Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points
Don Charuk dcha...@torontopubliclibrary.ca wrote: From my readings and the reading other's comments it has been said that RDA no longer requires you to justify your additional access points. Is this a valid interpretation of people's comments? If, so is there a specific rule that states this or is it implied? Thank you. In addition to what others have written, compare AACR2 21.29F with RDA 18.6 and 25.2 and 26.2. None of the RDA instructions are labeled core, either at the locations mentioned or in the introductory material in chapters 18 and 24. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex http://www.minitex.umn.edu/
Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points
Gene Please do not get me started on fixed fields. (most are a waste of time in my opinion, and a classic MARC example of information redundancy) And as to what our public wants/needes in information is an exercise of how many angels dance on the head of a pin. Don Charuk Cataloguer/DBM Trainer Cataloguing Dept. Toronto Public Library Email : dcha...@torontopubliclibrary.ca Phone : 416 393-7760 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg [gf...@cst.edu] Sent: June 7, 2013 12:11 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points And not only justify entries, but also justify fixed fields. For instance, in hand right now, the fixed field for Index has value of one, but there is no note to that effect. Justifying it gives information to the patron, in plain English. What is our goal here? Down and dirty? Or cataloging and classification that is informative the patron? It is not enough to say, Look at all that I have catalogued and now the books are on the shelves. Will the cataloging be fully informative to the patron as to what the book/item is??? That is the question. It is all about communication. On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:40 AM, Don Charuk dcha...@torontopubliclibrary.camailto:dcha...@torontopubliclibrary.ca wrote: Thank you for your responses. We are of split opinion of the non-requirement of justification. some feel the relationship designators are sufficient while others still see the need for notes. Our opinion is also split on how to deal with compilations. Do we go with structured notes and make use of the subfields in 505 tag to allow searching or use authorized access points? We are leaning towards structured notes since it involves no authority work. -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edumailto: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] Justification of Acces Points
Very interesting. I have been in favor of continuing to document why a person has an added entry, but I can see, if there is a relationship designator, that those notes could become unnecessary. In the past, sometimes those notes were needed due to the 'rule of three' which prohibited listing those other authors/editors listed on the title page, when the cataloger felt the added entry would be useful to the patron. 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 Meehan, Thomas Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 3:12 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points Is anyone aware of any research into whether patrons want the justification? E.g., once a cataloguer has put Smith, John, editor how much do most patrons want or need to see edited by John Smith in a note. At the moment I am all in favour of justifying information, especially when an added entry is hanging otherwise mysteriously without a relationship designator. Perhaps relationship designators will make us question what is actually informative to the patron. Thanks, 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 Gene Fieg Sent: 07 June 2013 17:12 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points And not only justify entries, but also justify fixed fields. For instance, in hand right now, the fixed field for Index has value of one, but there is no note to that effect. Justifying it gives information to the patron, in plain English. What is our goal here? Down and dirty? Or cataloging and classification that is informative the patron? It is not enough to say, Look at all that I have catalogued and now the books are on the shelves. Will the cataloging be fully informative to the patron as to what the book/item is??? That is the question. It is all about communication. On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:40 AM, Don Charuk dcha...@torontopubliclibrary.ca wrote: Thank you for your responses. We are of split opinion of the non-requirement of justification. some feel the relationship designators are sufficient while others still see the need for notes. Our opinion is also split on how to deal with compilations. Do we go with structured notes and make use of the subfields in 505 tag to allow searching or use authorized access points? We are leaning towards structured notes since it involves no authority work. -- 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] Justification of Acces Points
Hello Tom I think the power of this change lies in the potential precision in searching. A individual like Deepak Chopra has authored many books. He has also contributed to, written forwards or prefaces to many more. In current systems if you search for Chopra, Deepak you will find a single entry (hopefully) and a number of items listed - some from field 100 some from field 700. You will then have to wade through the records to find which ones he actually wrote rather than contributed to or edited. When the RDA stuff gets going you should be able to see at the first response to the search what role Chopra had in the genesis of the item and select appropriately from the headings presented. I have always thought the lack of differentiation in the role of names associated with a particular item was unhelpful. This change allows for more effective differentiation (hopefully - if the individual institution has adequate control on the range of terminology used and the consistent application of those terms). Best wishes Keith Keith Trickey Lead Trainer at Sherrington Sanders Liverpool. UK From: Meehan, Thomas t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Sent: Monday, 10 June 2013, 9:11 Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points Is anyone