Print

Print


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 <(607)%20254-8031>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> GOV] *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]
> GOV <[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 <(607)%20254-8031>
>
>
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> GOV <[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
>
> (781) 736-4645 / [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> 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
>
> http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3427-5769
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__orcid.org_0000-2D0003-2D3427-2D5769&d=DwMGaQ&c=imBPVzF25OnBgGmVOlcsiEgHoG1i6YHLR0Sj_gZ4adc&r=Dc2zJWQZhGVM4krkr2m4NTiSqZ5Ld3IvJ8wM_1HzJMc&m=RTk1mwPJydKcNpU1rGzj2_BHTUAVH3aw8b9UKXmgS10&s=z5mHWxR2Aj4xMDpgSTZvEl3-M83EDvzUoxwVmqAiBEY&e=>
>
>
>
>
>
> *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 <(607)%20254-8031>
> ------------------------------
>
> *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
>
> Ph: 612-625-2328 <(612)%20625-2328>
>
> Fx: 612-625-3428 <(612)%20625-3428>
>
> ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242
>
>
>