Ben: See comments inserted in your message. -- Judy
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 1:02 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: RDA-ized record #692015454
Judy, thanks for bringing 1.7.1 up because it sort of confuses me.
Just so I'm clear—it raises some questions in my mind:
--the decision to give the information as found on the source, including capitalization, can be made on a field-by-field basis? (In this record the title field was capitalized (or not) as we would do under AACR2.)
** JAK: Yes, cataloger's judgment.
--DLC/NLM are relying on "established in-house guidelines for capitalization" that differ from AACR2? (News to me.)
** JAK: I don't what NLM's internal guidelines are (NLM started this record); LC's in-house guidelines for RDA are in the LCPSs for the two alternatives at RDA 1.7.1.
--or is it the case that, because this was originally CIP record, that counts as "data derived from a digital source of information", in which case RDA says accept the data as is without modification? (And does this have implications for the CIP program as a whole?)
** JAK: See those two LCPSs.
--Finally—if capitalization rules can be ignored as an option why have them there at all?
** JAK: Some parts of the JSC constituencies wanted to continue standardizing the capitalization.
I realize talking about a single capital letter is perhaps a bit oversubtle, but I'm trying to understand the principle being applied here.
--Ben
Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kuhagen, Judith
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:19 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] RDA-ized record #692015454
Ben,
NLM cataloger was following the alternative in RDA 1.7.1 to give the information as found on the source.
Judy
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 11:47 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: RDA-ized record #692015454
Thank you, Amy; I had not thought to look it up in LC.
I would not claim real RDA expertise either, but looking at RDA, 2.5.1.4 and appendix A state capitalize only the first word in the edition statement.
Regarding your IMHO--I have no idea whether the "purer" record is more or less useful to users, to be honest. (I'm not personally convinced getting rid of abbreviations for well-known bibliographic terms like "pages" adds any actual value.) But from the point of view of a cataloging manager trying to get my catalogers to recognize and understand RDA records, "pure" records are more useful than mixed ones.
--Ben
Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Amy Turner
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 11:23 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] RDA-ized record #692015454
In LC’s catalog this is RDA and still CIP. It appears they had not changed their CIP template from p. to pages. I made this change in OCLC.
I am not an RDA expert, but my understanding is that capitalization reflects what is on the resource, and the 250 is as LC input it, so I suppose it is that way on the electronic galley.
IMHO, it is unfortunate that in spite of rhetoric about RDA being a new world view, much of our discussion focusses on abbreviations, capitalization, etc. Is this record really any more useful to the user now that I have made it “purer”?
Amy
Amy H. Turner
Monographic Cataloger and Authority Control Coordinator
Duke University Libraries
Durham, NC
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 10:54 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] RDA-ized record #692015454
Hello,
We are not a BIBCO library and so cannot update this record in OCLC:
#692015454, Biomedical engineering principles.
This record is marked RDA in the 040 $e, and has some RDA characteristics, but the 300 $a is still using AACR2 abbreviations.
Also, I'm confused about the use of capital letters in the 250 ("Second Edition", not "Second edition"?)
Looks like NLM was perhaps the last pcc library to touch this record.
--Ben
Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137