Since "habilitation" is not an Anglo-American institution, I would be surprised
indeed if RDA discusses it. (Just to confirm--searching the Toolkit for
"habilitation" or any of its variants returns no hits.) So I think this is an
area where the (Continental) European cataloging community will ha
Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 10:12 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity
I wonder if a best practice in this situation would be
: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 10:12 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] The meaning of 372 Field of Activity
I wonder if a best
I wonder if a best practice in this situation would be--like we often do with
biographical material--to add a 372 $a referring to the class of person that
the individual represents as well?
[Made up examples:]
111 $a International Einstein Symposium
372 $a Einstein, Albert, 1879-1955 $2 naf
372
For the most part I don't think there is any pressing need to convert pre-RDA
descriptive cataloging. The changes to the descriptive portion of the record
are more or less aesthetic ("p." vs "pages" for example). We have lived with
AACR2 and pre-AACR2 records living cheek-by-jowl in our catalo
If you really need a salve for your conscience after consigning some poor law
professor to the realm of genocidal maniacs you could use the 680 "Public
general note":
680 ## $a So-and-so is a professor of law specializing in the adjudication of
war crimes and genocide.
e.g.
Benjamin Abrahamse
Reading over the list of changes to RDA with the new update I noticed the
following:
Appendix I (entities --> bibliographic)
sponsoring body: A person, family, or corporate body sponsoring some aspect of
a work, e.g., funding research, sponsoring an event.
Appendix K (entities --> entities)
spon
I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, but just to sound off my agreement with
Mac's statement, "No finite list can reflect the infinite relationship
possibilities" and wondering yet again why there aren't more generic RDA
relators like "contributor".
For example, I'm cataloging a work with the
The 1st ed. listed Bales as primary author so presumably whoever created the
record for the 2nd ed. preserved the main entry.
If you look at RDA 6.27.1.3 (Authorized access points ... Collaborative works)
you'll see that the person with "principal responsibility" is assigned to the
access point
While I agree that the access point should not serve as a unique identifier for
systems, there is still the need for users to distinguish easily between
identically-named entities in an index.
So the discussion of what information should be included in an access point
still seems worthwhile to
ccess
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of M. E.
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 11:01 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Punctuation question--quoted notes
Benjamin A Abrahamse mailto:babra...@mit.edu>> wrote:
When a no
. E.
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 11:01 AM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Punctuation question--quoted notes
Benjamin A Abrahamse mailto:babra...@mit.edu>> wrote:
When a note is quoting the source of information (see 1.10.3) and so ends with
a quotation mark, do
I know that this is not technically an RDA issue but it comes up with respect
to RDA because the examples in 1.10 (Notes) do not include ISBD punctuation,
and so catalogers are sometimes left with questions on how to punctuate notes
correctly.
When a note is quoting the source of information (s
I think what he's saying is that a "bibFrame:Work" is just a container into
which both "FRBR:Works" and "FRBR:Expressions" can be put.
But, speaking for myself, I think the FRBR model would be a lot simpler to
grasp, not to mention more applicable to non-monographic resources, if the
"express
Well, it's technically correct inasmuch as the MARC definition allows the
second indicator to be used to account for nonfiling characters. But I have to
say I've never seen it actually used.
--Ben
Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement
MIT Libraries
617
Respectfully, regarding
"The Content Types "computer program" and "computer dataset" are different in
that the primary processing of the content is done by computers. These would
not be used if the content was created primarily for direct human
perception..."
doesn't really make sense to me.
I think the solution depends on what those initial unnumbered pages actually
contain. If pages [2-4] are some sort of preface or foreword you could perhaps
use that as the citation.
500 $a "Published to commemorate XYZ"--Preface.
Failing that, some other suggestions:
500 $a "Published to comm
bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 2:05 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Names of conferences as title proper, other title
information or statement of responsiblity
Under AACR2 and perhaps even earlier practice, it was quite
Under AACR2 and perhaps even earlier practice, it was quite common to treat the
conference name as other title information and so put it in $b:
$a Biblitheken für die Zukunft, Zukunft für die Bibliotheken : $b 100.
deutscher Bibliothekartag in Berlin 2011 / $c herausgegeben von Ulrich hohff
und
It's not really clear to me what (if anything) the user will see of this 3xx
data, and I don't know if there is (yet) a "best way" to encode it. But our
practice so far has been only to mark accompanying material with $3:
1. Book with CD-ROM:
336 text ǂb txt ǂ2 rdacontent
337 unmediated ǂb n
The old-school way to sleuth this out is to move backwards from the last 040
$d, find the OPAC for that library on the Web, and compare their record to the
master record. Not very easy, I know, but it usually works.
