[yul-naco] FW: Module 4 questions

[Arakawa, Steven]

Steven Arakawa
Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation  
Catalog & Metada Services   
Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University  
P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240     
(203) 432-8286 steven.arakawa at yale.edu




Reminder: RDA Webinar Module 4 is tomorrow afternoon, 1:30-300, Bass L01A. I sent questions this morning. Let me know if you have more.

-----Original Message-----
From: Arakawa, Steven 
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 12:52 PM
To: 'BIBCOmail at loc.gov'
Cc: Sturtevant, Carolyn
Subject: Module 4 questions

Some questions that go back to Module 1. 

1. RDA  has an alternative to the default capitalization scheme: "When recording the attributes of a manifestation or item (see chapters 1–4), if the agency creating the data has established in-house guidelines on capitalization, or has designated a published style manual, etc., as its preferred guide, use those guidelines or that style manual in place of the instructions given in this appendix." LC has  a "take what you see" alternative guideline as an option, which is acceptable to PCC. The alternative is applied case by case, not across the board. Is anything stopping a Bibco library from applying the Chicago Style Manual capitalization scheme as a second alternative for the transcription fields? A problem we've run into is a common publication practice of using ALL CAPS with different font sizes for the entire title and statement of responsibility, so the "take what you see" alternative is hard to read. In addition, in our local system, ALL CAPS is associated with vendor records. The CSM rules (headline style) are simpler to apply than the AACR2/Default RDA rules, more familiar to non-cataloging users, and facilitate computer generation of bibliographies that follow CSM (and others for all I know). Is there a problem if an individual Bibco institution applies the alternative and includes CSM as another option?

2. In AACR2, there is an LCRI for Option 1.4C7, regarding inclusion of the publisher address in the place of publication. The link in 1.4C7 in the Toolkit is to RDA 4.3.1.3, which does not specify where the address is to be located (note? Place of publication? ISBN?). Does the "transcribe what you see" principle apply to the publisher address in the place of publication?

3. If the option to use 264 _4 is used, and the source has "copyright" spelled out instead of as a symbol, is the spelled out form converted to the copyright symbol when entered in 264 _4? In RDA 2.11.1.3, the instruction is "Record copyright dates applying the general guidelines on numbers expressed as numerals or as words given under 1.8. Precede the date by the copyright symbol (©) or the phonogram symbol (℗), or by copyright or phonogram if the appropriate symbol cannot be reproduced." This appears to be saying that the spelled out form is only used if the cataloger's data entry program cannot supply a copyright or phonogram symbol. Or is this trumped by the "transcribe what you see" principle? For what it's worth, RDA 1.8. is the convert words to numerals instruction, so exceptions to the "transcribe what you see" principle have already been introduced.

Module 3. In RDA, we will  be including monographs as well as serials & integrating resources when we identify a title proper conflict. We are looking at a relatively substantial number of FAO publications beginning with "Lao PDR" beneath which is a specific title, e.g. Northern rural development and watershed management. There is reason to believe that the publisher considers "Lao PDR" to be the title proper, since the running title reads: Lao PDR : Northern Rural Development and Watershed Management. So, let's say we also have to catalog Lao PDR : Southern Rural Development, Lao PDR: Western Rural Development, and so on. Under RDA, each of the titles proper are in conflict and as new titles are added, each will need a 130. Three options were discussed:

a. Our provisional solution was to enter under the specific title and use an "At head of title: Lao PDR" 500 note, but the individual titles seem too weak to stand alone without specifying that the development is in Laos.
b. Or would it be better to make the specific title of each publication as the title proper, with "Lao PDR" as the other title?:  245 $a Northern rural development and watershed management : $b Lao PDR?  
c. Or, catalog the item in hand as 245 00 $a Lao PDR. $p Northern rural development and watershed management, then we would not have a conflict with 245 00 $a Lao PDR. $p Southern rural development and watershed management. I've been hunting around RDA to see if there is an explicit statement that the part title is still considered to be part of the title proper (as in AACR2 1.1B9) but one could do this legitimately in RDA, correct?  

Now, a hypothetical question regarding option c. We later  get a separate work to catalog: Lao PDR : a collection of essays (published by Yale University Press). Is there a conflict with the main work's title proper of the FAO publications in option c. at this point? Would we need to have a 130 Lao PDR (Yale University Press)  for the new record even though the titles proper of the FAO publications do not conflict with each other?

Module 4 Questions: 
1. PS 27.1.1.3. (slide 55) Reproductions. Until a usable macro to convert a record for the original into 775/776 is available for local cataloging, can we use a structured description instead? 500 __ Reproduction of: Anecdotes of General Ulysses S. Grant. Philadelphia : J.B. Lippincott Company, 1886. 118 p. ; 18 cm. 

In our local ILS, we actually have identifiers (handles; permanent URIs) that could link to the appropriate record for the original if it was in our catalog. Only $z would display to the public; clicking on the public display citation would retrieve the bibliographic record. Even so, better to enter in the local holdings record? (Most of our cataloging is done locally & exported to OCLC)
856 42 $u http://hdl.handle.net/10079/bibid/708744  $z Reproduction of: Trump, Donald, 1946- Trump : the art of the deal / Donald J. Trump with Tony Schwartz. 1st ed. New York : Random House, 1988, c1987. 

2. Comment. In the reproduction example on slide 55, the width of the reel in 300 $c has been left out.

3.  In the notes to Slide 55, the rationale for adding "(manifestation)" to $i is that it's needed to differentiate the link from a link to the reproduction of an item. Wouldn't it be just as clear if the WEMI term was used only for items in reproduction linking fields? The "manifestation" qualifier is not user friendly. This appears to be the only situation in relationship links where the WEMI qualifier seems to be used in a relationship note, so we don't see Translation of (expression): (assuming the original language is also an expression)

Back to Module 3 if there is time:
From last week's webinar, here's what we had in mind regarding expressions. 
100 1_ Jones, Jane. 
245 Mathematics / Jane Jones and James Smith. -- 2005.

The textbook is so popular that it's translated into French:
100 1_ Jones, Jane.
240 Mathematics. $l French
245 Mathematique / Jane Jones et James Smith. -- 2006.

100 1_ Smith, James.
245 Mathematics / James Smith and Jane Jones. -- Second, slightly revised edition -- 2009.

100 1_  Jones, Jane.
245 Mathematics / James Smith and Jane Jones. -- Third edition with an updated bibliography -- 2013. (Cataloged as RDA)

In all three editions primary responsibility cannot be determined.

Assuming we have both the 2005 and 2009 editions in our catalog, enter 2013 under Jones?  Reasoning:  RDA expressions need to have a consistent authorized name for the primary or 1st creator and preferred title. If we catalog a translation of the work & make an authority record based on the 2005 edition, we would not be expected to revise the authority record even if later editions have Smith as the first author.  If all of this is true, if we wanted a link from the 2013 to the 2009 edition, what's the best way to construct the structured description?

It follows that if the 4th edition (slightly revised so the publisher can raise the price) has:
Mathematics for undergraduates / James Smith and Jane Jones. -- 2015.

Then in MARC the authorized form has to stay the same & we need the 240 . This would not be an issue if we were cataloging as AACR2 since we could make a note and not worry about consistency in the citation (i.e. 100/240).
100 Jones, Jane.
240 Mathematics
245 Mathematics for undergraduates / James Smith and Jane Jones. -- Fourth edition. -- 2015.

Steven Arakawa
Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation  
Catalog & Metada Services   
Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University  
P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240     
(203) 432-8286 steven.arakawa at yale.edu