Adam L. Schift said:
>I don't see anywhere in RDA an instruction that would allow a cataloger to
>use the Latin abbreviations S.l. or s.n. in place of the phrases given in
>the instructions above. Using these abbreviations would mean you should
>not code the record as a RDA record.
How do you
Because then you would get these kinds of meaningless displays:
Unknown : unknown, 2005.
New York : unknown, unknown, (c)2010.
Maybe with a label in front it might make some sense, but I'm not
convinced:
Publisher: Unknown : unknown, 2005.
I suppose "Unknown place" and "unknown publisher" a
"the RDA recommendation"?? It isn't a recommendation, it is an
instruction that has no other options. If you are creating an RDA record,
you must use the prescribed text that it tells you to use.
2.8.2.6
If neither a known nor a probable local place or country, state, province,
etc., of pub
Hal Cain wrote:
> Quoting Deborah Fritz :
> > So, [sic] and [i.e.] are both out, but we havent' lost useful
information
> > for our users, just moved it.
>
> And moved it so that it won't appear in a brief display (consulting
> which is the user's first step in selecting which record represents a
Why couldn't the steering committee have made it simpler, like "unknown".
What they chose it way too long to record and display.
Guy Frost, B.M.E., M.M.E., M.L.S., Ed.S
Catalog Librarian/Facilitator of Technical Processing
Associate Professor of Library Science
Odum Library, Valdosta State Univ
Benjamin said:
>I was at a presentation on RDA yesterday where someone mentioned that
>they would like to be able to indicate that what was on the t.p. was
not the correct form but that there wasn't an option to do so in RDA.
>So, absit omen.. I guess [sic] is out, as well ?
Yes, along with
Quoting Deborah Fritz :
RDA will have us "indicate that what was on the t.p. was not the correct
form" using a note, as per:
---
1.7.9 Inaccuracies
When instructed to transcribe an element as it appears on the source of
information, transcribe an inaccuracy or a misspelled word a
But if you use this abbreviation as it is actually written, namely, s.l.,
(lower case with full stops following the letters) almost all of these
alternatives disappear. I have never seen steam locomotive abbreviated as
sl, although sometimes maybe SL. The disambiguation is necessary here
beca
Thank you, Deborah, and I should have known of course that RDA would not lose
this basic descriptive function, just make it more... what is the word?
Explicit, I suppose.
Regarding [s.l.] what a fascinating list we are saddling users with by
forcing them to find out what s.l. means! I be
RDA will have us "indicate that what was on the t.p. was not the correct
form" using a note, as per:
---
1.7.9 Inaccuracies
When instructed to transcribe an element as it appears on the source of
information, transcribe an inaccuracy or a misspelled word as it appears on
the sourc
I think the point is not on "we" but on our users. Sending them to a glossary
or to Wikipedia to understand the content of an element (which may be found in
a completely different context than an ISBD display) is simply not
user-friendly.
I fully support the conclusions from the original resear
s.l, s.n. both are in Wikipedia.. that was enough for me to decide we would
continue to use them and not apply the RDA recommendation.
Guy Frost, B.M.E., M.M.E., M.L.S., Ed.S
Catalog Librarian/Facilitator of Technical Processing
Associate Professor of Library Science
Odum Library, Valdosta Stat
Hi John, I love the way you think--and yes, most of us day-in day-out
catalogers hardly find time to read the latest LOC updates much less comprehend
a 'new set of rules'. Thanks for summing it up so well!
Katie Cash
Senior Librarian - Technical Services
Newport News Public Library System
New
Hi Kathy,
You wrote:
"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 encode publication date and copyright date in the fixed fields.
Since these are separate elements, I can see
I was at a presentation on RDA yesterday where someone mentioned that they
would like to be able to indicate that what was on the t.p. was not the correct
form but that there wasn't an option to do so in RDA. So, absit omen... I
guess [sic] is out, as well ?
Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging
In the conversations that many members of this list tend to find as boring and
pointless as can be, it has been suggested that abbreviations based on Latin
terms are arcane and that most library patrons likely don't understand them. I
have mixed feelings about this, ranging from strong agreement
John Hostage wrote: "It's obvious from discussion on this list and others that
the vast majority of catalogers don't understand the fundamental change in
outlook that RDA represents and only see it in terms of a set of replacement
rules for AACR2. There is still a lot of re-education work that
So Trigger will continue to be denied his rightful place among the participants
traced in cataloging records for the many Roy Rogers movies and televison
shows? The Hollywood animal kingdom weeps at the thought. Me, too. It's almost
like not tracing Nigel Bruce for Sherlock Holmes films.
Mik
There does appear to be a bias in RDA towards real people, and so animals as
performers (contributors to an expression) are not on.
In RDA, the "Person" entity wraps into itself information about other entities,
such as the "individual" (a real person), as well as a narrow pre-condition in
term
We don't provide cross-refs in authority records for human actors from the
names of the characters that they play. I would suggest the same
principal applies to non-human living beings. AACR2 does not allow us to
provide access points for animal actors, so this has not been an issue for
most
You are right; we need to find another communication format, albeit one
that is able to handle the vast amount of bibliographic data that is in
MARC. Ten years ago, I would not have thought it possible, but I now
believe that libraries as a group will be able to move to MARC's successor
before
James said:
>Materials on related topics and by the same authors are scattered on the
>shelves all the time.
Not by the same author in the same literary genre.
In LCC, all literary works of one author are together. In DDC, they
are divided by poetry, drama, and fiction, etc., but works with
For better or worse, RDA is going to have to be implemented in the MARC format,
which has been shown to be inadequate to the task. It's obvious from
discussion on this list and others that the vast majority of catalogers don't
understand the fundamental change in outlook that RDA represents and
Amanda Xu said:
>I agree that it's critical to have accurate and specific place name
>info in a record ...
The worst written and worst observed rule in AACR2 is 1.4C. Worst
written, in that it is subjective. A city for which jurisdiction "is
considered necessary" is variable. A city in Austral
I am not one of the people on all of these committees, but I think
discussions of MARC keep coming up on the RDA list is because RDA insists
that it is not a display mechanism. Well, the info has to displayed
somehow; it can't be bits and pieces (objects) floating around in cyberspace
just waiting
I seem to recall saying much the same thing some years ago at one of
the last MARBI meetings I attended, and it's very likely Karen said it
too. I don't really understand why the realization that this is a zero
sum game hasn't penetrated significantly in this community.
This is supposed to be
Quoting Elizabeth O'Keefe :
As I recall, the original proposal to define a field for copyright
status information was submitted on behalf of the archival community,
No, *I* submitted it, based on work that was done at the California
Digital Library, and at the request of LC. Some of it was
I (further) wrote:
>I worte:
I realize poor spelling is unlikely to further sully my reputation on this
list, but this is getting ridiculous.
Good night, ladies and gentlemen!
Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses
mailto:mike.tri...@quality-
I worte:
>In our practice titles with copyright dates but no explicit publicating date
>or distribution date constitute the majority of titles-
Publicating! Now I feel as if Friday has truly begun.
Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses
mail
>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.
No, it isn't the same thing,
>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.
What about animal "actors"? Any change in tracing Trigger, Francis the talk
31 matches
Mail list logo