OCLC now lets us see the history of authority records, which can save a lot of
Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: 05 July 2013 14:32
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] "approzimately" in access poi
I agree that the heading "-approximately 250" borders on incoherence. "died
circa 250" is much less ambiguous. Do users really not know what "ca." or
"circa" means? It's in both Webster's and the OED.
--Ben
Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Syste
If you know it's been self-published by the author, wouldn't it be ok to put
the author's name in the $b? (In brackets, I suppose, as there's no
publication statement on the sources of information.)
264 x1 $a [United States] : $b [John Q. Author], $c [2013]
--Ben
Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging
Karen,
You are correct. MARC field 264 is repeatable for successive publication
statements (e.g., for a serial or integrating resource). For a book published
simultaneously in two countries, or jointly by two publishers, it works just
like the MARC 260.
See: http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliograph
stserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 3:09 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] another (basic) 264 query
According to RDA 2.11 "Copyright date", record "date associated with a claim of
protection under copyright or a s
According to RDA 2.11 "Copyright date", record "date associated with a claim of
protection under copyright or a similar regime". RDA says nothing about
recording who actually holds the copyright, so, no, you wouldn't do that.
Also you can use either "copyright" or "(c)". On a Windows machine,
It strikes me as a reasonable assumption, that the copyright holder for the
illustrations is also their creator. RDA 2.4.2.2 (Statement of responsibility
relating to title proper--Sources of information) would suggest that verso t.p.
information can be used as a source of information (see (b))
Just the date. The RDA element (see RDA 2.11) is "Copyright date", not
"Copyright statement".
--Ben
Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailt
My reasoning is far from authoritative, but I believe it's not an RDA decision,
really. If you look at chapter 18, there's nothing about how you represent the
relationship term in the record. The examples in 18.5.1.3. just have the terms.
I'm guessing it came down to whoever decided how to impl
I agree that "on demand publishing" outfits such as CreateSpace are not
publishers so much as distributors. That is, they contract for the production,
and take care of distribution of the item, but not the selecting, editing, or
proofing of the text.
It is essentially a self-published work, so
I agree with John. Just to add: most file formats have already been defined
and tagged outside of the cataloging community (see, for starters:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_media_type). We should make use of those
definitions rather than making up our own, in my opinion.
--Ben
Benjam
I have a Greek book, with the preface numbered in Greek numerals (cf.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_numerals).
I assume that I would follow RDA 3.4.5.2, "Record pages, etc., that are
numbered in words by giving the numeric equivalent" and record:
15, 418 pages
and add a note:
"Pages 1-15
The complexity and contiguity of the universe in general does not conform very
well to static, controlled lists. This includes not only relationships but also
names of things and people, abstractions and topics, and pretty much everything
catalogers see fit to record and use as a 'controlled voc
AS Bob Maxwell just stated, per RDA (and AACR2, of course) if you are
cataloging the proceedings of a named conference, the conference itself gets a
"creator"-type access point (aka "Main Entry"). So the relationship "author"
would technically work.
However I hope that some day they come up wi
quires us to transcribe the slashes
as they are presented on the source. But again, we could probably argue with
readability (and also perhaps the danger of mixing up transcribed and
prescribed punctuation), apply the alternative in 1.7.1, and simply give this
as:
Gerd Macke, Ulrike Hanke, Paulin
terprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137
From: Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 11:12 AM
To: 'Program for Cooperative Cataloging'
Subject: NACO question--qualifying conference names
RDA 11.13.1.2 states, "If the preferred name for the body does not convey the
idea
My earlier justification for replacing periods with commas is perhaps a bit too
clever.
Though in ISBD, I agree, it's pretty unambiguous that both title and part-title
(or, dependent title) are part of the same ISBD element "title proper" (they
are "sub-elements" though ISBD doesn't use that te
"in RDA there is only a possbility to add punctuation, but not to change it."
