Dear Mac,
I hope you will forgive the delay in responding, there's a lot of
traffic on the list.
2.8.2 Instructs cataloguers to record the place of publication (which is
a transcribed element 2.8.1.4)
Include both the local place name (city, town, etc.) and the name of
the larger jurisdiction
I have asked this before. If fictional characters are now handled as if
they are real people, what does this mean for groups of fictitious
characters such as X-Men, the Justice League of America, or the
Fantastic Four? Are they now going to be handled under the rules for
corporate bodies? And
I think we've missed something important in this discussion.
Deborah brought up other works by Snoopy, and, as Adam quotes, we are to
look for preferred access points in resources associated with the person.
There is a work called The wit and wisdom of Snoopy. (OCLC #6910980). I
assume this
Quoting Danskin, Alan alan.dans...@bl.uk:
It is not clear what
benefit you perceive is derived from the addition of information about
the larger jurisdiction.
The benefit is to inform the catalogue user where the document was issued.
There are many, many places which may appear in this
2 personae of the same fictional character need not be the same Person. One
could even state that Dr. Snoopy needs to be filed under D, instead of S (it's
not a title associated with a name but the name itself). Then again, it won't
cause problems as long as manifestations by Joe Cool and
Alan Danskin said:
It is not clear what benefit you perceive is derived from the addition of
information about the larger jurisdiction.
It seems to me the distinction between London England and London
Ontario is an important one, and that the distinction is needed for
identification. For
The point of my comment yesterday was that there was no proof that Dr.
Snoopy was in fact a different person from Snoopy. The existence of a
title means nothing. Sometimes I use my Dr. or Professor, sometimes I do
not.
P.S. Please do not call Joe Cool and Flashbeagle manifestations. We
have
Others have made many points in this discussion that I agree with, which
I'd just like to summarize and reiterate; my opinion that the heading
should be constructed as simply Snoopy remains unchanged.
If one consults the OCLC bib file and other reference resources for the
predominant form of name
On 4/27/2011 11:40 AM, Laurence Creider wrote:
The point of my comment yesterday was that there was no proof that Dr.
Snoopy was in fact a different person from Snoopy. The existence of a
title means nothing. Sometimes I use my Dr. or Professor, sometimes I do
not.
Let me start with a
Unless one assumes that Dr. Snoopy is somehow different from plain Snoopy,
and would advocate a series of maybe linked authorities for each differing
guise of a character. Mr. Schouten, for example, claims that: even
fictional characters are entitled to their own Personae. But I would argue
Sorry, guys; I just can't resist:
http://www.aardvarknet.info/access/number45/monthnews.cfm?monthnews=01
Nannette Naught nnau...@imteaminc.com 4/26/2011 4:45 PM
Okay, are you laughing yet?
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
Given the discussions over time on this list about revealing personal
information, I would be hesitant to link Clark Kent and Superman on an
authority record.
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
Dear Adam,
Thank you for showing you the thought process that we might follow in trying
to come to a determination on such an access point. This is very helpful!
Julie
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.eduwrote:
The resource being cataloging has this
Here's the thing, though. Snoopy doesn't have the profession of author,
because as we all know, he didn't really write the book. He is a fictitious
dog, lacking in digits and English language necessary to put out the work
he authored (even in the cartoons, he never speaks). So I don't believe
we
If the cataloger is pretty confident that this book is REALLY written by
Charles Schultz, is there any reason (in priniciple or in code) that she
can't simply add Schultz, Chares... as the controlled heading/access
point/1xx?
Snoopy would still be in the transcribed 245 statement of
John,
What you say is well thought, and made me realize that I should have been
clearer in saying that I consider Dr. Snoopy to be a form of a name and
not a different name until proven otherwise, particularly given the
presumed character depicted in the illustrations and the name of the
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
snip
But in cases where it is obvious what's going on it seems to me it
would be preferable for the cataloger to act upon that. I am not a
cataloger. What would they have do under AACR2?
