Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Book Review - Library and Information Science: A Guide to Key Literature and Sources by Michael F. Bemis
New Post on Librarianship Studies & Information Technology Blog : Book Review - Library and Information Science : A Guide to Key Literature and Sources by Michael F. Bemis
Saturday, May 16, 2015
- Designation of edition and designation of a named revision of an edition are CORE ELEMENTS. Other sub-elements of edition statements are optional.
An edition statement is a statement identifying the edition to which a resource belongs. An edition statement may also include a designation of a named revision of an edition. An edition statement may also include a statement or statements of responsibility relating to the edition and/or to a named revision of an edition.
This data is recorded in MARC field 250
- Look at instruction 2.5.1
Transcribe an edition statement as it appears on the source of information. Apply the general guidelines on transcription given under 1.7. Following various LCPS in 1.7 and 1.8 leads you to always transcribe the data as found. Appendix B4 says, “For transcribed elements, use only those abbreviations found in the sources of information for the element.”
Source reads: Third revised edition
AACR2 says: 250 $a 3rd rev. ed.
RDA says: 250 $a Third revised edition
Source reads: 2nd enlarged ed., revised
AACR2 says: 2nd enl. ed., rev.
RDA says: 2nd enlarged ed., revised
Recording Changes in Edition Statement (18.104.22.168)
· If edition statements differ from one part of a multipart monograph to another, make a note if the difference is considered to be important for identification or access.
- For serials, if an edition statement is added, deleted, or changed on a subsequent issue or part of a serial, make a note if the change is important for identification or access.
- For integrating resources, change the edition statement to reflect the current iteration if the change does not require a new description. However, if the earlier edition statement is considered to be important, make a note for the earlier statement.
[Source: Library of Congress]
[This RDA Blog post is best viewed in Google Chrome web browser]
See also related posts in following RDA Blog Categories (Labels):
AACR2, CORE ELEMENT, LC-PCC PS, MARC-250, RDA EXAMPLES, RDA RULES-CHAPTER 1, RDA RULES-CHAPTER 2,RDA VS AACR2, SERIALS, SOR, TRANSCRIPTION
Thanks all for your love, suggestions, testimonials, likes, +1, tweets and shares ....
Saturday, May 9, 2015
About the Glossary: Glossary of Library & InformationScience is a glossary and dictionary of terms and acronyms of librarianship, library science, information science, and information technology. This is brought out by Salman Haider for the librarians all across the globe and the users of Librarianship Studies & Information Technology blog. Glossary will include everything from traditional library terms to vocabulary of modern avenues in information technology. When completed the Glossary of Library & Information Science will become an essential part of every library’s and librarian’s reference collection and will also be helpful to Librarians, LIS i-School Master of Library and Information Science (MLIS) & Ph.D Students & Researchers and IT Professionals. This glossary will also be available as an e-book.
Following terms are the first to be added to the Glossary of Library & Information Science
- Acquisitions : Glossary of Library & Information Science
Thursday, April 30, 2015
How do you cutter a translation of a new collection of stories or poems by one author? How would you account for the collection title in the original language?
Under the new guidelines in RDA, many compilations of poems, stories, etc. by one author that used to be cuttered and treated as separate works according to the old LCRI 25.10 because the collection had a “distinctive” title are now given a conventional collective title and cuttered as collections or selections according to CSM F633.
However, there isn’t an example in F633 which illustrates what to do with the original title proper of a translation of collected poems, stories, etc. if the original collection title was “distinctive”. In some cases, the collection in the original language wasn’t published long enough ago for it to have necessarily “become known” by that title (the original collection and translation may even be published in the same year). So, according to RDA 22.214.171.124, the translation of such a collection would be cuttered as a translation of selected works and have the conventional collective title in the 240. However, it seems like there should also be some way to trace the collection title proper in the original language. Would it be appropriate to trace it in an author-title added entry as in LCCN 2014007357?
Here’s an example:
The title “Lashing skies” by Madeleine Monette, is an English translation of the French collection of poems, “Ciel à outrances” (LCCN 2012493907)
“Seasonal time change” is an English translation on LCCN 2013465420 “Umstellung der Zeit”
Should the preferred title for these translations be the conventional collective title, “Poems.‡k Selections.‡l English” and should you use the A2 cutter from Table P-PZ40, or, in cases like this in which the record for the collection in the original language has already been cataloged according to AACR2 rules, should you make an exception, use the original collection title as the preferred title, and cutter it as a translation of a separate work?
Question by Rachel F. (Librarian, United States) on RDA Blog
Please find answer to above question from Janis L. Young , Policy and Standards Division, Library of Congress. RDA Blog on behalf of all the users thanks Ms. Janis for her expert help....
The policy on the classification of collections that are translations did not change significantly with the implementation of RDA. The policy is just pertinent to more collections now, because of the prevalence of RDA conventional collective titles due to LC’s current interpretation of 126.96.36.199.
Collections in the original language that are assigned conventional collective titles are classed in the “collected works” or “selected works” number.
Translated collections (or collections of translations) that are assigned conventional collective titles are classed in the “Translations (Collected or selected)” numbers.
Here’s a made-up example of a poet who writes in German, and whose latest poetry collection was translated into English. Let’s assume the use of Table P-PZ40:
050 00 $a PT2702.E47 $b A6 [date]
100 1# $a Bergman, Heidi.
240 10 $a Poems. $k Selections
245 10 $a Frühling / $c Heidi Bergman.
050 00 $a PT2702.E47 $b A2 [date]
100 1# $a Bergman, Heidi.
240 10 $a Poems. $k Selections. $l English
245 10 $a Spring / $c Heidi Berman ; translated from the German by August Heier.
The collection in the original language and the collection in translation are not shelved together.
CSM F 633 sec. 1.a provides guidelines on the use of collected works, selected works, and translations. The Rainer Maria Rilke examples in sec. 3 are also pertinent.
As for cases in which the collection in the original language was cataloged under AACR2 and classified as a separate work, and now the translation is being assigned an RDA conventional collective title: the general practice is to class the translation according to the above rule. That is, class it with collected and selected translations, not with the original work.
All the best,
Janis L. Young
Policy and Standards Division
Library of Congress
Friday, April 24, 2015
RDA Toolkit Update, April 14, 2015
A new release of the RDA Toolkit is published on Tuesday, April 14. This message will cover several points you should be aware of related to the release.
TOPIC 1: Changes in RDA Content
TOPIC 2: Change in Content in LC-PCC PSs
TOPIC 3: Functional Changes in the RDA Toolkit
TOPIC 1: Changes in RDA Content
There are two types of changes in the RDA content for this update: 1) the fourth annual major update to RDA based on the decisions made by the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA (JSC) at their November 2014 meeting; and 2) “Fast Track” changes that are relatively minor and typical of a release update.
Revisions from JSC actions:
The changes to individual instructions are identifiable by the “revision history” icon in the RDA Toolkit (a dark blue rectangular icon with the date "2015/04"). A complete listing of all changes due to the proposal process will appear in the left-side table of contents pane on the RDA tab in the Toolkit, at the bottom under “RDA Update History”—you will see an additional entry there for the “2015 April Update.”
The attached document (summary rda changes 2015.pdf) lists the main changes to RDA due to the JSC update. Many of the changes in this update package are due to re-numbering of instructions and references (without a change in actual content) and are not included in the attached listing.
To help you focus on the more important changes to the instructions, some parts of the attached summary have been highlighted in yellow to draw your attention. Some noteworthy changes:
Statement of Responsibility (2.4, etc. and 188.8.131.52): Instructions that distinguished between “statements of responsibility” (2.4) and statements indicating a “performer, narrator, and/or presenter” (7.23) or “artistic and/or technical credit” (7.24) have been removed. While information formerly recorded in 7.23 and 7.24 are now considered statements of responsibility, the cataloger can judge whether that information is best transcribed as part of the statement of responsibility (e.g., MARC 245$c), or recorded as notes (e.g., MARC 508, 511). The core requirement to transcribe the first or most important statement of responsibility should be fulfilled before recording others in a note.
Noun Phrases Occurring with a Statement of Responsibility (184.108.40.206): The instruction to always treat a noun phrase occurring with a statement of responsibility as part of the statement of responsibility has been replaced with an instruction to treat a noun phrase occurring with a statement of responsibility as part of the statement of responsibility if 1) the sequence, layout, or typography indicates the phrase is intended to be part of the statement of responsibility and 2) the noun phrase is indicative of the role of the person named in the statement of responsibility. Note this is not a return to the AACR2 practice, which included instructions about the role of the person, but said nothing about typography, layout, etc. In cases of doubt, treat the noun phrase as part of the statement of responsibility.
Distribution Statement (2.9), Manufacture Statement (2.10), and Copyright Date (2.11): The “core if” requirements for the statements and sub-elements of “distribution statement,” “manufacture statement,” and “copyright date” have been eliminated. These elements may be recorded according to cataloger judgment.
