After this one, I won't say any more on the topic, especially since I
think it probably belongs on another list.
I'm aware that topical headings established for individual animals' names
in LCSH are undifferentiated; I'm also aware that existing headings were
established for works about them.
Quoting Ed Jones :
Field 542 seems to have been designed to hold official data relating
to copyright registration (e.g., from the Catalog of the United
States Copyright Office). If so, I would hesitate to use subfield $f
for anything other than an exact transcription of the entire
"copyri
Quoting Ed Jones :
Is it Friday yet? I meant to say 542 was designed to hold a record
of a search for authoritative data.
No, that is not the case. It does not in any way require a search, it
does not claim to be authoritative, but it is a place for
libraries/archives to record informatio
ISBD describes a display standard. It doesn't matter WHERE the data is
in the underlying machine-readable record, it could display in its
proper location to satisfy ISBD. The idea that the display has to be
in MARC tag and subfield order is not only not sensible, it's not what
we do today.
In reading RDA's section on Date of Publication and Copyright Date, I'm seeing
a somewhat different pattern than what has been discussed.
There are numerous >>relationships<< between the different elements that affect
how we think about the elements, and ultimately how we should encode them and
Ed:
We have been using similar techniques for years in ILS. Not all the
indexed fields are displayable. A typical example for an identifier is
that when an application makes an outbound linking request(s) for a
journal by ISSN, it does not know if the target system is using 022$a or
022$y f
Is it Friday yet? I meant to say 542 was designed to hold a record of a search
for authoritative data.
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Ed Jones
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 3:2
Field 542 seems to have been designed to hold official data relating to
copyright registration (e.g., from the Catalog of the United States Copyright
Office). If so, I would hesitate to use subfield $f for anything other than an
exact transcription of the entire "copyright statement as it is pre
Johathan asked:
>Do you mean the real copyright sign glyph, or do you mean a c in
>parens? Or can people use whatever they want?
According to RDA, it should be the glyph or "copyright" spelled out.
The glyph is preferable, but it seems to me "(c)" is a fair
approximation when the keyboard doe
James said:
>Have there been complaints from our patrons about this?
I assume your institution does not serve English speaking children.
Yes, there have been repeated complaints about Geronimo Chilton items
being scattered from A to Z. Some libraries use him as main entry;
some adopt nonstand
Karen,
I disagree. The issue here is not MARC, but ISBD, followed by the
question of the function of this data. Since the US library community
seems to have adopted ISBD for its displays, then one needs to figure out
the function of the element within that standard.
I think that Kathy is ri
Kathy, there is nothing in the 542 that says that any of the subfields
is required -- one can use the 542 to only record the copyright date
if desired. And there is no reason why RDA rules couldn't be used to
fill in the 542 $g. The instruction says merely: "For items under
copyright, the i
Karen, I think there's a difference in recording this data that may make the
2XX proposal make more sense than using 542 $g.
In a record creation context, the cataloger is simply recording a copyright
date that appears on a resource, without trying to supply the rest of the
elements required to
At an Authority Control Interest Group meeting some ALA's back, LC's
Lynn El-Hoshy noted that subject authorities for animals are actually
undifferentiated. For example, there's only one subject authority for
"Lassie (Dog)" which covers all individual dogs named "Lassie."
There's also a separate su
Anyone have an answer to why RDA requires you to enter "[date of
publication not identified]" instead of just leaving the data element blank?
Just leaving it blank seems more efficient for the cataloger AND easier
for software to deal with (not having to know that the magic string
"[date of pu
Bottom line:
AACR2 allows copyright date to stand in for date of publication, without
needing to supply a separate date of publication. For example: London : Boosey
& Hawkes, c1975.
RDA requires a date of publication as a core element. If all you have is a
copyright date on the publication, you
Do you mean the real copyright sign glyph, or do you mean a c in
parens? Or can people use whatever they want?
It's not that this individual thing is THAT hard for software to pull
out; it's that the piling on of all these individual "not that hard"
things results in a much more expensive and
Julie Moore said:
>My library (in its current frenzy of needing to slash resources) is looking
>for titles to cut, and they are asking me about both Cataloger's Desktop and
>RDA Toolkit.
With the amount of free Web resources (including MARC, which I assume
will have RDA examples if/when RDA is a
Kathy Glennan said:
>I recommend waiting to see the new MARBI Proposal on encoding
>copyright date before critiquing the possible content. MARBI
>Discussion Paper 2011-DP01 explored several options ...
All options are needlessly complex.