aware of any research into whether patrons want the justification? E.g., once a cataloguer has put “Smith, John, editor” how much do most patrons want or need to see “edited by John Smith” in a note. At the moment I am all in favour of justifying information, especially when an added entry is hanging otherwise mysteriously without a relationship designator. Perhaps relationship designators will make us question what is actually informative to the patron. Thanks, 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 Gene Fieg Sent: 07 June 2013 17:12 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points And not only justify entries, but also justify fixed fields. For instance, in hand right now, the fixed field for Index has value of one, but there is no note to that effect. Justifying it gives information to the patron, in plain English. What is our goal here? Down and dirty? Or cataloging and classification that is informative the patron? It is not enough to say, Look at all that I have catalogued and now the books are on the shelves. Will the cataloging be fully informative to the patron as to what the book/item is??? That is the question. It is all about communication. On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:40 AM, Don Charuk dcha...@torontopubliclibrary.ca wrote: Thank you for your responses. We are of split opinion of the non-requirement of justification. some feel the relationship designators are sufficient while others still see the need for notes. Our opinion is also split on how to deal with compilations. Do we go with structured notes and make use of the subfields in 505 tag to allow searching or use authorized access points? We are leaning towards structured notes since it involves no authority work. -- 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] Justification of Acces Points
I can see that an argument can be made for using the relationship designator as the justification for the added entry. One problem in the past has been that relationship designators have been more unstable (likely to disappear) than information in the body of the description. Also, there are those cases when there is no suitable relationship designator. I don't think most patron give any of this a thought. But in my career I have come across a handful of added entries (most or all of them corporate) that simply made no sense, and there was no justification anywhere in the record. Since I didn't have the piece in hand, I decided not remove these entries, but it's quite possible that I left in a false hit. Requiring justification of some sort makes this situation less likely (although I would agree that even now it is a rarity). 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 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Goldfarb, Kathie Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 9:22 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points Very interesting. I have been in favor of continuing to document why a person has an added entry, but I can see, if there is a relationship designator, that those notes could become unnecessary. In the past, sometimes those notes were needed due to the 'rule of three' which prohibited listing those other authors/editors listed on the title page, when the cataloger felt the added entry would be useful to the patron. 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 Meehan, Thomas Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 3:12 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points Is anyone aware of any research into whether patrons want the justification? E.g., once a cataloguer has put Smith, John, editor how much do most patrons want or need to see edited by John Smith in a note. At the moment I am all in favour of justifying information, especially when an added entry is hanging otherwise mysteriously without a relationship designator. Perhaps relationship designators will make us question what is actually informative to the patron. Thanks, Tom --- Thomas Meehan Head of Current Cataloguing Library Services University College London Gower Street London WC1E 6BT t.mee...@ucl.ac.ukmailto: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 Gene Fieg Sent: 07 June 2013 17:12 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points And not only justify entries, but also justify fixed fields. For instance, in hand right now, the fixed field for Index has value of one, but there is no note to that effect. Justifying it gives information to the patron, in plain English. What is our goal here? Down and dirty? Or cataloging and classification that is informative the patron? It is not enough to say, Look at all that I have catalogued and now the books are on the shelves. Will the cataloging be fully informative to the patron as to what the book/item is??? That is the question. It is all about communication. On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:40 AM, Don Charuk dcha...@torontopubliclibrary.camailto:dcha...@torontopubliclibrary.ca wrote: Thank you for your responses. We are of split opinion of the non-requirement of justification. some feel the relationship designators are sufficient while others still see the need for notes. Our opinion is also split on how to deal with compilations. Do we go with structured notes and make use of the subfields in 505 tag to allow searching or use authorized access points? We are leaning towards structured notes since it involves no authority work. -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edumailto: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] Justification of Acces Points
Kathie said:
I have been in favor of continuing to document why a person has an
added entry, but I can see, if there is a relationship designator
...
The rationale for the RDA lack or correlation between statement of
responsibility transcription, or notes justifying added entries, was
the presence of relationship term or code. But most RDA test records
lack the term or code. Some libraries opt to not display the term or
code, due to the contrast with legacy records, or because a name may
be displayed once for several titles, and relationships could differ
among those titles.
A search qualified by role would only get new resources.
I've mentioned the problem of carry over unrelated added entries when
editing a new record from an old one.
