Print

Print


As usual, I agree with Amy. 

 

I think a lot of this coding of relationships and other data elements in the authority records falls into “nice to have” category, but when you’re dealing with staff cuts and limited resources, each library has to choose how to spend its resources.  While it could be argued that the coding of these data elements will ultimately help the user, there is a cost associated with the spending extra time it takes to do it versus the return on the investment.  Not every NACO library is going to be able to afford to spend more time (and, therefore, more resources) in coding all of this data.

 

I’m grateful for the NACO member libraries that are able to support additional resources  to go the extra mile, but I don’t think that it should be expected that all NACO member libraries will be able to do this. 

 

One of the big advantages of a cooperative effort is that each member can contribute what it is able to, and others with more resources (or expertise) can expand or enhance those contributions.

 

It’s become increasingly rarer that anyone spends full time cataloging, let alone doing authority work, except if you’re working in a really large library (or your library has a really healthy budget).

 

I just don’t want us to set our expectations too high.

 

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)

 

[log in to unmask]" alt="https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ98cbmoBcllgdf0edh13ysYD1UWN40YaHnlGs_yRsSVneVOj4P">No part of any article sent to you by the Bunche Library can be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted without prior written permission of the publisher. The exception are brief quotations.  For a synopsis click here: http://diplopedia.state.gov/index.php?title=Copyright:_Synopsis_of_Important_Facts (Link not valid outside the Department of State.)

 

 

 

Official - Transitory 

UNCLASSIFIED

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Amy Turner
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 3:11 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] More confusing RDs (RSC/RelationshipWG/1/Sec final)

 

And for people like William Shakespeare, George Washington, etc., wouldn’t the AR get awfully complicated if we tried to establish relationship for every description or portrayal in literature, film. TV, etc.

 

At Duke, and I know at other institutions (including LC) staff is being cut.  Do  we expect more staff for these additional functions that are also being filled by big players like Widkipedia?

 

 

Amy

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 3:05 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] More confusing RDs (RSC/RelationshipWG/1/Sec final)

 

With regard to the movie about Ali, wouldn't it be more accurate to say "portrayed in"?

"Described in" implies a sort of objective point of view.

In works of art, that probably isn't true.  There may be truth in the portrayal, but it is not "description."

 

Gene

 

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Chiat Naun Chew <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

It’s not immediately obvious from the new examples that Adam cited in kicking off this thread, but the Appendix M relationship designators can be more granular than existing MARC fields allow. Under “described in (work)”, for example, we find “analysed in (work)”, “critiqued in (work)”, etc. It would not take many such new relationship designators to outpace the number of MARC fields available to express them. The recently approved proposal from the British Library and the PCC URI group to use $4 for relationship URIs gets around this limitation by allowing this information to be carried in a subfield with what is in effect a controlled value.

 

Naun.

--

Chew Chiat Naun
Director, Cataloging & Metadata Services
110D Olin Library
Cornell University
607 254 8031

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Amy Turner
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 9:30 AM


To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] More confusing RDs (RSC/RelationshipWG/1/Sec final)

 

Within MARC, it seems redundant to identify a subject by both tag and subfield.  Couldn’t this be better handled by sticking to tag in MARC and then cross walking into relationship designators in BIBFRAME or whatever?

 

Amy

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chiat Naun Chew
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 9:22 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] More confusing RDs (RSC/RelationshipWG/1/Sec final)

 

An alternative may be to continue to use 6XX but define $i (or broaden the definition of $e) for it. $4 is already available.

--

Chew Chiat Naun
Director, Cataloging & Metadata Services
110D Olin Library
Cornell University
607 254 8031

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Netanel Ganin
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 9:05 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] More confusing RDs (RSC/RelationshipWG/1/Sec final)

 

While I agree with much of what's been said in this thread, I also have a practical question:

 

the LC-PCC-PS at M.2 states:

 

LC practice/PCC practice: The relationship designators found in M.2.2-M.2.5, if used, are recorded in $i of a 7XX added entry field or a 7XX linking entry field, or incorporated into a note. If applying LCSH, the optional use of these relationship designators does not replace any applicable LCSH subject access fields (e.g., a 6XX heading for a work in a bibliographic record that represents a commentary on that work).