>And no, we cannot reuse 260 $d for copyright date; reusin
On 04/28/2011 09:50 PM, Gene Fieg wrote:
Maybe I have misunderstood AACR2 all this time, but I was under the
impression that if you had a publication date and it was the same as
the copyright date, you did not need to use the copyright date.
Is/Was that the case? And if so, if I am reading t
Maybe I have misunderstood AACR2 all this time, but I was under the
impression that if you had a publication date and it was the same as the
copyright date, you did not need to use the copyright date. Is/Was that the
case? And if so, if I am reading the comments about RDA correctly, it still
is t
I think I understand the reason why people want this in a 2XX (human
habit and systems habits), but we added the 542 for copyright
information in 2008, and it has a subfield for copyright date, as well
as renewal date (for the cases in which one has that info), and other
information relatin
On 04/28/2011 05:10 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
But so long as we insist on Cuttering by main entry, the Chilton works
will be scattered on the shelf. Finding the bibliographic records is
not enough. We need to facilitate *physical* discovery. Many patrons
bypass the catalogue and just browse.
And to further reiterate, they are different RDA elements because they are
in fact different things. Copyright date is a legal date that reflects
the year in which an issue is registered for copyright protection. It is
not the same thing as a publication date.
In AACR2 we were conveniently a
My library (in its current frenzy of needing to cut resources) is looking
for titles to cut, and they are asking me about both Cataloger's Desktop and
RDA Toolkit. They are especially wondering why we are buying RDA Toolkit
when it has not even been implemented yet. I said that I use it to converse
Keith,
I don't think that all of the real-life dog and cat subjects in LCSH were
established for them as creators/contributors to works. I suspect that
most of them were established for works about them rather than by them.
Adam
^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principa
Gene,
As stated several times on various lists, the two dates are different RDA
elements. In your library if you have a Date of publication or in its absence
a Date of distribution, you can ignore the Copyright date.
Judy
From: Resource Description and
The proposal that I just submitted will not only serve the purpose for data
input suggestion at the time of record creation, but it can also be used for
content validation and database cleanup during the record submission at
client level and database update at server level. Thanks!
Amanda Xu
O
Just a question here. What is the rationale in RDA for including both dates
if they are the same?
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Kuhagen, Judith wrote:
> As Kathy noted, there will be a MARBI proposal about copyright date for the
> June 2011 ALA Annual Conference. That topic and others relat
I think this is covered by LCRI 22.2B, Multiple
Headings--Contemporaries, point 5:
If different names appear in different editions of the same work,
choose for all editions of the same work the name that predominates in
the editions of the same work. If, however, a change in the person's
bibliogr
I recommend waiting to see the new MARBI Proposal on encoding copyright date
before critiquing the possible content. MARBI Discussion Paper 2011-DP01
explored several options for encoding this information; the final Proposal will
take into account the various e-mail and in-person discussions of
Judith Kuhagen said:
>As Kathy noted, there will be a MARBI proposal about copyright date
>for the June 2011 ALA Annual Conference.
But that proposed new subfield for copyright year is included in a
*very* complex coding scheme proposed for 260. Couldn't we just add
one new subfield for copyrigh
>To save cataloger's time for researching the "actual name of the larger
>jurisdiction ...
The cataloguer must establish the larger jurisdiction to code
008/25-17, which is rarely if ever used to create OPAC display. By
not including that known information in 260$a, the cataloguer is
depriving t
James Weinheimer said:
>My own opinion of Geronimo Stilton, which is not a spirit or pseudonym
>but everybody can agree is a fictitious character, is that today, people
>will search using keyword ...
>This seems to be adequate access.
But so long as we insist on Cuttering by main entry, the Ch
As Kathy noted, there will be a MARBI proposal about copyright date for the
June 2011 ALA Annual Conference. That topic and others related to the 260
field were presented as discussion paper topics at the January 2011 ALA
Midwinter Meeting. The other 260 topics will be covered by a MARBI propo
I am beginning to get another RDA migraine!
Mary Howarth
Library Systems - "The Heartbeat of the Library."
Oakland Community College
Auburn Hills, MI 48326
248.232.4477
mmhow...@oaklandcc.edu
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSER
Stephen wrote
And let's not forget spirits, who can also be authors
> under AACR2 (e.g., "Seth (Spirit)").
>
While we're thinking about oddities. What do we want to do with Kilgore
Trout?
Kilgore Trout is a fictitious author in a number of Kurt Vonnegut's works.
In 1975, a book appeared calle
On 04/27/2011 10:40 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
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 main entry for Geronimo
Stilton works, and have works produced under that pseudonym brought
together
38 matches
Mail list logo
