LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for MARC Archives


MARC Archives

MARC Archives


MARC@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

MARC Home

MARC Home

MARC  December 2005

MARC December 2005

Subject:

Re: RDA and MARC

From:

"Jardine, Heather" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

MARC <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 29 Dec 2005 10:18:53 -0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (118 lines)

It is with considerable temerity that I embark on a dispute with a much more experienced colleague (and a teacher of cataloguing to boot) but there are two statements in this with which I simply do not agree.

The first is, that RDA should follow MARC and order the rules according to the tag order of MARC fields. Yes, in practical cataloguing we fill in electronic worksheets which prompt for fields in MARC order - but before we ever begin to fill in the form we should first have examined the item in hand and decided for ourselves which are the significant data elements for inclusion and which cataloguing rules apply. Cataloguing rules and principles must come first; MARC is only the framework into which we fit them. Part of my selection process for cataloguers is to ask them, as part of the interview, to talk me through how they would catalogue two or three pre-selected items. What I am looking for is the ability to find the chief source of information and to identify those pieces of information which AACR would require in the catalogue record. This demonstrates to me that the candidate has a proper understanding of the rules. As long as they have that, they can learn MARC relatively easily (indeed, I do not regard knowledge of MARC as a pre-requisite). The candidates who make me squirm and who fail are those who cannot catalogue without prompting from an electronic form - who have learnt the MARC structure first and then try to cram into it the information that they find in or on the item in hand. This leads to all sorts of error - the most obvious one being, that since the 1xx field comes first, it is the most important and there must be something to put in it. Understanding the rules and principles also means that they are transferable and can be applied to a variety of materials - in the New Year we are to begin cataloguing a toy library - and heaven help anyone who starts from a MARC form alone when faced with a Roboraptor. Please let us regard MARC as a servant (a very useful one) to AACR/RDA - and not AACR/RDA as a manual to MARC. 

The second is, that [s.l.] and [s.n.] should be retained. Having just argued in favour of transferability, I acknowledge the benefits of sharing records and the desirability of doing so with as little local editing as possible. However, only the old (amongst whom I count myself) are likely to have any knowledge of Latin and I dislike anything in the catalogue which smacks of exclusivity. Library users should not be faced with language they do not understand or be expected to learn special terms. A universal standard wherever possible - but not one which is universally incomprehensible.

With much of the rest I agree and would add a general "Hurrah!" for RDA, even if it is going to take a bit of getting used to.

Best wishes to all for 2006!

Heather Jardine
City of London Libraries.
 

-----Original Message-----
From: MARC [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: 28 December 2005 17:10
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RDA and MARC


With the posting of the RDA draft at:

http://www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/rdadraftpt1.html

one can't help wondering reading it just what the impact upon MARC w development might be.  In teaching cataloguing, I follow the order of MARC fields in teaching AACR2, since that is the order the students as novice cataloguers will deal with the data.  RDA follows neither ISBD nor MARC in order.

Un terms of the goal of being written in understandable language, the authors and editors have done a suburb job.  Only occasionally did I have to stop and wonder what something meant, e.g, standard numbers being called "resource identifiers"; isn't the whole bibliographic record a resource identifier?

When cataloguing, we tend to do so using a MARC electronic worksheet which has MARC21 fields in tag order.  When I say I prefer ISBD order to the new RDA order. what I really mean is that, as I said above, I prefer rules in the order in which the elements are encountered on an electronic worksheet.  I'm not convinced there is good reason to depart from ISBD order (which MARC21 order pretty well follows from 245-5XX).  In particular, I find having traced titles and notes mixed in with descriptive elements difficult.  There will be a lot of scrolling up and down (if one follows RDA), or flipping back and forth (if one uses print RDA following a MARC21 worksheet).

I assume Chapter 3 will cover GMD, SMD, and collation, which are not covered in Chapter 2, where they would occur in MARC21, i.e., after title proper, and after date of publication.

In terms of punctuation in examples (using MARC21 shorthand), only one hyphen is used in 362 and 502, making what should be a dash appear confusing to me.  I would prefer two hyphens for a dash when closed up on both sides.

