LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST Archives

PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST@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

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST  April 2007

PCCLIST April 2007

Subject:

Re: Comments on RDA ch. 3

From:

Renette Davis <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:15:59 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (191 lines)

Following are some comments on the March 21, 2007 draft of Chapter 3. They 
are basically the same as what I sent to the RDA list earlier this month. I 
am submitting these to this list as food for thought only. The instructions 
for submitting formal comments say to select a single channel for providing 
comments, and I am already on a couple of RDA task forces, both of which 
feed into the CC:DA response. Therefore, I don't want to submit these as 
formal comments, but rather as thoughts which I had when I read the draft. 
Other people can pursue anything which might strike them as important for 
the formal PCC comments. I thought people might be particularly interested 
in the comments that are not related to continuing resources - the two task 
forces that I am on only deal with serials and integrating resources.

Renette


Background, Specific Elements (cover letter, p. 9) Media type, Carrier 
type, and Content type - I like the use of the term "volume" instead of "book".

Same section, Changes in carrier characteristics (cover letter, p. 10) - I 
like not requiring a new description if a resource changes carrier. 
However, it's not always easy to tell whether the carrier has changed or 
there are simultaneous carriers.  In addition, what's true today may not be 
true tomorrow. For example, it may look like the publisher has changed from 
print to online, but then the publisher goes back and digitizes past issue 
so it later looks like it was issued simultaneously in print and online. 
Actually, was a change from carrier type such as volume to carrier type 
such as online resource intended to be included in this guideline? Or was 
it intended only for changes in carrier type within the same media type, 
such as a change from CDROM to DVD, which would both be media type 
computer. After having said that, I went to look at the list of carrier 
types in 3.3.0.2 and I don't see either CDROM or DVD. It looks to me like 
they would both be called computer disc. Is that correct?

I know no constituency response is needed for Appendix 1, but I was curious 
what a serial example would look like, so I tried to do one, to see if I 
understood the concepts and to see if there are any special problems with 
serials. After going through the exercise, I wonder if there should be 
something in the carrier or content description that says this is a serial. 
As much as I dislike the "v." in the 300, I know that it is sometimes used 
as a clue that a record is for a serial. Or will we rely on other clues 
like bibliographic format, presence of 362 information, etc.?

I am curious about the 2 cartographic examples E and F. For the Globe, 
wouldn't Carrier type be "other unmediated carrier"? (see 3.3.0.2.3) 
Actually, why isn't globe listed as an unmediated carrier? For the Map, 
wouldn't Carrier type be sheet?  It is listed under unmediated carrier in 
3.3.0.2.2. Under 3.1.4.1a.2, it shows a carrier type of sheet and then the 
extent of the same resource as 1 map. If it's not on a sheet, wouldn't the 
Carrier type be "other unmediated carrier"?

Now for comments on Chapter 3 itself.

3.1.3.1, "When describing a facsimile or reproduction, record the elements 
describing the carrier as they apply to the facsimile or reproduction." - I 
think there should be a reference to 3.4.4.0.3, "Apply the instructions 
given under 3.4.4.1-3.4.4.19, if desired, as an alternative means of 
specifying the number of subunits in a resource of any carrier type in 
which text is presented in a format that parallels that of a printed or 
manuscript volume(s) ... (e.g., a microfilm reproduction of an atlas, a 
digital text in PDF)."

3.1.6.2a.1, Resource issued in successive parts, "If carrier 
characteristics are changed (or if new carrier characteristics are 
introduced) in a subsequent issue or part, record the changed (or new) 
characteristics as instructed under 3.6-3.20." - I don't understand the 
reference to 3.6-3.20.  Sections 3.6-3.20 are Base material, Applied 
material, Mount, Production method, Generation, etc. Also, same section 
last sentence, "Make a note if the change is considered important for 
identification or selection (see 3.21.0.3a)." That should be 3.21.0.3.1a.1.

3.1.6.2b.1. Last sentence, see reference should be to 3.21.0.3.1b.1.

3.2.0.2 - I have a question on the media type. If it's online audio or 
video, is the media type computer rather than audio or video?

3.3.0.2.2 - I wonder if it would be possible to put the list of types of 
carrier in a table like the types of media in 3.2.0.2.2. I think it would 
be easier to find a specific list/table quickly if they all have the same 
format. Audio carriers, etc. could be in the column on the left and then 
audio cartridge, audio cylinder, audio disc, etc., in the column on the 
right. It could be called Table 2.  I was also curious why globe wasn't 
included under Unmediated carriers.

3.4.0.10.3 - "Optional addition. When the resource is complete (or if the 
total number of units issued is known), add the number of units." I think 
it might be good to have a reference to 3.4.4.15.1a.1, "For serials, record 
the extent by giving the number of bibliographic volumes ...  . "

3.4.4.0.4 - "For resources consisting of text in other media (e.g., 
microforms), follow the basic instructions given under 3.4.0." This seems 
to contradict what it just said in 3.4.4.0.3, "Apply the instructions given 
under 3.4.4.1-3.4.4.19, if desired, as an alternative means of specifying 
the number of subunits in a resource of any carrier type in which text is 
presented in a format that parallels that of a printed or manuscript 
volume(s) ... (e.g., a microform reproduction of an atlas, a digital text 
in PDF)." If I understand this correctly, the rule for a microform would be 
to record the extent as x microfilm reels (3.4.0.3.1), but as an 
alternative, you could give the extent as x volumes if it's a microfilm 
reproduction of a text serial (3.4.4.0.3). If that is indeed correct, I 
think it might be clearer to have the rule in 3.4.4.0.4 precede the 
alternative in 3.4.4.0.3. Actually, having read this again, it occurred to 
me that maybe what it is saying is that you could record the extent of a 
microfilm reproduction as 3 reels (6 volumes). If that is correct, then 
maybe there needs to be a reference to 3.4.0.7. Also one from 3.4.0.7 to here.

3.4.4.15.1b.1 - If someone customizes RDA for serials, will this rule be 
included? If not, then I think there should be a reference to it from 
3.4.4.15.1a.1, even though it is right before this rule.

3.4.6.4.1 - "Make a note if not all units of a resource issued in more than 
one unit have been issued and it appears that the resource will not be 
continued (see 3.4.0.10)." Example is "No more published". I wondered if 
this rule applied to serials. Serials are included in section 3.4.4.15, 
"More than one volume" Is that different than "Resource issued in more than 
one unit ..." (3.4.6.4)?

3.5.0.6.4 - "Alternative: If the carriers ... are of more than 2 sizes, 
record the greatest height of any of them followed by the greatest width of 
any of them and or smaller". I was wondering whether we will apply this to 
serials. There is a reference from 3.5.0.8.1a.1, Resource issued in 
successive parts, to 3.5.0.6, so I assume we could say "32 cm or smaller" 
for a serial run which consists of volumes of more than 2 sizes. I think I 
like this alternative.

3.5.0.8 - There are no instructions for a multipart monograph issued 
simultaneously. Is it possible that such a resource could have volumes with 
different sizes?

3.5.0.8.1a.2 - Reference should be to 3.5.3.4.1a.1.

3.5.0.8.1b.1 - Reference should be to 3.5.3.4.1b.1.

3.21.0.3.1a.1 - I just want to be sure that I understand this rule. Does it 
mean that a change from CDROM to DVD would not require a new record? How 
about CDROM to online? How about print to CDROM? How about print to online?

Addendum to RDA Part A - Chapter 4

I'm wondering whether chapter 4 should precede chapter 3. Chapter 4 deals 
with attributes of the work and expression and chapter 3 deals with 
attributes of the manifestation. The order of chapter 4 has attributes of 
the work preceding attributes of the expression. So the overall order is 
manifestation, then work, then expression. It seems to me like it should 
either be manifestation, then expression, then work or it should be work, 
then expression, then manifestation. I seem to remember a discussion about 
this with the previous draft, but I can't remember what the order was 
before. I'm at my daughter's house and don't have anything with me except 
the 21 March 2007 draft of Chapter 3 and Addendum to Chapter 4. This is not 
something I feel strongly about, just something that struck me as I looked 
at the contents to Chapter 4.

4.2.0.2.2 - I noticed the table in this section is called Table 1, so I 
assume the numbering of tables starts over with each chapter. I wonder if 
it would make more sense to give each table a unique number in case someone 
wants to go directly to a table in the online version of RDA.

4.8.0.7 - I was wondering why Braille is sometimes capitalized and 
sometimes not. It appears from the notes under the examples in 4.8.0.7.3 
that if a resource is described by an agency in the United Kingdom, it is 
capitalized and if described by an agency in the United States it is not. 
This seems like a picky difference to me. What if described by an agency in 
Canada? What about Australia?

Well, I think that's it. Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

Renette

At 09:16 AM 4/23/2007, you wrote:
>Hello fellow PCC advocates,
>
>Just a friendly reminder, if you intend to comment, May 14 -- Public 
>comments on Chapter 3 of RDA from web form due
><https://cs.ala.org/alcts/rda_form/rda_form.cfm>https://cs.ala.org/alcts/rda_form/rda_form.cfm 
>
>
>Separate from this, I will summarize any comments on behalf of PCC sent to 
>me as liaison to CC:DA by the following week of May 18.
>
>Best regards,
>Peter Fletcher, PCC Liaison to CC:DA
>
>Peter V. Fletcher
>Serials & Electronic Resources Catalog Librarian, Bibliographer for 
>Germanic/Slavic, Senior Consulting Area Technical Liaison
>Howard-Tilton Memorial Library
>Tulane University
>New Orleans, LA 70118
>(504) 862-8582
>
>

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

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
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 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
July 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
October 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
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager