Sunday, December 29, 2013

Compilation with the original language and 2 translations : RDA Example

RESOURCE DESCRIPTION & ACCESS RDA

CASE: Compilation with the Original language and Translations in two Languages
Look at the following record from the LC Online Catalog and note the RDA cataloging treatment for preferred title:

010__ |a 2013317195
020__ |a 9789350870730
025__ |a I-San-2013-317195; 15
040__ |a DLC |b eng |c DLC |e rda
0411_ |a eng |a hin |a san |h san
042__ |a lcode
05000 |a MLCSA 2013/01309 (P) |a PK3799.J36
1001_ |a Jānī, Jayadeva Aruṇodaya, |e author.
24510 |a Kathākusumadvāṣaṣṭiḥ / |c Rasarājaviracitā = Rasaraja’s 62 small flowery stories = 62 kathākusuma / Rasarāja- viracitā ; edited with English & Hindi translation by Dr. Gargi C. Pandit, Dr. Kalpana V. Gandhi, Varda A. Vasa, Vaidehi C. Pandit, Kaushalya R. Rajpurohit, Kamakshi H. Jani.
24631 |a Rasaraja’s 62 small flowery stories
24631 |a 62 kathākusuma
264_1 |a Baroda : |b Savitri Prakashan, |c 2013.
300__ |a xxiv, 348 pages ; |c 22 cm
336__ |a text |2 rdacontent
337__ |a unmediated |2 rdamedia
338__ |a volume |2 rdacarrier
500__ |a Short stories.
546__ |a English, Hindi, and Sanskrit.
520__ |a Sanskrit short stories with English and Hindi translation.
7001_ |a Pandit, Gargi C., |e editor.
70012 |a Jānī, Jayadeva Aruṇodaya. |t Kathākusumadvāṣaṣṭi.
70012 |a Jānī, Jayadeva Aruṇodaya. |t Kathākusumadvāṣaṣṭi. |l English.
70012 |a Jānī, Jayadeva Aruṇodaya. |t Kathākusumadvāṣaṣṭi. |l Hindi.  (not provided in bibliographic record by the cataloger, as access for one/first translation is core, as given for English(second analytical); this (third) analytical entry can also be given, but is optional.

NOTE: NAR is created for the first two analytical entries.

LC control no.:n 2012218836
LCCN permalink:http://lccn.loc.gov/n2012218836
HEADING:Jānī, Jayadeva Aruṇodaya. Kathākusumadvāṣaṣṭi
00000528cz a2200157n 450
0019350351
00520130903231643.0
008130903n| azannaabn |a aaa
010__ |a n 2012218836
040__ |a DLC |b eng |c DLC |e rda
046__ |k 2013
1001_ |a Jānī, Jayadeva Aruṇodaya. |t Kathākusumadvāṣaṣṭi
370__ |g Vadodara, India
4001_ |a Jānī, Jayadeva Aruṇodaya. |t Kathākusumadvāṣaṣṭiḥ
4001_ |a Jānī, Jayadeva Aruṇodaya. |t 62 kathākusuma
670__ |a Kathākusumadvāṣaṣṭiḥ, 2013.


LC control no.:n 2012218837
LCCN permalink:http://lccn.loc.gov/n2012218837
HEADING:Jānī, Jayadeva Aruṇodaya. Kathākusumadvāṣaṣṭi. English
00000475cz a2200145n 450
0019350352
00520130903231854.0
008130903n| azannaabn |a aaa
010__ |a n 2012218837
040__ |a DLC |b eng |c DLC |e rda
046__ |k 2013
1001_ |a Jānī, Jayadeva Aruṇodaya. |t Kathākusumadvāṣaṣṭi. |l English
370__ |g Vadodara, India
4001_ |a Jānī, Jayadeva Aruṇodaya. |t Rasaraja’s 62 small flowery stories
670__ |a Kathākusumadvāṣaṣṭiḥ, 2013.

============================================

Question: In which case 240 and 7xx for original title to be there?

Answer: (with remarks from experts from LC) What we have here is a compilation with the original language and 2 translations. The 1st question we have to ask is for the preferred title, do we go 1. with the "commonly known" title (Kathākusumadvāṣaṣṭi … ) or 2. with the conventional collective title (Short stories. Selections … ). Here, it's best practice to go with the "commonly known" title. The 3 analytical 700s that you have given are correct. The 240 should not be used here in these situations (whenever there are more than one language presented).




Friday, December 20, 2013

How Did RDA Come To Be?


AACR3?


In the late 1990’s the Joint Steering Committee for Revision of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules decided to make changes for the future of AACR. It realized that the changes that give us a new way to look at our environment also give us new opportunities to improve how we deliver bibliographic information to users.

Resource Description and Access


In 2002, work had begun on a revision of AACR2, called AACR3.  However, by April 2005, the plan had changed.  The reactions to an initial draft raised particular concerns about the need to move to closer alignment with the FRBR model and to build an element set. It was clear that we could not continue doing cataloging the way we always had.  We could no longer produce records in MARC format in systems that could not talk to the rest of the information community.

A new plan was developed and the name was changed to Resource Description and Access to emphasize the two important tasks. Importantly, the Anglo-American emphasis was removed.


Collaboration with Other Communities


The Joint Steering Committee (JSC) for the Development of RDA has paid close attention to developments in IFLA as well as in various metadata communities, and initiated collaborations with the publishers’ community who were developing their own metadata set called ONIX.  Together these parties developed controlled vocabularies for media types, content types, and carrier types (called the RDA/ONIX Framework).
 
In 2007, JSC representatives met with key collaborators and agreed to examine the fit between RDA and other metadata models.  Together we have created an initial registry for the RDA elements and controlled terms, available freely on the Web.

In 2008 the JSC started participating in a joint effort to determine what revisions are necessary to accommodate the encoding of RDA in MARC 21. The RDA/MARC Working Group has presented proposals to MARBI (the Machine-Readable Bibliographic Information committee of ALA), many of which have already been approved.

RDA addresses all types of materials collected by libraries, but defers to specialized cataloging manuals for more specific rules needed for some types of materials -- for cultural objects, rare materials, cartographic resources, and more. In some cases, there will be a transition or “bridge” period to move from current practices and formats and systems to the next generation.

A Tool for the Digital World


The Joint Steering Committee stated among the goals for RDA that it was to be a tool designed for the digital world.  This had several implications:
  • RDA was to be a Web-based tool optimized for use as an online product. The result is the RDA Toolkit, which continues to be refined with feedback from users.
  • RDA was to be a tool that addresses cataloging all types of content and media
  • RDA was to be a tool that results in records that are intended for use in the digital environment, through the Internet, Web-OPACs, etc.
  • RDA was intended to result in records with a metadata set of elements intended to be readily adaptable to newly emerging database structures.

 

RDA Specific Goals


Although not all of the stated goals for RDA have yet been reached, but good progress is being made and proposals for improvements are still welcome.  Specifically, RDA rules were to:

  • be easy to use and interpret
  • be applicable to an online, networked environment
  • provide effective bibliographic control for all types of media
  • encourage use beyond the library community
  • be compatible with other similar standards
  • have a logical structure based on internationally agreed-upon principles
  • separate content and carrier data, and separate content from display
  • provide numerous examples, appropriate and relevant to the specific instruction


[Source: Library of Congress]


Saturday, November 23, 2013

Preferred title/Uniform title - MARC to RDA Mapping

MARC 21
FIELD
TAG
MARC 21
SUBFIELD CODE
MARC 21 FIELD /
SUBFIELD NAME
RDA
INSTRUCTION
NUMBER
RDA
ELEMENT
NAME
240Uniform title
240aUniform title6.2.2Preferred Title for the Work
240aUniform title6.3Form of Work
240aUniform title6.4Date of Work
240aUniform title6.5Place of Origin of the Work
240aUniform title6.6Other Distinguishing Characteristic of the Work
240dDate of treaty signing6.4Date of Work
240fDate of a work6.10Date of Expression
240gMiscellaneous information6.22Signatory to a Treaty, etc.
240hMedium6.9Content Type
240kForm subheading6.2.2Preferred Title for the Work
240lLanguage of a work6.11Language of Expression
240mMedium of performance for music6.15Medium of Performance
240nNumber of part/section of a work6.2.2Preferred Title for the Work
240nNumber of part/section of a work6.3Form of Work
240nNumber of part/section of a work6.4Date of Work
240nNumber of part/section of a work6.5Place of Origin of the Work
240nNumber of part/section of a work6.6Other Distinguishing Characteristic of the Work
240nNumber of part/section of a work6.16Numeric Designation of a Musical Work
240oArranged statement for music6.12Other Distinguishing Characteristic of the Expression
240pName of part/section of a work6.2.2Preferred Title for the Work
240pName of part/section of a work6.3Form of Work
240pName of part/section of a work6.4Date of Work
240pName of part/section of a work6.5Place of Origin of the Work
240pName of part/section of a work6.6Other Distinguishing Characteristic of the Work
240rKey for music6.17Key
240sVersion6.12Other Distinguishing Characteristic of the Expression

[Source: RDA Toolkit]

See also:

Thanks all for your love, suggestions, testimonials, likes, +1, tweets and shares ....

