-created by the author and the illustrator, and I believe it would be a different work if there were different illustrations, rather than a different expression. My reading of RDA is that if I believe a person to be a co-creator of a work, rather than a contributor to an expression, then the only available relationship designator for the illustrator is artist. However, there is an LC-PCC PS stating Provide an authorized access point in the bibliographic record for an illustrator in all cases of resources intended for children. Give the RDA appendix I designator illustrator in MARC 700 subfield $e. Can anyone help explain this apparent anomaly? Thank you Jenny Wright Development manager Bibliographic Data Services Ltd. Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk
Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors
And all this helps the public how? -- Laurence S. Creider Interim Head Archives and Special Collections Dept. University Library New Mexico State University Las Cruces, NM 88003 Work: 575-646-4756 Fax: 575-646-7477 lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu On Mon, November 26, 2012 9:19 am, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote: The distinction between âartistâ and âillustratorâ currently exists in the choices for main entry heading. Catalogers have to know that an artist can be a main entry heading, and an illustrator can only be an added entry. The distinction comes down to knowing what is the work and what is the expression (that is, in knowing that an illustrator has only contributed to the realization of a work, but is not responsible for the primary intellectual or creative content of the work). These categorizations may seem arbitrary, but they are still the basis for traditional cataloging, and reappear as entity-relationships in RDA. RDA does go a bit further in recognizing that there may be more types of relationships beyond the crude main/added entry distinction. For example, a Creator may also have a Contributor role (as in Composer and Singer). This can be seen in the second RDA/MARC example in http://www.rdatoolkit.org/sites/default/files/6jsc_rda_complete_examples_bibliographic_jul0312_rev.pdf 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 Jack Wu Sent: November 26, 2012 11:08 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors And the searcher, in order to search successfully, would have to know this distinction in our use of a different qualifier for the same person under different circumstances, as well, I presume? Jack Wu Franciscan University of Steubenville j...@franciscan.edumailto:j...@franciscan.edu Jenny Wright jenny.wri...@bibdsl.co.ukmailto:jenny.wri...@bibdsl.co.uk 11/26/2012 9:38 AM My understanding is that: If the illustrations are integral to the work, the person who drew/painted them is a creator, or co-creator, and so the relationship designator should be âartistâ. If the illustrations are complementary to the work, and belong at expression level (they contribute to the realisation of the work), then the relationship designator should be âillustratorâ. What is more debatable is how one decides whether the art is integral to the work. Could another artist could draw new comic strips for the same story, or new pictures for a juvenile picture book without changing it to a new work? Jenny Wright Development Manager Bibliographic Data Services Ltd. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jack Wu Sent: 26 November 2012 14:30 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors Then, in MARC, it can sometimes be using $e illustrator, but at other times $e artist? Or would one be using both terms? It's somewhat confusing to me. Jack Wu Franciscan University of Steubenville j...@franciscan.edumailto:j...@franciscan.edu JSC Secretary jscsecret...@rdatoolkit.orgmailto:jscsecret...@rdatoolkit.org 11/23/2012 8:14 AM Jenny, The LC-PCC PS you cite is in chapter 20, the chapter for contributors, and states the policy requiring an authorized access point for the first illustrator (someone with responsibility for the expression, not the work). If the person involved in your resource has responsibility at the work level as a creator, you would not be consulting chapter 20. Yes, the only creator-level term in appenidx I is artist because illustrator there is the term for a relationship at the expression level. Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Jenny Wright jenny.wri...@bibdsl.co.ukmailto:jenny.wri...@bibdsl.co.uk wrote: Hi All I am looking at how to deal with children's picture books using RDA rules, and would like to know what others think. I think of children's picture books as being co-created by the author and the illustrator, and I believe it would be a different work if there were different illustrations, rather than a different expression. My reading of RDA is that if I believe a person to be a co-creator of a work, rather than a contributor to an expression, then the only available relationship designator for the illustrator is artist. However, there is an LC-PCC PS stating Provide an authorized access point in the bibliographic record for an illustrator in all cases of resources intended for children. Give the RDA appendix I designator illustrator in MARC 700 subfield $e. Can anyone help explain this apparent anomaly? Thank you Jenny Wright Development manager Bibliographic Data Services Ltd. Scanned
Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors
As an option for navigating the relationships people have had to creative works, there is the possibility of very user-friendly approaches, as in this IMDB example for the many job types Clint Eastwood has had in relation to films: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm142/ Current library catalogs do not come close in helping users in ways that are now commonly found across the web. 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 Laurence S. Creider Sent: November 26, 2012 11:27 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors And all this helps the public how? -- Laurence S. Creider Interim Head Archives and Special Collections Dept. University Library New Mexico State University Las Cruces, NM 88003 Work: 575-646-4756 Fax: 575-646-7477 lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu On Mon, November 26, 2012 9:19 am, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote: The distinction between “artist†and “illustrator†currently exists in the choices for main entry heading. Catalogers have to know that an artist can be a main entry heading, and an illustrator can only be an added entry. The distinction comes down to knowing what is the work and what is the expression (that is, in knowing that an illustrator has only contributed to the realization of a work, but is not responsible for the primary intellectual or creative content of the work). These categorizations may seem arbitrary, but they are still the basis for traditional cataloging, and reappear as entity-relationships in RDA. RDA does go a bit further in recognizing that there may be more types of relationships beyond the crude main/added entry distinction. For example, a Creator may also have a Contributor role (as in Composer and Singer). This can be seen in the second RDA/MARC example in http://www.rdatoolkit.org/sites/default/files/6jsc_rda_complete_exampl es_bibliographic_jul0312_rev.pdf 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 Jack Wu Sent: November 26, 2012 11:08 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors And the searcher, in order to search successfully, would have to know this distinction in our use of a different qualifier for the same person under different circumstances, as well, I presume? Jack Wu Franciscan University of Steubenville j...@franciscan.edumailto:j...@franciscan.edu Jenny Wright jenny.wri...@bibdsl.co.ukmailto:jenny.wri...@bibdsl.co.uk 11/26/2012 9:38 AM My understanding is that: If the illustrations are integral to the work, the person who drew/painted them is a creator, or co-creator, and so the relationship designator should be “artistâ€. If the illustrations are complementary to the work, and belong at expression level (they contribute to the realisation of the work), then the relationship designator should be “illustratorâ€. What is more debatable is how one decides whether the art is integral to the work. Could another artist could draw new comic strips for the same story, or new pictures for a juvenile picture book without changing it to a new work? Jenny Wright Development Manager Bibliographic Data Services Ltd. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jack Wu Sent: 26 November 2012 14:30 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors Then, in MARC, it can sometimes be using $e illustrator, but at other times $e artist? Or would one be using both terms? It's somewhat confusing to me. Jack Wu Franciscan University of Steubenville j...@franciscan.edumailto:j...@franciscan.edu JSC Secretary jscsecret...@rdatoolkit.orgmailto:jscsecret...@rdatoolkit.org 11/23/2012 8:14 AM Jenny, The LC-PCC PS you cite is in chapter 20, the chapter for contributors, and states the policy requiring an authorized access point for the first illustrator (someone with responsibility for the expression, not the work). If the person involved in your resource has responsibility at the work level as a creator, you would not be consulting chapter 20. Yes, the only creator-level term in appenidx I is artist because illustrator there is the term for a relationship at the expression level. Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Jenny Wright jenny.wri...@bibdsl.co.ukmailto:jenny.wri...@bibdsl.co.uk wrote: Hi All I am looking at how to deal with children's picture books using RDA rules, and would like to know what others
Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors
Wotta boon! (The fact of IMDb already existing notwithstanding). And let's extend this fantastic accomplishment to other areas of interest and inquiry, too. How long until I can consult my local OPAC to find out who won the batting title in the Pacific Coast League in 1932? Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Brenndorfer, Thomas Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 10:35 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors As an option for navigating the relationships people have had to creative works, there is the possibility of very user-friendly approaches, as in this IMDB example for the many job types Clint Eastwood has had in relation to films: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm142/ Current library catalogs do not come close in helping users in ways that are now commonly found across the web. 