Please, let's justify. Like Lubetsky's omitted statements of
responsibility, or The Author and The Office imprints, this lacuna
could come back to cause us difficulty.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points
And this is where you need justification--for the added entries. I also have seen records, that have added entries and I say, Where did that come from?'' When you note where that came from, you are give information to the patron--TOO. On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Michael Borries michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu wrote: I can see that an argument can be made for using the relationship designator as the justification for the added entry. One problem in the past has been that relationship designators have been more unstable (likely to disappear) than information in the body of the description. Also, there are those cases when there is no suitable relationship designator. ** ** I don’t think most patron give any of this a thought. But in my career I have come across a handful of added entries (most or all of them corporate) that simply made no sense, and there was no justification anywhere in the record. Since I didn’t have the piece in hand, I decided not remove these entries, but it’s quite possible that I left in a false hit. Requiring justification of some sort makes this situation less likely (although I would agree that even now it is a rarity). ** ** 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 ** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Goldfarb, Kathie *Sent:* Monday, June 10, 2013 9:22 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points ** ** Very interesting. I have been in favor of continuing to document why a person has an added entry, but I can see, if there is a relationship designator, that those notes could become unnecessary. ** ** In the past, sometimes those notes were needed due to the ‘rule of three’ which prohibited listing those other authors/editors listed on the title page, when the cataloger felt the added entry would be useful to the patron. ** ** 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 RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Meehan, Thomas *Sent:* Monday, June 10, 2013 3:12 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points ** ** Is anyone aware of any research into whether patrons want the justification? E.g., once a cataloguer has put “Smith, John, editor” how much do most patrons want or need to see “edited by John Smith” in a note. At the moment I am all in favour of justifying information, especially when an added entry is hanging otherwise mysteriously without a relationship designator. Perhaps relationship designators will make us question what is actually informative to the patron. ** ** Thanks, 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 RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Gene Fieg *Sent:* 07 June 2013 17:12 *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points ** ** And not only justify entries, but also justify fixed fields. For instance, in hand right now, the fixed field for Index has value of one, but there is no note to that effect. Justifying it gives information to the patron, in plain English. What is our goal here? Down and dirty? Or cataloging and classification that is informative the patron? It is not enough to say, Look at all that I have catalogued and now the books are on the shelves. Will the cataloging be *fully* informative to the patron as to what the book/item is??? That is the question. It is all about communication. ** ** On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:40 AM, Don Charuk dcha...@torontopubliclibrary.ca wrote: Thank you for your responses. We are of split opinion of the non-requirement of justification. some feel the relationship designators are sufficient while others still see the need for notes. Our opinion is also split on how to deal with compilations. Do we go with structured notes and make use of the subfields in 505 tag to allow searching or use authorized access points? We are leaning towards structured notes since it involves no authority work. -- Gene Fieg Cataloger
Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points
I like this man's thinking -- except that I don't think that ther subfield 'r' indexes in the author index in Symphony, only general -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Don Charuk Sent: Friday, 7 June 2013 10:40 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points Thank you for your responses. We are of split opinion of the non-requirement of justification. some feel the relationship designators are sufficient while others still see the need for notes. Our opinion is also split on how to deal with compilations. Do we go with structured notes and make use of the subfields in 505 tag to allow searching or use authorized access points? We are leaning towards structured notes since it involves no authority work. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER The information in this transmission may be confidential and/or protected by legal professional privilege, and is intended only for the person or persons to whom it is addressed. If you are not such a person, you are warned that any disclosure, copying or dissemination of the information is unauthorised. If you have received the transmission in error, please immediately contact this office by telephone, fax or email, to inform us of the error and to enable arrangements to be made for the destruction of the transmission, or its return at our cost. No liability is accepted for any unauthorised use of the information contained in this transmission.
Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points
Thank you for your responses. We are of split opinion of the non-requirement of justification. some feel the relationship designators are sufficient while others still see the need for notes. Our opinion is also split on how to deal with compilations. Do we go with structured notes and make use of the subfields in 505 tag to allow searching or use authorized access points? We are leaning towards structured notes since it involves no authority work.
Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points
And not only justify entries, but also justify fixed fields. For instance, in hand right now, the fixed field for Index has value of one, but there is no note to that effect. Justifying it gives information to the patron, in plain English. What is our goal here? Down and dirty? Or cataloging and classification that is informative the patron? It is not enough to say, Look at all that I have catalogued and now the books are on the shelves. Will the cataloging be *fully* informative to the patron as to what the book/item is??? That is the question. It is all about communication. On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:40 AM, Don Charuk dcha...@torontopubliclibrary.cawrote: Thank you for your responses. We are of split opinion of the non-requirement of justification. some feel the relationship designators are sufficient while others still see the need for notes. Our opinion is also split on how to deal with compilations. Do we go with structured notes and make use of the subfields in 505 tag to allow searching or use authorized access points? We are leaning towards structured notes since it involves no authority work. -- 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] Justification of Acces Points
I agree. I feel like I have noticed a lack of 504 notes in RDA records even though there clearly are bibliographical references present in a book. It's not core in RDA (7.16), but LC considers it to be core in the LC-PCC PS for the rule. For general bibliographical references this information may not be considered to be that important, but it doesn't really take that much time to note it. I really feel that bibliographical references should be noted for Festschrifts which include complete bibliographies of an individual's writings. I also feel that in the case where you have a conference proceedings, or a new or revised edition of a book, and for some reason the publisher has buried this information somewhere in a preface or introduction, that it is very helpful to have a note stating that the book is a new edition, or a conference proceedings and citing the page in the book this information came from. Especially when a book is in a foreign language and finding this information might not be such a quick task. I've even had cases where the publisher's write up for a book on their website has more information about a book than the book itself does, and in these cases citing the source of the information is critical, in my mind. Hunting down such information is the most work, typing in a note doesn't take that long, and we can all help save each other some time by including this information. Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 12:12 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points And not only justify entries, but also justify fixed fields. For instance, in hand right now, the fixed field for Index has value of one, but there is no note to that effect. Justifying it gives information to the patron, in plain English. What is our goal here? Down and dirty? Or cataloging and classification that is informative the patron? It is not enough to say, Look at all that I have catalogued and now the books are on the shelves. Will the cataloging be fully informative to the patron as to what the book/item is??? That is the question. It is all about communication. On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:40 AM, Don Charuk dcha...@torontopubliclibrary.ca wrote: Thank you for your responses. We are of split opinion of the non-requirement of justification. some feel the relationship designators are sufficient while others still see the need for notes. Our opinion is also split on how to deal with compilations. Do we go with structured notes and make use of the subfields in 505 tag to allow searching or use authorized access points? We are leaning towards structured notes since it involves no authority work. -- 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] Justification of Acces Points
You are correct, access points do not need to be justified in the body of the bibliographic record in RDA. There is no equivalent to AACR2 21.29F (If the reason for an added entry is not apparent from the description ... provide a note ...) However, neither does RDA forbid making such notes so if you think it would be helpful to the user you can continue to record them. There is no specific rule about this in RDA because cataloging codes generally don't have rules that say you don't have to do X any more. 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. -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Don Charuk Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 2:04 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points From my readings and the reading other's comments it has been said that RDA no longer requires you to justify your additional access points. Is this a valid interpretation of people's comments? If, so is there a specific rule that states this or is it implied? Thank you.
Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points
Can I chime in here. I like the idea that the access points have to be justified by something in the bib record. Why? It makes it clear that we are not making stuff out of the blue and (2) it is written in plain, clear English, something for the patron who may not understand our coded, structured way of entering the elements in our cataloging record. On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Robert Maxwell robert_maxw...@byu.eduwrote: You are correct, access points do not need to be justified in the body of the bibliographic record in RDA. There is no equivalent to AACR2 21.29F (If the reason for an added entry is not apparent from the description ... provide a note ...) However, neither does RDA forbid making such notes so if you think it would be helpful to the user you can continue to record them. There is no specific rule about this in RDA because cataloging codes generally don't have rules that say you don't have to do X any more. 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. -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Don Charuk Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 2:04 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points From my readings and the reading other's comments it has been said that RDA no longer requires you to justify your additional access points. Is this a valid interpretation of people's comments? If, so is there a specific rule that states this or is it implied? Thank you. -- 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] Justification of Acces Points
Don asked:
RDA no longer requires you to justify your additional access points.
Is this a valid interpretation ...
RDA requires no correlation between entries and transcription, so yes,
one may have added entries not included in the description. SLC very
much hopes this never happens. We find when editing an old record to
create a new record, it is easy to carry over irrelevant added
entries, if all valid ones are not mentioned in the description.
So please, justify those added entries, regardless of what RDA may say.
Some principles are foundational, and I think this is one of them.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
