Print

Print


Stephen

I am so happy you made that point at the end of your message that BIBFRAME is not RDA and acknowledging the limits therein of mapping.

We need to keep these things in mind as we make this transition post-MARC in the future

thank you for that



From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of McDonald, Stephen <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 13:46
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Fictitious and Non-Human Entities in Official RDA
 

I agree that RDA, and IFLA LRM before that, is shortsighted by limiting agent to real human persons or groups.  I would go so far as to say it is humanocentric, and someday it will become critical to expand our definition of agency.  I am not qualified to argue whether animals have agency, and I don�t believe that software can yet be considered to have agency.  But someday, someone will prove some form of intelligence (and agency) in what we call animals, or in an artificial intelligence system, or in some other non-human beings.  (I am reminded of the Bicentennial Man arguing for centuries for human rights.)  Hard-coding a human definition into the standard is far too narrow for the future.

 

But as others have pointed out, we have ways of dealing with this restriction in RDA.  One thing that no one has pointed out yet is that BIBFRAME is not RDA.  BIBFRAME is based on RDA, and there are mappings to RDA, but it has its own model and elements.

 

                                                                                Steve McDonald

                                                                                [log in to unmask]

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 11:06 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Fictitious and Non-Human Entities in Official RDA

 

I think the question of animal agency in relation to the creation of a work is debatable, but either way, specifying a non-RDA element as a refinement of RDA's "related entity of work" offers a solution here, too. If we have a way of saying "Book / has non-human source / Koko (Gorilla), 1971-2018" and of transforming that statement to "Book /.has related entity of work / Koko ..." for any agency that wants strictly RDA statements, then we're not violating RDA.Something similar could be done for animal performances included in films, .e.g., "Free Willy /.has non-human participant / Keiko, approximately 1976-2003."  I think this could be done either with an element specified as an extension of RDA or with an appropriate element from another schema for which this sort of transformation is specified. (I suggest "source" and "particiipant" to avoid RSC getting territorial about elements using "creator" and "contributor.")

 

As for main entry status for Koko, that's not really an RDA concern anymore. PCC has already decided that the formulation of AAPs for works is determined by community managed string encoding schemes, and that an AAP like "Koko ... . Koko's book" does not entail an assertion that Koko is an RDA agent. It would represent only PCC's determination of an AAP for the work under its SES guidelines.

 

Stephen 

 

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 9:14 AM Stephen Early <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I realize that email prefers long elaborate replies to elaborate statements, but I�m going to break that convention and just say: What Preston wrote! (or, in Twitter speak: �This!�).

 

Thanks also to George Prager for the deeper dive and attempt at some decent examples and everyone in between George and Preston for their contributions. I�ve saved the Miss Piggy and Cigbo examples. Maybe they�re not kosher LRM beta RDA, but they literally work for me, because I�m a great believer in pragmatic solutions! KISS indeed!

 

 

 

Stephen T. Early (he/him/his)

Cataloger

Metadata & Discovery Enhancement

Center for Research Libraries

6050 S. Kenwood Ave. � Chicago, IL 60637  USA

773.955.4545 x326 (main office) � 219.713.3492 (cell)

[log in to unmask]">

The Center for Research Libraries is an international consortium of university, college, and independent research libraries collectively building, stewarding, and sharing a wealth of resource materials from all world regions to support inspired research and teaching. CRL's deep and diverse collections are shaped by specialists at major U.S. and Canadian research universities, who work together to identify and preserve collections and content, to ensure its long-term integrity and accessibility to researchers worldwide.

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Salisbury, Preston
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 8:45 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Fictitious and Non-Human Entities in Official RDA

 

Ding ding, we have a winner!

 

One could argue that Koko had been trained to respond to stimuli in much the same way as a computer may be programmed. This is the minority interpretation of what Koko did with ASL, but it is possible.

 

However, I think it is impossible to not regard animal actors on the same level as human actors. Both are using training to complete a series of movements. One might argue that a human can ad lib (and of course, many famous lines in movies have been ad libbed, such as �I�m walking here!�) However, I am certain that animal actors also frequently go off script and I�d hazard those scenes also make it into the work.