One of the basic objectives of the ISBDs is that an item may be catalogued once in the country of publication, and then that description used internationally.  The RDA substitution of English phrases, e.g., "[publisher unknown]" or "[Publisher unknown]" (this phrase is inconsistently given), with the phrases in other languages introduced in other language libraries, strikes at the heart of that basic purpose.  In our case, we would have to go through the labour intensive task of establishing those phrases in a variety of languages, as well as having unwanted duplicates of the record in our files with the phrases in those various languages.  This is an RDA practice we will *not* substitute for the AACR2 more universal Latin abbreviations.  What language would we use for WHO, a library in a bilingual country serving an international patronage?  Latin abbreviations are a useful compromise in a multilingual situation.

Bilingual catalogues use 040$b to determine the language used for display constants, e.g., a record with 040$bfre would have French phrases used for the 246 2nd indicators.  This allows us to have one record serving libraries with English, French, or bilingual catalogues.

There is also the matter of the relative length of "et al". vs. "and others", "s.n." vs. "publisher unknown", in terms of what appears in a one line display or printed new titles list.

It is good that in 0.1.9 we are told that examples will use ISBD punctuation.  It frees examples from supplied "[by]" and the like, as was done before ISBD's "/".

The introduction (1.1.1) is very well written.

In most cases experienced cataloguers will know what MARC21 tag applies to which element of RDA description.  But sometimes it is not so clear.  For example for, 1.2.3 multilevel description, in which the description of the whole and the description of the parts are in a single record, even with the example at D.1.4, it is not clear to me what elements will be coded how.  Without UKMARC's 248, it's hard to picture what the coded record will look like.  Why was 248 rejected with other elements of UK and CAN MARC were added to MARC21?

The distinction between major title changes (1.3) and minor (as listed in 2.3.1.12 b) does not include as minor a single issue change as recently discussed on Autocat, and covered by CONSER but not AACR2.  
Perhaps this deserves inclusion, as well as allowing the reopening of a record when a serial reverts to an earlier title, as opposed to having two records with the same 245 for the same publication as now.  
We've never had a customer which will accept the three records for Atlanic/Atlaning monthy for example, another minor change which should be added, with perhaps 247 allowed for more than integrating resources.

The list of mandatory elements (1.4) includes Extent 300 (even though not covered in this draft), but does not include place of publication 260$a .  The latter is a major oversight from my point of view.  Our law firm library customers consider jurisdiction of publication far more important than name of publisher - some of whom are international.

The option to provide controlled access points rather than transcribed elements is one which I hope can be removed.  I do *not* want to return to missing statements of responsibility in 245$c when it is the same as the prime entry in 1XX.  As we all know, the form of the personal or corporate prime entry can change, e.g., when the author marries.  It's no substitute for the statement as transcribed from the item.  It seems to me this option should be limited to 440, 780, and 785.

It's good to see in 1.6.1.1 such capitalizations as "e-Commerce", and "www. ..." allowed at the beginning of title transcription.

We are told (in 1.6.7) to transcribe jurisdictions when present (as opposed to when needed as in AACR2), and we are told to use prescribed abbreviations, *substituting one abbreviation for another*.  Now I hope they provide an example of "MA" being transcribed as "Mass."  I also hope they take the next step and have jurisdiction supplied when lacking.

We are (according to 1.6.8) to transcribe inaccuracies as is without "[sic]", but we are at least allowed to correct inaccuracies in items issued in successive parts.  We simply won't be able to adopt this.  
Too many records would be returned by customers for "correction".  We will have to continue the use of this Latin term along with the Latin abbreviations in imprint.

The LCRI turning AACR2 on its head for reproductions fortunately (from my point of view) did not make it into RDA.  So if following RDA, we would have 534 as opposed to the 533 used in following the LCRI. In 2.2.2 (choice of prime source), 2.3.1.5 (title), 2.5.0.4 (edition statement), 2.10.9.4 (series), 2.12.0.4, and 4.10..2 we are told to choose the facsimile in hand, over the item reproduced, for transcription.