It seems to me that since the full-stop is used in ISBD to separate Title
proper from Part/section title, it can be considered "punctuation on the source
that separates data to be recorded as one element from data to
University Library
k...@northwestern.edu<mailto:k...@northwestern.edu>
(847) 491-2939
Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Thurs
All of this may be true but due to reasons discussed rather exhaustively in
this very thread a dotless "cm" will only show up under certain circumstances
anyhow. To adequately explain why it doesn't requires informing users (a) that
it is a "symbol" or "ligature", not an abbreviation, even thou
I have in front of me an interesting case: a book that is "anti-copyrighted."
It has the statement:
Anti-copyright @ 1994 This book may be freely pirated and quoted.
Looking at RDA 2.11.1 "Basic instruction on recording copyright dates" I see
the scope statement: "a date associated with a clai
This practice almost certainly predates computer filing. In A.L.A. rules for
filing cataloging cards (Chicago: ALA, 1942), p. 19, we see the example:
Brown, A. G.
--Ben
Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137
From: Reso
"But one factor that brings the data together is the new library cataloging
rule set, Resource Description Framework (RDF)"
This mistake was bound to happen eventually. I've always wondered if RDA was
named RDA to catch some of the reflected glory of RDF.
--b
Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coo
I agree that CIP shouldn't be considered a source of information.
(Though I imagine all of us have, in a pinch, grabbed the ISBN from CIP at one
time or another.)
Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137
-Original Mes
Kevin,
I think you raise some good points, certainly. I would be the first to admit my
analogy (really, more of mnemomic device) is weak.
Now, I didn't come up with this rule in DCMZ, so I'm not going to fall on my
sword for it.
But I do think it's worth considering that a heading (or "autho
This strikes me as similar to the old NACO rule of thumb, "Don't add
cross-reference for a variant of a variant".
I.e.: "Don't add a qualifier to a qualifier."
It makes sense for a heading.
Though I admit I'm still puzzled why we are doing this, and other changes, for
the 370 (other than, be
ship designator
for somebody like Goscinny. The only possible term from the Appendix seems to
be "author", but the explanation doesn't really fit: A person etc. "responsible
for creating a work that is primarily textual in content". Well, the Asterix
books are certainly
e which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 10:11 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LIST
Does anyone happen to know if there is work being done to expand the RDA
relationship vocabulary to account for specific roles associated with the
illustration of comic books and graphic novels?
Under the current RDA relators, it would seem the following roles (which are
considered discrete eno
I don't think "contributor" is defined in RDA appendix I. There is I.3.1 the
list titled, "relationship designators for contributors [associated with an
expression]" but no actual term "contributor" in that list, or any of the
others.
Is this something that perhaps is in the JSC relator term p
al Library. Yale University
P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240
(203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu<mailto:steven.arak...@yale.edu>
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
...@yale.edu<mailto:steven.arak...@yale.edu>
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 3:06 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSER
ther title information / mit Beiträgen von Fernando Aguiar [and
88 others] ; hg. von X = Parallel title proper : parallel other title
information / with contributions by Fernando Aguiar [and 88 others] ; ed. by X
Heidrun
On 01.04.2013 20:17, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:
It makes sense, but i
on A = ed. by A
Does that make sense?
Heidrun
On 01.04.2013 19:36, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:
When a resource has parallel statements of responsibility on its chief source
of information, but only the "connecting words" are parallel, not the names
themselves, how does one t
When a resource has parallel statements of responsibility on its chief source
of information, but only the "connecting words" are parallel, not the names
themselves, how does one treat this under RDA?
E.g., what I see on the t.p.:
Mit Beiträgen von/With contributions by ...
hg. von/ed. by ...
534 or 7xx is better than nothing but I continue to think the old way (using
533 for the reproduction information, 260--now 264, for the publication
information of the original) puts the bibliographical information that users
are interested in where they are most likely to look.
In my experienc
Heidrum, I agree and disagree in equal parts.
There are a lot of means, besides the order of phrases on the t.p., by which
publishers can indicate the "titleness" of one particular phrase on the t.p.
Perhaps "Evaluation of pilot project" is in 9-point type but "emergency traffic
control for re
This conversation is a useful counterexample to the perennial question: why
don't catalogers just scan and OCR title pages instead of fussing with all of
these silly rules about transcribing them? Deciding, "this is avant titre, and
this is title proper", or, "this colon here does not necessari
Pam--
I asked this question before, and received a helpful response from Dave Reser
of LC, that using terms in common usage (see 3.4.1.5) in the 300 $a is
allowable.
