Print

Print


Hi, Adam.

 

I guess that I didn’t express it as clearly as a I thought I did!

 

What I was suggesting is that the title proper would be East and South-East Asia, international relations and security perspectives or East and South-East Asia: international relations and security perspectives (as you suggested).  By choosing the entire phrase as title proper, there would be no need for an artificial preferred title with an additional data element (such as 2013). 

 

I agree that if I were to consider South-East Asia: international relations and security perspectives as the title proper, there would be no other title information and, therefore, no $b in the 245 field.

 

The example I used is from an actual full level PCC authenticated record.  As I mentioned, it’s technically correct, based on the choices the cataloger made, but I was suggested that there might be a better way to do this that would be more useful to the user.  

 

I was also suggesting that dividing line between what the title is and what is considered other title information shouldn’t be as rigid as it has been up to this point.  RDA should give us the opportunity to re-think what’s possible and what’s the most useful instead of just continuing old practices from earlier cataloging codes.   The proliferation of subfields in MARC may also be a reason why we felt compelled to break things up in small chunks rather than looking at the whole data element.

 

Gene

 

Gene

Eugene Dickerson
Team Leader for Cataloging
Ralph J. Bunche Library
U.S. Department of State
Washington, DC
[log in to unmask]
(202) 647-2191 (voice)

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 2:32 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] NARs no2011170134 and no2013027752

Eugene,

The problem that I see with what you suggest is this:  what is the preferred title for this work?  If it is "East and South-East Asia", then you can't tack on a comma and the subtitle in the authorized access point for the work, because additions to the preferred title are recorded in parentheses.  If you have decided that the preferred title is "East and South-East Asia, international relations and security perspectives", then what you have recorded in your 245 can't be correct, because the usual basis for the preferred title is the title proper.  If the preferred title is "East and South-East Asia" then you could use (2013), but you could instead use (International relations and security perspectives) or (Tan) or any number of other things.  If the preferred title is "East and South-East Asia, international relations and security perspectives" (or "East and South-East Asia: international relations and security perspectives", which might even be better), then I think you would not have a subtitle in $b in the 245 field.

Adam Schiff

**************************************
* Adam L. Schiff                     *
* Principal Cataloger                *
* University of Washington Libraries *
* Box 352900                         *
* Seattle, WA 98195-2900             *
* (206) 543-8409                     *
* (206) 685-8782 fax                 *
* [log in to unmask]           *
**************************************

On Thu, 11 Sep 2014, Dickerson, Eugene H wrote:

> Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 17:44:32 +0000
> From: "Dickerson, Eugene H" <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: NARs no2011170134 and no2013027752
>
> Another problem is the whole ?other title information? question.
>
> I’m working on an e-book where the bibliographic record looks like this:
>
> 130  0     East and South-East Asia (2013)
> 245  10  East and South-East Asia : ?b international relations and security perspectives / ?c editor: Andrew T.H. Tan.
>
> I think that the cataloger followed the RDA guidelines as written in this case, but the so-called unique title is now a meaningless text string, certainly from the user perspective.
>
> I think that East and South-East Asia, international relations and security perspectives would be much better as a unique title than East and South-East Asia (2013).  At least a user would know what aspect of East and South-East Asia is being discussed in this resource and would do a much better job of identifying the resource and being able to select which one he or she wants.
>
> Of course, this problem isn’t unique to RDA.  Many meaningless text strings were created under AACR2 in the guise of ?uniform titles? that don? T help the user very much in terms of identification.
>
> The problem has gotten worse under RDA, though, with the guideline about having all preferred titles unique if there isn’t another data element associated with the title as an authorized access point.
>
> I would rather see us make better use of the data elements we have as part of the title, such as the ?other title information?, in making a unique preferred title rather than adding non-title data elements that aren’t going to be useful in identification to anyone other than a cataloger who knows what the data element is and why it was added.
>
> Gene
>
>
>
>
>
> Eugene Dickerson
> Team Leader for Cataloging
> Ralph J. Bunche Library
> U.S. Department of State
> Washington, DC
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> (202) 647-2191 (voice)
>
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stanley Keswick - NOAA
> Federal
> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 12:18 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] NARs no2011170134 and no2013027752
>
> Well, whether 245 $p and $n remain should not necessarily be based on whether or not OCLC makes use of it. After all, they could alter their search to accommodate it.
>
> The real question is whether putting parts and numbers in separate subfields does anything useful, and whether that usefulness outweighs the complication of the 245. I am hard pressed at the moment to see much utility in the separate subfields. Someone may wish to point out how the separate subfields do some good.
>
> Stanley
>
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Stephen Early <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> (apologies for cross posting)
>
> What Kevin said:
>
> For instance, in OCLC?s Connation Client, for whatever odd reason, there is no browse search that fully accommodates 245 $a, $p, $n, and $b .
> ?Title phrase? browses 245 $a and $b only, completely ignoring the presence of any $p and $n in between $a and $b.
> ?Title whole phrase? browses $a, $p, and $n, but omits $b.
>
> I agree that it may be time to bid farewell to 245 $p and $n.
>
> Stephen T. Early
> Cataloger
> Center for Research Libraries
> 6050 S. Kenwood
> Chicago, IL  60637
> 773-955-4545 x326
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> CRL website: www.crl.edu<http://www.crl.edu>
>
>
> This email is UNCLASSIFIED.
>
>
> From: Kevin M Randall
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 10:37 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>;
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: [RDA-L] RE: NARs no2011170134 and no2013027752
>
> I've wondered that for a long, long time!
>
> However, I've recently been thinking that maybe subfields $n and $p should be abolished, and the entire title proper should be in subfield $a.  (After all, the entire title proper goes into subfield $t in the 760-787 linking fields, with no separate subfielding of numbers/names of parts.)  Is there any benefit to having the numbers/names of parts separately subfielded?  It seems to just cause more trouble, most especially when $n and $p are ignored in title displays (like in lots of online catalog indexes?including in OCLC!).
>
> Kevin M. Randall
> Principal Serials Cataloger
> Northwestern University Library
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> (847) 491-2939
>
> Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
>
> Why do monographs catalogers so dislike subfield $p?
>
> Michael S. Borries
> Cataloger, City University of New York
> 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor
> New York, NY  10010
> Phone: (646) 312-1687
> Email:
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
> --
> Stanley Elswick
> NOAA Central Library
> 301.713.2607 x138
>
> The content of this msg., unless stated explicity otherwise, reflects only my personal views and not the views of the U.S. Government.
>

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
[log in to unmask]
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

This email is UNCLASSIFIED.