The instruction in 2.2.4 to use [ ] only for information supplied from outside the resource makes great sense.  Our customers never understood why we bracket something they could plainly see on the item.

The rule of three is now optional (2.3) for statements of responsibility.  Presumably if the option is not adopted, the number of 700's will greatly increase, as well as the length of 245$c.

The inclusion of variant title transcription (2.3.4) following title transcription might make sense for MARC21 246 and even 247.  But wouldn't those earlier and former titles (2.3.5.4) be in 780/785?
  
Recording earlier and later title information (2.3.5.6) still only applies to continuaing resources (even though the category is not expressed).  These titles are defined as applying to serials and integrating resources only.  Mongraphs also have earlier and later titles in successive editions, but these relationships are not coverend in this section, so one assumes 247 and 780/785 will not be extended to monographs.  The 780/785 way of relating earlier and later editions would seem to me a simple way of meeting FRBR objectives.

In 2.8.0.3, as mentioned earlier, jurisdiction for place of publication is to be transcribed if present (in contrast to the rarely observed AACR2 provision), but lacking jurisdictions are not supplied.  
This is something we have to do for our international customer base.  
We can't expect an European or Asian patron to know the jurisdiction of North American cities.  Also, if we have "London, Ont." it seems to me we should have "London [England]".

Some changes in 2.9.1.3 for date of publication seem wise: "[1800s?]" seems clearer than the present "[18--?]".  But why not "[late 1800s or early 1900s]" as opposed to "[date unknown]", if that is the case?  
Certainly the cataloguer with item in hand is better able to determine that than the patron at the catalogue.
                                                               
The instruction in 2.3.5 to omit introductory words at the beginning of titles (first allowed for motion pictures) is very welcome.  One of the great advantages of RDA integrating all types of resources in one set of rules is that they are much more consistent.  The exceptions and additional provisions for particular genres are clearly stated.

Unfortunately 2.3.1.1 still defines alternate title as being part of title proper.  If so, why does it begin with an upper case letter?  
That first portion of the title should be followed by a 245$hGMD, and the alternate title should be coded 245$b, as happens with all the other titles other than first title proper, whether parallel title, or a later title in an item without a collective title (the latter being a rule change).

It's good to see in 2.3.1.8 that medium and key for music are to be transcribed as part of 245 title area.

D.1.2.0 continues the mistake of AACR2 in describing the period at the end of an element as of it is to "precede" the following element.  We all key that full stop at the end of the relevant MARC field, and think of it as ending that element.  I suspect that silly way of saying it is why 246 lacks a full stop, creating notes lacking a full stop.  It is also silly to continue calling for "--".  I know of no system which now has us key those in the MARC record (if used they are system supplied), and back when we did key them in on Catss, they were at the end of MARC fields, not at the beginning.

It's certainly worthwhile reading through the draft.  With the exception of the difficulty of coordinating the elements to be transcribed with the appropriate MARC21 field, it should be a useful teaching aid.  I can see a lot of annotating of the printed version with MARC21 field tag numbers.  Wouldn't an appendix doing that be helpful?

It would be much more useful if the order of rules corresponded with the order in which most of us key the the elements, i.e., ISBD or MARC21.


   __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
  {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________

-----------------------------------------
THIS E-MAIL AND ANY ATTACHED FILES ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY BE
LEGALLY PRIVILEGED.
If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, reproduction,
copying, distribution or other dissemination or use of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
transmission in error please notify the sender immediately and then
delete this e-mail.
Opinions, advice or facts included in this message are given
without any warranties or intention to enter into a contractual
relationship with the Corporation of London unless specifically
indicated otherwise by agreement, letter or facsimile signed by an
authorised signatory of the Corporation.
Any part of this e-mail which is purely personal in nature is not
authorised by the Corporation of London.
All e-mail through the Corporation's gateway is potentially the
subject of monitoring.
All liability for errors and viruses is excluded. 
Website: http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager