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  December 2010

PCCLIST December 2010

Subject:

Re: Identity of records, RDA vs. AACR2 (was: Policy Committee meeting outcomes (Clarification on Decision 2))

From:

Mike Tribby <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 16 Dec 2010 13:39:54 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (194 lines)

>The differences between RDA and AACR2 are not merely cosmetic.  Based on discussions on various lists, it seems some people think of the differences being mostly relatively minor details, such as the lack of abbreviations, whether certain elements are required or not, etc. etc.

Kevin is certainly correct about this, but I think a contributing factor in this misunderstanding is that various catalogers have been told repeatedly--whether accuately or not--that for many common materials, the differences _are_ minimal. Moreover this seems to have been done to calm catalogers' fears of having to change everything they do, especially if they are not in an academic setting or if they catalog mostly books and popular materials. I know I've been told this, sometimes as part of a what may have been intended as a comprehensive interpretation, sometimes as a throwaway line in a far less than comprehensive discussion. This muddled situation is one reason why I think the reaction from catalogers and library directors not involved in these discussions will be very negative, at least at first, if RDA is adopted.

Of course at that point we can always rely on our tried and true gambit of telling them that RDA, or at least cataloging change, has been in the works for years and no secret was made of it. this will allow us an approximate look at how many libraries and librarians willfully ignore discussions about cataloging even though their libraries still rely on it for finding and inventorying materials. I trust listmembers have archived their URLs for Dublin Core meetings from the 1990s and the rest of the references that pass for explanation and that have been bandied about on this and other concerned lists.

Anybody on this list wandered out to a nearby public library to ask about their plans regarding RDA? I'll concede that big publics like Chicago, Cleveland, et al., know about it--and New York Public manifestly knows about RDA--but what about the many other libraries that will be affected by whatever direction we go? I'm willing to bet that in many cases the answer may approximate the answer I got from our cataloging software vendor when I inquired about their plans: we don't know anything about that. Yet.



Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses

mailto:[log in to unmask]


-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kevin M. Randall
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 12:22 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Identity of records, RDA vs. AACR2 (was: Policy Committee meeting outcomes (Clarification on Decision 2))

Bob Maxwell's post illustrates a very important issue that I think isn't being discussed that much.

The differences between RDA and AACR2 are not merely cosmetic.  Based on discussions on various lists, it seems some people think of the differences being mostly relatively minor details, such as the lack of abbreviations, whether certain elements are required or not, etc. etc.  Just as some people thought of the difference between AACR2 and AACR1 as mainly ISBD punctuation (I know of some catalogers who would add ISBD punctuation to a pre-AACR2 record and then code it as being AACR2--eek!!!)

AACR2 brought about significant changes to the entire basis of the description and access points:  two specific examples are more strict transcription of the title proper and statement of responsibility, and choice of main entry heading.  RDA represents a complete revolution in thinking about description and access.  For example, we are recording specific named elements, not just cobbling together "a record".  And, as Bob illustrates very well in his post, the entire nature of access points has been redefined, to make the data fit into the FRBR framework.

Just tacking on AACR2 headings to a description based on the RDA guidelines does not necessarily "an RDA record" make.

Kevin

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Bibliographic Services Dept.
Northwestern University Library
1970 Campus Drive
Evanston, IL  60208-2300
email: [log in to unmask]
phone: (847) 491-2939
fax:   (847) 491-4345

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On
> Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
> Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 11:14 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Policy Committee meeting outcomes
> (Clarification on Decision 2)
>
> John and PoCo members,
>
> Diane Boehr makes an important point here when she brings up the topic
> of hybrid heading strings. This is particularly crucial regarding work
> and expression records.
>
> AACR2 uniform title headings were not designed with FRBR in mind and
> so unsurprisingly do not conform to the FRBR entity model followed by RDA.
For
> example, the heading string
>
> Homer. Iliad
>
> represents in AACR2 not just the work "Iliad" but also all the
Greek-language
> expressions of the Iliad (and there are many).
>
> Homer. Iliad. English
>
> represents in AACR2 not just "the" English-language expression of the
Iliad,
> but *all* of the English-language expressions of the Iliad (and there
> are many).
>
> RDA does not admit authorized access points that represent more than
> one expression. They must be distinguished from one another. In the
> case of
the
> Iliad,
>
> Homer. Iliad
>
> would stand for the work in RDA, but because this work has been
> realized
in
> more than one expression, the same access point cannot stand for
expressions
> of the work. It must be qualified in some way so that each expression
> is distinctly identified. See RDA 6.9-12 and 6.27.3. So the various
> Greek expressions would be given access points such as these:
>
> Homer. Iliad. Greek (West) [for the recent Teubner edition by Martin L.
West]
>
> Homer. Iliad. Greek (Leaf) [for the school edition by Walter Leaf]
>
> Homer. Iliad. Greek (Dindorf and Hentze) [for the earlier Teubner
> edition edited by Dindorf and corrected by Hentze]
>
> Homer. Iliad. Greek (Dindorf) [for Dindorf's uncorrected edition]
>
> Because there are more than one English translation, there are more
> than
one
> expression, and so "Homer. Iliad. English" can't be used without a
qualifier
> in RDA; for example:
>
> Homer. Iliad. English (Rieu) [the translation by E.V. Rieu]
>
> Homer. Iliad. English (Chapman) [the translation by George Chapman]
>
> Homer. Iliad. English (Lang, Leaf and Myers) [the translation by
> Andrew
Lang,
> Walter Leaf and Ernest Myers]
>
> So there's a fundamental (and I think irreconcilable) difference
> between
how
> AACR2 and RDA treat access points for works and expressions. In many,
perhaps
> most, cases the established AACR2 uniform title heading (if any) can't
> be used in an RDA record; and AACR2 authority records for uniform
> titles
can't
> very well be used to represent RDA authorized access points because
> there isn't a one-to-one correspondence (the AACR2 authority record for "Homer.
> Iliad" stands for both the work and the Greek expressions; RDA needs
distinct
> records for each of these).
>
> So, OK, in the case of Homer, we could follow the new PCC post-test
policy:
> the name piece of the string "Homer" is to be used as established in
AACR2,
> the "title" portion follows RDA. This is fine because "Homer"
> legitimately could be used in RDA for this person. We could create
> authority records
for
> any of the expression access points above and legitimately code them
"rda".
>
> But there are a good number of AACR2 name heading forms that cannot be
used
> in RDA. For example, the form for the author Alcinous, as established
> in
the
> authority file using AACR2, is
>
> Alcinous, fl. 2nd cent.
>
> By the RDA guidelines this heading cannot be used as is in RDA. It
> must be modified to
>
> Alcinous, active 2nd century
>
> This person wrote a work "Didaskalikos", which exists in more than one
> expression. In RDA we need at least the following access points:
>
> Alcinous, active 2nd century. Didaskalikos. French (Louis) Alcinous,
> active 2nd century. Didaskalikos. Greek (Whittaker)
>
> Following the announced PCC policy, we would instead use, and create
> new authority records for:
>
> Alcinous, fl. 2nd cent. Didaskalikos. French (Louis) Alcinous, fl. 2nd
> cent. Didaskalikos. Greek (Whittaker)
>
> These strings are neither correct for AACR2 nor are they correct for RDA.
> Would this authority record be coded AACR2 or RDA? And there is no way
> to notify the system or other catalogers when as here the authority
> record contains a hybrid string in 1XX. I see this as a major problem
> with the
newly
> announced policy.
>
> Bob
>
> Robert L. Maxwell
> Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept.
> 6728 Harold B. Lee Library
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> (801)422-5568

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3319 - Release Date: 12/16/10 07:34:00

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 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
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