Preferred Title for the Work (6.2.2, etc.): There have been some significant structural changes to the layout and completion of RDA instructions for preferred titles for works, although few represent changes significant changes in LC practice. There are significant changes in two areas: choreographic works and books of the Bible known as the Protestant Apocrypha. Although choreographic works were not directly covered in RDA, examples reflective of the former LCRI practice had been included; choreographic works are now treated as other works in RDA, and examples have been changed accordingly. Those who deal with choreographic works (or, more likely, works about choreographic works) should examine the revised “Choreographic Works” section of the LC-PCC PS for 220.127.116.11. The guidelines provide information on creating new authority records, guidance on dealing with existing authority records, and a link to the new subject practices that will be part of the Subject Headings Manual. For the books of the Protestant Apocrypha, individual books are now to be named directly as a sub-division of the Bible (e.g. Bible. Baruch), the same as individual books of the Old and New Testaments.
Authorized Access Points Representing a Person (9.19.1, etc.): Several instructions in 9.19.1 have been revised to provide the cataloger greater flexibility in choosing an appropriate addition to break a conflict if the additions from 18.104.22.168 and 22.214.171.124 are not available or do not provide adequate distinction. See the relevant LC-PCC PSs for the “optional addition” of these elements when there is no conflict.
Fast Track changes
An attached PDF file identifies the "Fast Track" changes to RDA that will be included in this release (6JSC-Sec-15.pdf); Fast Track changes are not added to the RDA Update History. While you are encouraged to peruse the changes, there are no significant changes.
TOPIC 2: Change in Content in LC-PCC PSs
A summary of LC-PCC PS updates incorporated in this release is attached (LCPCCPS_changes_2015_April.
pdf). Many of the changes to the LC-PCC PSs are related to RDA changes (re-numbering, new references, etc.). Several PSs are being deleted because the content has been incorporated into RDA itself or the RDA update makes the PS obsolete. As noted above, the LC-PCC PS for 126.96.36.199 should be reviewed by those who deal with choreographic works, and the PSs for 188.8.131.52, Option-184.108.40.206, Option should be reviewed by those who deal with personal name authority records.
The PSs on manuscripts and works of art have been revised and relocated to 220.127.116.11 because of RDA changes.
TOPIC 3: Functional Changes in the RDA Toolkit
There are two functional changes in the RDA Toolkit that you should be aware of:
a) For reasons associated with the international use of the RDA Toolkit, the names of the Books and Groups of Books of the Bible have been removed from the text of the instructions in Chapter 6, and are now available on the contents pane on the “Tools” tab (see “Books of the Bible”). Other than the change for individual books of the Apocrypha listed above in Topic 1, there is no change in LC-PCC practice because we use the names of the books and groups of books that were previously listed in RDA as well as the title "Bible. Apocrypha" for that group of books.
b) The RDA index has been removed. Although formerly made available in the online Toolkit, the index was produced only as a byproduct of the printed RDA; this has been discontinued as it was burdensome to maintain. The online search features provide a reasonable replacement for the index; see the “Search Tips” in the RDA Toolkit on the “Help” screen for more information on searching.
The next planned release of the RDA Toolkit will be in August 2015.
The documents attached to this email may also be found on the Web:
LC Summary of 2015 RDA Updates: http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/
Fast Track entries included in the April 2015 update of the RDA Toolkit: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/
Changes in LC-PCC Policy Statements in the April 2015 release of the RDA Toolkit: http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/
[Source : Library of Congresss, Policy and Standards Division]
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
Question on Clarification of Role in Statement of Responsibility : RDA Rule 18.104.22.168 by Omar Hernández Perez:
What language is add a word or short phrase if necessary to clarify the role of a person, family, or corporate body named in a statement of responsibility? RDA 22.214.171.124
1. language/script of the resource
2. language of the agency
Russlan und Ludmila : Oper in 5 Aufzügen /Mikhail I. Glinka ; [editado por] M. Balakirew und S. Liapunow
RDA 126.96.36.199 suggests to Add a word or short phrase if necessary to clarify the role of a person, family, or corporate body named in a statement of responsibility. Also it prescribes to indicate that the information was taken from a source outside the resource itself.
The Addition made should be in the language/script of resource in which title proper is given.
There is one RDA Rule 188.8.131.52 for "Preferred Sources of Information in Different Languages or Scripts" : If the resource contains preferred sources of information in more than one language or script, use as the preferred source of information (in this order of preference). Under this six points are mentioned from a-f in the order of preference.
Under this the first option itself is: a) the source in the language or script that corresponds to the language or script of the content of the resource ... ...
This rule can be interpreted and applied to the asked question.
See also: Transcription in Resource Description & Access (RDA) Cataloging
See also: RDA Cataloging
See also: RDA Cataloging
Note: RDA Blog users please evaluate this answer and express your opinions about this question/answer.