/snip
The rules are not in AACR2 since fictitious characters were/are set
What is the actual rule change in RDA? Does it now _require_ you to list
characters you know to be fictitious but listed on the title-page as
controlled access points/authorities/entities? Or just make it an option?
Still confused about that despite this lengthy thread.
Making it an option
LCCN 2010044821 OCLC 671710698 Metal Forming.
The t.p. reads:
METAL FORMING
Mechanics and Metallurgy
FOURTH EDITION
1. What rule in RDA says to transcribe the title as Metal Forming : Mechanics
and Metallurgy and not Metal forming : mechanics and metallurgy ? Doesn't
appendix A4 apply
One point of having authority records is to recognize that entities
can have a coherent presence--an identity--that goes beyond what is
found on one book. In the case of Snoopy, that identity is primarily
iconic--we recognize his various images as Snoopy, regardless of what
he's sometimes wearing.
Deborah Tomares said:
And yes--I would have one heading for both Superman and Clark Kent. And it
would be a subject heading, not a personal name heading. That's where I
believe fictitious characters belong, and where most users would expect to
find them.
I'm not so sure. For some there is
Jay Shorten said on Autocat:
OCLC 670190952 (no LC number), has 260c 2010, (c)2010. Is it really
necessary to code this in the fixed fields as t 2010 2010? Wouldn't s
2010 be better?
In RDA publication date is a core element, but copyright date is not.
I expect to see more [2011], (c)2011
1.7 governs transcription. The basic rule is to apply the capitalization
guidelines of 1.7.2 (which direct us to Appendix A). These guidelines are
basically the same as AACR2. So following appendix A we'd get
Metal forming : mechanics and metallurgy.
1.7.1 alternative 1 allows agencies to
Of course Superman and Clark Kent are only subject headings. Have they
created any resources like Dr. Snoopy has? ;-)
^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782
Mr. Rochkind:
The change is here:
AACR2 21.4C1 If responsibility for a work is known to be erroneously or
fictitiously attributed to a person, enter under the actual personal author
or under title if the actual personal author is not known. Make an added
entry under the heading for the person to
James Weinheimer said:
Again, why have this change? Where is the utility either to librarians
or the users? The reasoning for such a change ...
This is one change I would like to see, but as an AACR2 revision
rather than requiring a new set of rules.
It would be advantageous to have a single
Jay Shorten said:
1. What rule in RDA says to transcribe the title as Metal Forming : Mechan=
ics and Metallurgy and not Metal forming : mechanics and metallurgy ? =
RDA has as options upper case for the first letter of each word (if
that way on the title page) or all caps if that way on the
On 04/27/2011 10:56 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
snip
RDA has as options upper case for the first letter of each word (if
that way on the title page) or all caps if that way on the title page
or captured (e.g., Onix) that way, or following a style manual.
/snip
According to the Onix Best
Expect to see a MARBI Proposal for ALA Annual in New Orleans that proposes
specific subfields for copyright and phonogram dates.
I would code the separate elements of publication date and copyright date in
the fixed field as they appear in OCLC #670190952. MARC already enables us to
separately
So under RDA, the authority record for Rita Mae Brown gets changed and one
400 for Sneaky Pie Brown becomes a 500 because we now need a new
authority record for her cat, since they co-wrote the Mrs. Murphy
mysteries together. The other 400 would be moved from Rita Mae's record
to the new one
Yes, that sounds about right to me Keith. Unless the books somehow
indicate that Sneaky Pie is the predominant creator (through typography
for example), the first named creator would be used as part of the
authorized access point for the work, which would translated into a 100
field for Rita
Adam,
Thanks for the comments. I immediately agreed with you about the 500s (I
was thinking of pseudonymns like Ellery Queen), but wondering about users
who under AACR2 are directed to Rita when they search for Sneaky, but
under RDA would not be informed of any link between the two. In this
Thank you so much for the wonderful discussion! I just put another star to
this message. I agree that it's critical to have accurate and specific
place name info in a record for various reasons.
As far as I am concerned, that is the value-added library metadata services
that a cataloger (a.k.a.
33 matches
Mail list logo