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 Laurence S. Creider Sent: November 26, 2012 11:27 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors And all this helps the public how? -- Laurence S. Creider Interim Head Archives and Special Collections Dept. University Library New Mexico State University Las Cruces, NM 88003 Work: 575-646-4756 Fax: 575-646-7477 lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu On Mon, November 26, 2012 9:19 am, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote: The distinction between “artist†and “illustrator†currently exists in the choices for main entry heading. Catalogers have to know that an artist can be a main entry heading, and an illustrator can only be an added entry. The distinction comes down to knowing what is the work and what is the expression (that is, in knowing that an illustrator has only contributed to the realization of a work, but is not responsible for the primary intellectual or creative content of the work). These categorizations may seem arbitrary, but they are still the basis for traditional cataloging, and reappear as entity-relationships in RDA. RDA does go a bit further in recognizing that there may be more types of relationships beyond the crude main/added entry distinction. For example, a Creator may also have a Contributor role (as in Composer and Singer). This can be seen in the second RDA/MARC example in http://www.rdatoolkit.org/sites/default/files/6jsc_rda_complete_exam pl es_bibliographic_jul0312_rev.pdf 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 Jack Wu Sent: November 26, 2012 11:08 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors And the searcher, in order to search successfully, would have to know this distinction in our use of a different qualifier for the same person under different circumstances, as well, I presume? Jack Wu Franciscan University of Steubenville j...@franciscan.edumailto:j...@franciscan.edu Jenny Wright jenny.wri...@bibdsl.co.ukmailto:jenny.wri...@bibdsl.co.uk 11/26/2012 9:38 AM My understanding is that: If the illustrations are integral to the work, the person who drew/painted them is a creator, or co-creator, and so the relationship designator should be “artistâ€. If the illustrations are complementary to the work, and belong at expression level (they contribute to the realisation of the work), then the relationship designator should be “illustratorâ€. What is more debatable is how one decides whether the art is integral to the work. Could another artist could draw new comic strips for the same story, or new pictures for a juvenile picture book without changing it to a new work? Jenny Wright Development Manager Bibliographic Data Services Ltd. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jack Wu Sent: 26 November 2012 14:30 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors Then, in MARC, it can sometimes be using $e illustrator, but at other times $e artist? Or would one be using both terms? It's somewhat confusing to me. Jack Wu Franciscan University of Steubenville j...@franciscan.edumailto:j...@franciscan.edu JSC Secretary jscsecret...@rdatoolkit.orgmailto:jscsecret...@rdatoolkit.org 11/23/2012 8:14 AM Jenny, The LC-PCC PS you cite is in chapter 20
Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors
Ox Eckhardt hit .371 in 1932 for the Mission Reds to win the Pacific Coast League batting title. But where, if anywhere, do you draw the line? My need to know about and do research on oldtime minor league baseball doesn't measure up to the frequent examples of OPAC users starved for information about Clint Eastwood? I don't think Ox Eckhardt ever appeared in national media talking to an empty chair (but maybe he should have). Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com -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: Monday, November 26, 2012 11:33 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors I think the point of Thomas Brenndorfer's IMDb example is not to say that the OPAC should be a way to find out what types of jobs that Clint Eastwood has had. Certainly there are other places more appropriate to find that information. Rather, it is to say that the OPAC should be able to help a user find resources based on certain criteria, e.g. Clint Eastwood as actor, Clint Eastwood as director, Clint Eastwood as writer, Clint Eastwood as producer, Clint Eastwood as music composer, Clint Eastwood as music performer, etc. Having the specific nature of the relationship unambiguously tied to the access point or identifier will greatly enhance the ability of the user to find the resources sought. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! -Original Message- Wotta boon! (The fact of IMDb already existing notwithstanding). And let's extend this fantastic accomplishment to other areas of interest and inquiry, too. How long until I can consult my local OPAC to find out who won the batting title in the Pacific Coast League in 1932? Mike Tribby -Original Message- As an option for navigating the relationships people have had to creative works, there is the possibility of very user-friendly approaches, as in this IMDB example for the many job types Clint Eastwood has had in relation to films: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm142/ Current library catalogs do not come close in helping users in ways that are now commonly found across the web. Thomas Brenndorfer
Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors
Mike Tribby wrote: Ox Eckhardt hit .371 in 1932 for the Mission Reds to win the Pacific Coast League batting title. But where, if anywhere, do you draw the line? My need to know about and do research on oldtime minor league baseball doesn't measure up to the frequent examples of OPAC users starved for information about Clint Eastwood? I don't think Ox Eckhardt ever appeared in national media talking to an empty chair (but maybe he should have). My guess is that the line would be drawn between: a) relationships between entities, and: b) facts contained within the resource. The Clint Eastwood examples illustrate relationships between Eastwood and the resources, and the nature of those relationships. To make a parallel between Clint Eastwood and Ox Eckhardt, your desire to find out that Ox Eckhardt hit .371 in 1932 for the Mission Reds to win the Pacific Coast League batting title would be akin to finding out that Clint Eastwood took x number of days to direct the film UNFORGIVEN, or worked y number of dollars on his role in THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY. Just like the case with Eckhardt, these facts about Eastwood--whether or not anyone finds them interesting or important--are bibliographically insignificant. They would not belong in the OPAC. I think most catalogers would have no trouble seeing this line. 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] Illustrators as creators, not contributors
Good point, and what often gets short shrift is the importance of applying the logic of the user tasks. If the data doesn't help to find, identify, select or obtain a resource, then it's not bibliographically relevant. Beyond that, there is scaling effect in RDA, where essential elements are Core, but the others exist to serve the needs of a particular constituency. From a public library perspective, the addition or inclusion of certain kinds of data has a measurable impact in terms of circulation. In an obvious way, resources that are harder to find, harder to identify, harder to differentiate or understand how they fit needs, are those that simply sit on the shelves (or on a file server). The types of questions that reference librarians (which includes me at times) get highlight the specificity that users often want and expect in terms of bibliographic information. If a task takes 3 or 4 steps and requires consulting multiple sources, when the relevant data need only be put into an already assigned MARC field (or RDA element), then it makes sense to put it into the record as it has a multiplier effect on time saved down the line. We do pay for full record services (as well as enhanced or enriched OPAC content) in part for that very reason. 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 Kevin M Randall Sent: November 26, 2012 1:21 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors Mike Tribby wrote: Ox Eckhardt hit .371 in 1932 for the Mission Reds to win the Pacific Coast League batting title. But where, if anywhere, do you draw the line? My need to know about and do research on oldtime minor league baseball doesn't measure up to the frequent examples of OPAC users starved for information about Clint Eastwood? I don't think Ox Eckhardt ever appeared in national media talking to an empty chair (but maybe he should have). My guess is that the line would be drawn between: a) relationships between entities, and: b) facts contained within the resource. The Clint Eastwood examples illustrate relationships between Eastwood and the resources, and the nature of those relationships. To make a parallel between Clint Eastwood and Ox Eckhardt, your desire to find out that Ox Eckhardt hit .371 in 1932 for the Mission Reds to win the Pacific Coast League batting title would be akin to finding out that Clint Eastwood took x number of days to direct the film UNFORGIVEN, or worked y number of dollars on his role in THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY. Just like the case with Eckhardt, these facts about Eastwood--whether or not anyone finds them interesting or important--are bibliographically insignificant. They would not belong in the OPAC. I think most catalogers would have no trouble seeing this line. 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] Illustrators as creators, not contributors
To make a parallel between Clint Eastwood and Ox Eckhardt, your desire to find out that Ox Eckhardt hit .371 in 1932 for the Mission Reds to win the Pacific Coast League batting title would be akin to finding out that Clint Eastwood took x number of days to direct the film UNFORGIVEN, or worked y number of dollars on his role in THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY. Just like the case with Eckhardt, these facts about Eastwood--whether or not anyone finds them interesting or important--are bibliographically insignificant. They would not belong in the OPAC. If you frame it that way, sure, but if my curiosity about the PCL batting titles in the 1930s related to a sabremetric study of batting averages across the minor leagues during a time when the major league batting averages were at alltime highs, it might still be trivia to Clint Eastwood fans, but not to baseball statisticians. I think most catalogers would have no trouble seeing this line. Of course you do. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
