Re: [RDA-L] Title page vs. cover title
Can't we use the 246 to provide access and information from those alternate title sources, front or back cover, half title page? Nothing is permanent in the life of a book, but the title page is probably the most reliable of them all. 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 James Weinheimer Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 9:44 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Title page vs. cover title On 28/10/2012 09:46, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: snip Be assured that I also want to keep the title page as the chief source of information for printed materials. There are, I believe, a number of good reasons for doing this, and you mention some of them. Another is that questions of design play a much bigger part on the front cover than on the title page - so the version on the t.p. can perhaps be seen as the one more appropriate for the aims of a catalogue. But I think James Weinheimer has a point when he says that our patrons may have different feelings about what is the most prominent part of a resource. /snip I want to emphasize that what I am saying is that today, there is no reason to have a single 245 a and b (or whatever those fields may morph into). If we were setting up a database from scratch, the idea of titles not being repeatable would probably be considered strange. I submit that the reasons that the 245 a and b are *not* repeatable have nothing to do with the inherent structure of information resources, but because of historical circumstance. Making them repeatable would make a tremendous difference on how the cataloger approaches the resource, no matter what format it happens to be. I have worked in non-ISBD cataloging settings where there is not a formal idea of prominent and the mindset of the cataloger is different--not inferior or superior, but different. In just a few seconds, the database manager could make the 245 repeatable. The question should be: Why not? There are reasons, and I personally would like to believe that the t.p. is the best title, but are these reasons really enough to constrain the database? Especially in the networked world we are entering, there will be different interpretations of what is the best title. Our formats and procedures should be able to deal with these differences. I hope these are the sorts of questions that the deciders of the new bibliographic framework are asking among themselves. Otherwise, I fear it will just be more or the same. -- James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com First Thus http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ Cooperative Cataloging Rules http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ Cataloging Matters Podcasts http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Title page vs. cover title
Le 28.10.2012 09:46, Heidrun Wiesenmüller a écrit : Mac said: Interesting. I would be inclined to stick with title page, because the same content (same type setting as was said when type was still set) may be reissued with a new cover and/or spine title, or rebound locally with a new binder's title. Be assured that I also want to keep the title page as the chief source of information for printed materials. There are, I believe, a number of good reasons for doing this, and you mention some of them. Another is that questions of design play a much bigger part on the front cover than on the title page - so the version on the t.p. can perhaps be seen as the one more appropriate for the aims of a catalogue. But I think James Weinheimer has a point when he says that our patrons may have different feelings about what is the most prominent part of a resource. Where I would apply your insight is for motion picture videos. The DVD container is what patrons see. The DVD represents a new manifestation. with resources (e.g., deleted scenes, interviews) not in the original film. In North America. often the non English title on the title frame is not even on the container. Actually, our German cataloguing rules differ from AACR2/RDA in exactly this respect. RDA 2.2.2.3 says: If the resource consists of moving images (e.g., a film reel, a videodisc, a video game, an MPEG video file), use the title frame or frames, or title screen or screens, as the preferred source of information. According to our German rules, we prefer the information given on the container (if there is one). So for e.g. a DVD, the container would be our chief source of information. This, by the way, is another example of the many things we'll have to change when making the move to RDA (sigh...). I suppose the main reason for our rule is not thinking as the patron does, though, but rather a practical one: It is simply seen as too time-consuming if a cataloguer always had to start the DVD (or whatever it is). Also, you can't be sure that cataloguers have the technical devices necessary to play all kinds of media in their own work environment. Heidrun In Switzerland, IDS Libraries (Informationsverbund Deutschschweiz) applies AACR2 with specific local application rules. (KIDS - Katalogisierungsregeln IDS - Online acces: http://www.informationsverbund.ch/27.0.html - German or French) KIDS Chapter 7, par. 7.0B1. Chief source of information stipulates to use chief source of information (in this order of preference): a. the item itself (e.g., the title frames) b. the label on the item c. the container But the rule is completed with an application rule, which says that Each library decides itself, if the resources are viewed or not. If not, it is to be mentioned in a note. As already mentioned by Heidrun, to view the resource when cataloguing it would be too time-consuming, so practically no one does it and almost all videos are de facto catalogued according to the information on the label and/or the container. Anne Jolidon IDS-Koordination Formalkatalogisierung und Format http://www.informationsverbund.ch c/o Universitätsbibliothek Bern Zentralbibliothek Münstergasse 61 CH-3000 Bern 8
Re: [RDA-L] Title page vs. cover title
On 28/10/2012 09:46, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote: snip Be assured that I also want to keep the title page as the chief source of information for printed materials. There are, I believe, a number of good reasons for doing this, and you mention some of them. Another is that questions of design play a much bigger part on the front cover than on the title page - so the version on the t.p. can perhaps be seen as the one more appropriate for the aims of a catalogue. But I think James Weinheimer has a point when he says that our patrons may have different feelings about what is the most prominent part of a resource. /snip I want to emphasize that what I am saying is that today, there is no reason to have a single 245 a and b (or whatever those fields may morph into). If we were setting up a database from scratch, the idea of titles not being repeatable would probably be considered strange. I submit that the reasons that the 245 a and b are *not* repeatable have nothing to do with the inherent structure of information resources, but because of historical circumstance. Making them repeatable would make a tremendous difference on how the cataloger approaches the resource, no matter what format it happens to be. I have worked in non-ISBD cataloging settings where there is not a formal idea of prominent and the mindset of the cataloger is different--not inferior or superior, but different. In just a few seconds, the database manager could make the 245 repeatable. The question should be: Why not? There are reasons, and I personally would like to believe that the t.p. is the best title, but are these reasons really enough to constrain the database? Especially in the networked world we are entering, there will be different interpretations of what is the best title. Our formats and procedures should be able to deal with these differences. I hope these are the sorts of questions that the deciders of the new bibliographic framework are asking among themselves. Otherwise, I fear it will just be more or the same. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Re: [RDA-L] Title page vs. cover title
Heidrun said:
Because it's true that the front cover for an ordinary person (not
hindered by a librarian's education) may be as important or even more
important as the title page.
Interesting. I would be inclined to stick with title page, because
the same content (same type setting as was said when type was still
set) may be reissued with a new cover and/or spine title, or rebound
locally with a new binder's title.
Where I would apply your insight is for motion picture videos. The
DVD container is what patrons see. The DVD represents a new
manifestation. with resources (e.g., deleted scenes, interviews) not
in the original film. In North America. often the non English title
on the title frame is not even on the container.
In both cases, 246s are needed. Cover, spine, and binder's titles for
books; title frame title for a DVD, plus 740s for featurettes and
other titled inclusions (or their equivalent in nuMARC). While some
favour a 130 with (Motion picture) qualifier, our clients find the
qualifier and GMD to be in conflict, and a 130 title not visible on
the container, to be confusing.
RDA removes the GMD, so the (Motion picture) qualifier will be even
more confusing, leading patrons to expect a reel film, in the absence
of a good icon.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