 

But in the case of film or stage (or art or spoken word poetry) we have two flawed models, and I�m not sure which is more flawed. But we�re trying to cram non-book works into a model that was created for books (heck, we still call them �bibliographic records�, don�t we?) and we�re also using a model that fails to recognize all of the possible contributors to a work as contributors.

 

My fear is that the (radically different and possibly diametrically opposed) missions of libraries and museums and archives will make it impossible for libraries to fulfill their core mission if they continue trying to be what museums and archives need. Are museums and archives (that aren�t part of a library) going to switch to RDA? Why won�t they keep using models that work better for them? Yet libraries are trying to switch to a model that makes it more difficult for them to put the needed resource in the hands of the patron with the greatest ease.

 

My (borderline inappropriate) thought is that we need to KISS and make up. In other words, let�s focus on simplicity and on creating a model that works best for libraries and our core mission, and that works best for all libraries, not just those that have budgets to spend hours training on whatever new policies have to be generated. I�m not advocating staying in the past. I�m not saying that we need to be tied to MARC or AACR2. But I am saying that we need simplicity and a focus on the patron, not the computer system that we might be using in 20 years.

 

Preston Salisbury

Assistant Professor and Monographic Cataloger

Mississippi State University

662.325.4618

[log in to unmask]

 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Adam L Schiff
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 7:02 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Fictitious and Non-Human Entities in Official RDA

 

Now consider the case of Koko, a gorilla who was able to communicate in a form of American Sign Language, and whose conversations or sayings were published in a book.  Koko is the creator/author of these words.  How is Koko not a creator agent in this situation, other than we have a model that says animals cannot create works?  It does not make sense that we would "attribute" this work to Koko. She is the author.

 

And consider animals who act in film and TV and on stage.  True, they are trained to do certain actions and behaviors, but they perform them.  A human doesn't do this for them.  Why are they not contributors to an expression like other actors?  They are not related to the work, they contribute to its expression just like the human actors.

 

The above kinds of cases are real and not the same as a human writing a book but attributing it to a mouse, real or fictitious.

 

The model is fundamentally flawed.

 

Adam Schiff

 

Adam L. Schiff

Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries

(206) 543-8409


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of McDonald, Stephen <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 4:14 PM
To:
[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Fictitious and Non-Human Entities in Official RDA

 

George, you ask: �couldn�t a cataloger creating a non-pcc record apply whatever RDA option he/she preferred and create perfectly good RDA records in the majority of cases?�  Yes, they could create records which comply with RDA.  But unless they established policies for themselves, or used some standard, they would not be able to create _consistent_ cataloging.  If they decided they would always apply options X, Y, and Z, then they are effectively making a policy which they will follow.  If they do not establish such policies and follow whatever they feel like with each successive record, their records will be a mish-mash of incoherent options.  Patrons trying to use their metadata would not be able to find or identify the resources they want.  And the cataloger would not be able to share their records with other organizations unless they follow a consistent policy which they can share so the other organizations can figure out how to map the metadata to their own systems and policies.

 

So, I will qualify my earlier blanket statement.  It is not possible to create _useful_ cataloging under pure RDA without policies.  Post-3R RDA, unlike the previous version of RDA, does not come with default options.

 

                                                                                Steve McDonald

                                                                                [log in to unmask]

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Prager, George
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 6:31 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Fictitious and Non-Human Entities in Official RDA

 

That you Stephen. This is most helpful.

 

 

Re: Cataloging using �Pure RDA�: It seems to me this is theoretically possible. I understand that LC/PCC needs policy statements, etc., to create effective guidelines for cataloging at the national level.

But, couldn�t a cataloger creating a non-pcc record apply whatever RDA option he/she preferred and create perfectly good RDA records in the majority of cases?  Having multiple choices for cataloging something (as we even do now with �Original RDA�) does not exactly equate to impossibility of cataloging using just the rues themselves.  I guess I am troubled by the concept of a cataloging code (or whatever we call RDA now) not being usable without an extensive armament of policy statements, etc. (Water under the bridge).

 

Thanks again for your explanation.

 

George

 

 

 

rom: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of McDonald, Stephen
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 5:38 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Fictitious and Non-Human Entities in Official RDA

 

George,

 

You are under a couple of mistaken impressions.  It is not possible to catalog under pure RDA without policies.  Post-3R RDA is deliberately designed to provide options for any communities which may wish to use RDA.  There are no preferred options�every community (such as the Anglo-American bibliographic community) must decide by policy, application profile, and workflows, which options to follow and how.

 

However, in your first example, under both RDA and PCC, Flynn Flam would be considered a pseudonym.  Under PCC practice, we would decide whether to add the pseudonym to a name authority record for the real author, or to create a separate name authority record for the pseudonym and put see references in each record pointing to the alternate name.  RDA is silent on the actual practice of name authorities, leaving that to community practices.

 

Your second example is trickier, being a false attribution to a real entity (though not an RDA agent).  This is the issue of attribution that has been mentioned in the previous thread.  Post-3R RDA does not consider the real Koko the Gorilla to be an agent, so she could not be considered a contributor.  The best that RDA allows is �related entity of RDA entity�.  Alternatively, the nomen �Koko the Gorilla� could be considered a pseudonym of Robert Smwth, and treated like the previous example.  PCC has not yet decided how to deal with this situation under post-3R RDA.  Therefore, we do not yet know how we would catalog this. 

 

                                                                                Steve McDonald

                                                                                [log in to unmask]

 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Prager, George
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 4:04 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] Fictitious and Non-Human Entities in Official RDA

 

Greetings all.

 

I understand the basics of LRM, and have read through the relevant parts of the official RDA (Guidance: Fictitious and Non-Human Appellations) plus the document that Kathy recently cited, thanks Kathy: Explanations of recurring issues. Despite my 35+ years as a cataloger, I have difficulty understanding how the guidance can be applied in a real bibliographic record. I have also looked at recent presentations on RDA. However, nowhere do I see actual examples of how, using the Official RDA, one could catalog a resource if it purports to be the creation of a fictitious person or non-human entity as its creator.  With all due respect, this is of course a much broader problem of very theoretical guidelines that are conceptually hard to grasp and don't yet have examples -- it really makes understanding--to say nothing of training, exceptionally challenging.   

 

Can anyone point to actual cataloging examples that illustrate how such resources would be cataloged in Official RDA? 

 

For discussion purposes, I have made up 2 hypothetical examples below, using my limited understanding of the  RDA guidance. (I do understand that LC and the PCC have not yet completed LC-PCC PS in this area. However, it should theoretically be possible to catalog something just using the Official RDA, without rule interpretations?.

 

A. Work attributed to a fictitious person: 

T.p. has:  The story of my life / by Flynn Flam. We know that Flynn Flam is not a real person, and that it was written by John Smwth. How would this be rendered in �Official RDA�? (using MARC as a shortcut here).

 

 

100 1# $a Smwth, John, $e creator person of work.

24510  $a The story of my life / $c by John Smwth.

??? Flam, Flim, $e related entity of work.

 

1.       The user may very well look in an author index for "Flam, Flim." Can this be used in an AAP on an "Official RDA" record, or only as a see also from reference on the NAR for  Smwth, or only used in a unstructured note field?

 

B. Work attributed to a non-human entity:

       T.p. has: Searching for bananas / by Koko the Gorilla. We know the work was actually written by Robert Smwyth.

 

     100 1# $a Smwth, Robert, $e creator person of work.

      24510 $a Searching for bananas / $c by Koko the Gorilla.

      ??? Koko $c (Gorilla), $e related entity of work.  

 

 I don't think Official RDA approves of the non-human entity as an access point; would it need to be just in a note in an RDA coded record? But how then would you be able to use "related entity of work", which is given in RDA?

(And does such an approach fulfill the ICP principles of "Convenience of the user" and "Representation"?)

 

Thanks for any enlightenment anyone can offer here.

 

George

 

 

George Prager

Technical Services Manager

New York University Law School Library

Phone: 917-951-0428

 

 


 

--

Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist

Data Management & Access, University Libraries

University of Minnesota

170A Wilson Library (office)

160 Wilson Library (mail)

309 19th Avenue South

Minneapolis, MN 55455

Ph: 612-625-2328

Fx: 612-625-3428

ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242