He forwarded me these examples:
2011311037 (CD-ROM as accompanying material in 300 $e)
2012408410 (DVD-ROM as accompanying mate
FWIW I've been arguing there needs to be a *content* type for "interactive" for
a long time. Interactive media is only going to become more prevalent in
libraries, not less.
However I'm not sure "interactive" would be an appropriate carrier type--"A
categorization reflecting the format of the
Application to current and future encoding aside, perhaps this is another
opportunity for me to plug the spreadsheet of Appendix I terms that I put up on
the Web:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ak9dJXdWVGHddGp6YjhqUFktZlZ3WDdkOEp3ZEZhWkE&usp=sharing
or:
bit.ly/Ymw4dt
It's an att
Gene,
I wish it were so.
But 2.4.1.4 states, "Transcribe a statement of responsibility in the form in
which it appears on the source of information." Immediately followed by the
"optional omission", "Abridge a statement of responsibility only if it can be
abridged without loss of essential in
Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
k...@northwestern.edu<mailto:k...@northwestern.edu>
(847) 491-2939
Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@
Do people really think
"edited by J. Garland, Cambridge Carbonates UK, J.E. Neilson, University of
Aberdeen, UK, S.E. Laubach, University of Texas at Austin, USA and K.J.
Whidden, USGS, USA"
is more helpful and unambiguous to users than,
"edited by J. Garland, J.E. Neilson, S.E. Laubach, and K
, etc.
Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300
e-mail: mrsm...@northwestern.edu<mailto:mrsm...@northwestern.edu> voice:
847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. BatchCat version: 2007.22.416
From: Resource Description a
M
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles
RDA follows the representation principle. The data describing a resource should
reflect the resource's representation of itself. The current way seems to be
more
explicit.
Not to continue to beat a horse I suspect is already dead, but "sic" is not the
same type of Latin abbreviation as the "s.l." or "et al." of blessed recent
memory.
In point of fact, it appears in most English dictionaries including Webster's
and the OED, the latter of which defines it as, " A p
Just looking at the question practically: wouldn't using a 240 instead of a
246--though perhaps "correct" from the standpoint of RDA--require more
authority work? And, since most libraries index 130, 24x, and most of the 7xx
fields together in their title index, would that work be worth the effo
itself. The current way seems to be
more
explicit.
Thanks,
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Benjamin A Abrahamse
mailto:babra...@mit.edu>> wrote:
I still don't understand why the JSC saw fit to get rid of the device, "[sic]"
,for b
I still don't understand why the JSC saw fit to get rid of the device, "[sic]"
,for bringing gattention to known typos or other minor mistakes in the title.
I think most users understand what it means, even the ones who don't know Latin.
--Ben
Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisit
I just want to double check that this is the appopriate place to report any
errors we find in the RDA toolkit:
http://www.rdatoolkit.org/support/open.php?
The dropdown box "Help topic" does not seem to have an option for "Report
error" or something similar.
--Ben
Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging
I think RDA relationships should be structured like a controlled vocabulary,
with links to and from broader and narrower terms. "Contributor" and "creator"
would be the top-level terms. If a narrower term has not been established
(author of preface, for example) the cataloger would use the hig
RDA treats each "function" as a separate statement (see 2.4.1.6).
My reading of the "core note" to 2.4.2 (Statement of responsibility relating to
title proper) is that for "core", only the first statement of responsibility is
required: " If more than one statement of responsibility relating to
It occurs to me that one of the advantages of the suggested [and n authors,
including Joe and Bob] route, is that it would be fairly painless for
institutions who don't care about Joe and Bob to rephrase the 245 $c in their
local copy. Certainly easier than removing multiple [and] statements an
d Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:33 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons
etc.
Benjamin A Abrahamse
If we were expected to transcribe the statement of responsibility, not just
record it, the use of the mark of omission would make perfect sense. Yet, the
two Optional Omission instructions under 2.4.1.4 seem to suggest that mark of
omission in S-o-Rs has been denigrated under RDA.
Specifically
" do we feel it would be necessary to indicate that there are seven other names
between Albright and Del Ponte, and another six between Del Ponte and Fischer?"
Since the RDA instruction is to "record" not "transcribe"* the s-o-r, I see no
reason why we would need to add multiple "summariz[ations
I'm relieved to hear Dr Tillett say that this is allowed under RDA. Sometime
you run across some truly gargantuan s-o-r's and sadly need to pick and choose
whom to record.