 

All these proposed terms will be entering at M.2.6 or later and thus are currently outside the scope of the LC-PCC-PS. Thus my question is: will the scope of the policy statement be adjusted to incorporate these new terms and therefore we'll be entering an array such as:

 

 

130 0 _ Ali (Motion picture)

 

600 1 0 Ali, Muhammad, $d 1942-2016.

 

700 1 _ $i Description of (person): $a Ali, Muhammad, $d 1942-2016.

 

That is, so long as we're cataloging in the MARC environment, will we be doubling subject access points for Agents?

 


in solidarity, 

 

Netanel Ganin

------------------------------------------------------------

Metadata Coordinator -- Hebrew Specialty

Brandeis University

 

My pronouns are he/him/his

 

 

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Folsom, Steven <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Agreed, a simple subject/subjectOf set of properties would be sufficient.

 

Are PCC members free to choose already existing less complicated non-RDA properties? (sorry for all those adjectives in one sentence)? Maybe this is more possible with URIs in the $4?

 

————

Steven Folsom

Metadata Technologies Program Manager

Harvard Library

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Chiat Naun Chew <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, March 9, 2017 at 8:14 AM
To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>


Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] More confusing RDs (RSC/RelationshipWG/1/Sec final)

 

I had hoped that RDA would reconsider its practice of duplicating relationships for different entity types, but it does not appear that this is happening. It is not self-evident that because a person is a different kind of thing from a corporate body, it requires two distinct kinds of activity to describe them. It’s also not clear that the FRBR model requires it. It may be noted that personal and corporate authorship are covered by the same RDA relationship. Why does the same not apply to subjects?

 

--

Chew Chiat Naun
Director, Cataloging & Metadata Services
110D Olin Library
Cornell University
607 254 8031


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Stephen Hearn <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 08 March 2017 19:01:53
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] More confusing RDs (RSC/RelationshipWG/1/Sec final)

 

I agree. In some cases the parenthetical specifies the domain of the relationship and in other cases it specifies the range of the relationship. It would be less ambiguous and more user friendly if this difference was reflected in syntax:

 

(person) described in

description of (person)

 

etc.

 

Stephen

 

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Adam L. Schiff <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

RSC/RelationshipWG/1/Sec final lists a number of new subject relationship designators that will be going into RDA:

 

M.2.6  Person as Subject of aWork

 

described in (person) A work that describes a described person.

Reciprocal relationship: description of (person)

 

description of (person) A person described by a describing work.

Reciprocal relationship: described in (person)

 

M.2.7 Family as Subject of a Work

 

described in (family) A work that describes a described family.

Reciprocal relationship: description of (family)

 

description of (family) A family described by a describing work.

Reciprocal relationship: described in (family)

 

M.2.8 Corporate Body as Subject of a Work

 

described in (corporate body) A work that describes a described corporate body.

Reciprocal relationship: description of (corporate body)

 

description of (corporate body) A corporate body described by a describing work.

Reciprocal relationship: described in (corporate body)

 

While I applaud finally having designators to use for persons, corporate bodies, and families that are the subjects of works, we again have a situation where the “described in” designators are completely incomprehensible with the parenthetical addition.   If these designators display in ILS’s users will not understand them.  The definitions are quite clear, but wouldn’t the designators have been much clearer if they’d been formulated some other way, e.g.  “person described in”, “family described in”, and “corporate body described in”?  I understand that the qualifier refers to the agent being described, but there must be a more clear way of making the designators suitable for both RDF and linked data as well as ILS displays.

 

I’m also wondering why we shouldn’t use “subject” instead of “description of”.  Isn’t this much simpler and clear?  “subject of” could replace “described in”.

 

 

Adam L. Schiff

Principal Cataloger

University of Washington Libraries

Cataloging & Metadata Services

Box 352900

Seattle, WA 98195-2900

[log in to unmask]

 



 

--

Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist

Data Management & Access, University Libraries

University of Minnesota

160 Wilson Library

309 19th Avenue South

Minneapolis, MN 55455

ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242