Monday, April 20, 2015
About Librarianship Studies & Information Technology (LS & IT) Blog
Learn librarianship and information technology with Librarianship Studies & Information Technology (LS & IT) Blog, a blog on studies, research, techniques, technology, best practices, and latest news on librarianship, library and information science, and information technology. Whether you are studying, doing research, or a working professional, this is the place for you... For Librarians, i-School Master of Library and Information Science (MLIS) & Ph.D Students & Researchers and IT Professionals
INTRODUCTION TO LS & IT BLOG
LS & IT BLOG PAGES
LS & IT BLOG SEARCH
LS & IT BLOG SUBSCRIBE & FOLLOW
LS & IT BLOG CATEGORIES (LABELS)
LS & IT BLOG IN SOCIAL MEDIA
#LIBRARIANSHIPSTUDIES #LIBRARY #LIBRARIES
Monday, April 13, 2015
Following RDA Blog posts are revised:
- Use of 500 and 510 Field to Show Relationships in a Corporate Body Name [Revised on 2015-04-13]
- Editor of Compilation vs Compiler [Revised on 2015-03-31]
- Conventional Collective title / Uniform title : Questions and Answers [Revised on 2015-04-03]
Monday, March 30, 2015
Sunday, March 15, 2015
|Pseudonym||A name used by a person (either alone or in collaboration with others) that is not the person’s real name. (RDA Toolkit Glossary)|
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) on Library of Congress / Program for Cooperative Cataloging practice for creating Name Authority Records (NARs) for persons who use Pseudonyms:
Q2. How do I decide which name to choose as the basic heading when creating NARs for a person with multiple pseudonyms? (DCM Z1 663— Complex see-also reference—Names)
Q3. Is it required to make a NAR for every pseudonym associated with a contemporary person? Some persons purport to have ten or more pseudonyms but in my catalog we only have works under one or two of those names – are there limits set on the number of NARs required? (DCM Z1 667 Cataloger Note section)
Q4. Should the 663 note technique also be used in a corporate name NAR when providing 500 see-also references for the members of a group? (RDA Chapter 30)
Q5. Can the 663 note be used without coding the 500 field with subfield $w nnnc? (MARC 21 Format for Authority Records, 663 field)
Q6. What about creating NARs for non-contemporary persons? Where is the guidance?
Q7. What about different real names used concurrently by authors?
Q8. How do I handle a situation when a pseudonym conflicts with another name and there is no information to add to either name to differentiate them? Do I create an undifferentiated NAR (or add the name to an undifferentiated NAR if it already exists)? Do I add the prescribed 663 note as well as the 500 coded “nnnc” to the undifferentiated NAR?
Q9. How do I handle LC classification numbers: Do I add the same LCC (053) on each NAR of a pseudonym? What if the pseudonym is used on non-literary works?
See also following Resource Description & Access (RDA) Blog posts:
Sunday, March 1, 2015
Resource Description and Access (RDA) ➨ Articles, Books, Presentations, Thesis, Videos
A visual explanation of the areas defined by AACR2, RDA, LCNAF, LC Classification, LC Subject Headings, Dewey Classification, MARC21.
C Landis - College & Research Libraries News, 2014
... provides short descriptions of each of the terms and links out to more in-depth descriptions and
standards. ... Although still in its adolescence, BIBFRAME's emphasis on relationships between
resources means that much of the duplication encountered ... Access: http://www.kcoyle.net ...
M Kelsey - 2014
TP Meehan - Catalogue and Index, 2014
... and preferably one where more information can be found, potentially with further links to yet more
resources. ... Resource Description Framework (RDF). ... xml:lang="en" content="Waugh, Evelyn, 1903-
1966"></div> <div rel="mads:hasExactExternalAuthority" resource="http://viaf ...
TP Meehan - Catalogue and Index, 2014
... of these are necessarily the same thing as the WorldCat Work described by Richard Wallis as:
a high-level description of a ... http://dataliberate.com/2014/02/oclc- preview-194-million-open-
bibliographic-work-descriptions/ 9Schema.org. ... http://bibframe.org/vocab/Resource.html ...
American Library Association
CHICAGO — The newest print accumulation of RDA: Resource Description and Access is now available.RDA: Resource Description and Access ...
Multi-Entity Models of Resource Description in the Semantic Web: A comparison of FRBR, RDA, and BIBFRAME
T Baker, K Coyle, S Petiya - Library Hi Tech, 2014
... Bibliographic Entities Seen as Single-Resource Descriptions In practical terms, the ultimate
purpose of multi-entity bibliographic models is to distribute the description of bibliographic
resources over multiple data sources which can, in principle, be separately maintained, and ...
LC Howarth - Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 2014
... The ISBD provides consistent stipulations for descriptions of all types of published ... stipulations
for specific types of resources as required to describe those resources. ... FRBR framework—itself
an essential component of standards, such as RDA: Resource Description and Access. ...
ISBD, the UNIMARC Bibliographic Format, and RDA: Interoperability Issues in Namespaces and the Linked Data Environment