That said, I agree with Heidrun that neither the rules, as they currently exist
in the Toolkit, nor the LC/PCC CPS, appear
ical
> ones with one image per month). They often have a spiral binding,
> which makes them very similar in form to those classroom flipcharts.
> Only they are not "designed for use on an easel", as the RDA glossary
> says, but for hanging on a wall. So I assume "flipchar
I'm curious if people who oppose the use of "t" (pub date/copyright date)
instead of "s" (pub date only) in the fixed fields are having problems getting
their systems to parse the data correctly or if it just looks funny (redundant)
to them because, like all of us, their frame of reference is AA
I think it refers to a type of childrens' (or educational) resource that is
published and intended to be used in the classroom.
E.g.:
http://www.staples.com/Calendar-Time-Sing-Along-Flip-Chart-and-CD/product_753900?cid=PS:GooglePLAs:753900&KPID=753900
Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
I think you have a good point. If the instruction were worded, "2.11.1 Basic
instructions on recording copyright *statements*" it would make perfect sense
to include the © just like we include "by" in a statement of responsibility.
But it's worded "... copyright dates" which implies that that d
While I find the anthropological question of whether catalogers are inclined to
do the minimum or maximum amount of work required fascinating, it seems to me a
little beside the point. There are situations in which catalogers want (or
need) to record and trace every person or corporate body they
If you feel that the note would be helpful to catalogers, but is not necessary
for the public then there is always the option of including it as a
"cataloger's note" (see RDA 5.9), which can be encoded in MARC as a 588 "Source
of description" field (http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd588.ht
stop
licensing from them).
On 12/27/2012 3:39 PM, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:
> It is definitely true that, from the point of view of resource management,
> each manifestation has its own particular information that needs to be looked
> at separately.
>
> But its also true--or at lea
It is definitely true that, from the point of view of resource management, each
manifestation has its own particular information that needs to be looked at
separately.
But its also true--or at least so it seems to me from the feedback our users
give us--that very few users care what provider th
ibrarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
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.
From: Resource Descrip
rse which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 12:21 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSE
iption and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 12:21 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: [RDA-L] Brackets for unnumbered pages in notes?
RDA geniuses:
I know that under RDA we no longer use brackets to indicate a range of
unnumbered pages or leaves in the physical description. What about in notes?
RDA 1.10.4 says, "Refer to passages in the resource, or in other sources, if
these either support assertions made in the description
Does anyone know who to contact about a typo in the RDA Toolkit?
The following example under 6.2.3.5:
ةليلو ةليل فل أ
ةليلو ةليل فلأ بات
English language form recorded as preferred title: Arabian nights
The Arabic is backwards; it should be: اللف ليلة ولىلة etc.
Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging C
If we have a book that abridges another book, do we use MARC field 777 (other
relationship) to code the relationship? And is the $i text "abridgement of
(work)" -- not capitalized as in RDA appendix J -- or can we capitalize it to
match other 7xx $i (e.g.: 776 $i Online version:, etc.)?
--Ben
Extremely finnicky question but it comes up surprisingly often:
According to RDA 3.4.5. (Describing carriers--Extent--Extent of text) we are
instructed not to use brackets anymore to identify unnumbered pages. Instead
we are to use the term "unnumbered". (see RDA 3.4.5.3.1 "Numbered and
Unnum
RDA 2.15.1.7 (Identifier for the manifestation--Basic
instructions--Qualification) says, "If the resource bears more than one
identifier of the same type, record a brief qualification after the
identifier." And provides the following examples:
ISBN 0-435-91660-2 (cased)
ISBN 0-435-91661-0 (pbk.
n any case this is an interesting discussion, so thank you.
==Ben
Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137
-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Rochkind [mailto:rochk...@jhu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 1:
ion and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 1:17 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
On 10/25/2012 12:57 PM, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:
&g
There should be a "content type" for interactive or ludic material like games
and such. Since this material can be expressed through various media (e.g.:
computer games as "computer", board or card games as "unmediated") it really
belongs at the level of content.
Yes, a computer game is a "com
If we wanted to record a distributor (cf. RDA 21.4), and that distributor was
only responsible for distribution in a particular geographic area, would we use
264 $3 ("materials specified")?
E.g.: Piscataway, NJ : $b Transactions Publishers, Rutgers University, $c
[2012] $3 Copies distributed in
When they differ, and the difference matters for retrieval, we do. Uniform
titles (or, controlled access points for works and expressions).
Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137
From: Resource Description and Access /
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