See also related posts in following RDA Blog Categories (Labels):

240 - Uniform Title (NR) - MARC 21 Bibliographic - Full

240 - Uniform Title (NR)


First IndicatorSecond Indicator
Uniform title printed or displayed
0 - Not printed or displayed
1 - Printed or displayed

Subfield Codes
  • $a - Uniform title (NR)
  • $d - Date of treaty signing (R)
  • $f - Date of a work (NR)
  • $g - Miscellaneous information (R)
  • $h - Medium (NR)
  • $k - Form subheading (R)
  • $l - Language of a work (NR)
  • $m - Medium of performance for music (R)
  • $n - Number of part/section of a work (R)
  • $o - Arranged statement for music (NR)
  • $p - Name of part/section of a work (R)
  • $r - Key for music (NR)
  • $s - Version (NR)
  • $0 - Authority record control number or standard number (R)
  • $6 - Linkage (NR)
  • $8 - Field link and sequence number (R)

Nonfiling characters
0-9 - Number of nonfiling characters



Definition:

The uniform title identifies an item if it has appeared under varying titles. It brings together records for items entered under both personal and corporate names and bearing variant titles. Use for uniform titles that follow the main entry ( field 100, field 110 or field 111). Use field 130 for uniform titles that are the main entry.

For current cataloging, construct uniform titles according to AACR2 and LC practice. Search the OCLC Authority File to verify forms of entry. Use the current AACR2 or AACR2-compatible form of entry. If that form is unknown, construct the heading according to AACR2.

For retrospective cataloging, search the OCLC Authority File to verify forms of entry. Use the current AACR2 or AACR2-compatible form of entry. If that form is unknown, you may enter the pre-AACR2 form, but you are encouraged to construct the heading according to AACR2.

See also:



Why RDA?

Why RDA?


Let’s first encounter head-on the questions from those who ask:
“Why we don’t just amend AACR2 again, like we used to?”

To address such questions, we need to:
  • Examine the current cataloging environment -- and how it continues to evolve
  • Perceive how Resource Description and Access (RDA) is an improvement over AACR2 as a tool for that environment


The Cataloging Environment


Catalogs are no longer isolated within the walls of an institution. Bibliographic data from any source can now be integrated into the wider Internet environment. New kinds of links can be made, and new displays can be generated for users from data packaged in new ways -- all of it on a global scale in multiple languages and scripts. These can be called ‘linked data systems.’  We now have the technology to provide global connection anywhere that computers can operate.  That includes the digital connections of cell phones or smart phones with Internet connections to link to any user -- any place -- any time.

The information systems and content in the future will be accessible on the Web. The elements that describe our resources will be available to libraries and users everywhere in the world through a Web front-end that connects users to services and data. That data may come from publishers, from creators, from libraries and other institutions … or from anywhere.

Actually, bibliographic data and digital resources are already on the Web, and we’ve started adding the controlled vocabularies from libraries to help identify resources. RDA enables us to identify all the identifying characteristics of all the things we have in our collections, in ways that machines and the Internet can manipulate for more useful displays for users.

Our entire cataloging environment continues to evolve:
  • It is increasingly Web-based.
  • We need to catalog a much wider range of information carriers than we did in the past.
  • We need to deal with many more types of content and complexity of content in the resources that we catalog.
  • Metadata is now created by a wider range of people, who have a wider range of skill levels -- not only by skilled professional catalogers, but by support staff, non-library staff, vendors, wikipedians, and also publishers.  Some of us are using structures other than the MARC format for our records (e.g., using Dublin Core for some digital resources).
And we now have access to descriptive data for resources in digital form – even when the resource is in standard book format, the descriptive data is now available from many publishers using ONIX, which is information we can capture for our bibliographic records.

In the digital world we sometimes find that basic bibliographic description is an integral part of a digital object - the software that helps create the digital object or digitizes an analog object, automatically provides a basic set of metadata, that is attributes or data elements.  Think of how the software for word processing, like Microsoft Word, suggests a name for your document based on the first words you type (ironically the “titles” for early manuscripts were the first line of text, too!)  Or how it can automatically provide the date you created the document. So we can envision the automatic creation of some of the bibliographic information our cataloging systems can capture, saving the cataloger’s time.  RDA builds on this to emphasize transcribing what you see for the basic elements of bibliographic description (‘the representation principle’).

A key aspect of this new “Semantic Web” environment is that it is built on element-based metadata schemas and vocabularies -- and that is exactly what RDA delivers.

The Problems with AACR2


During the 1990’s there were many complaints about how unsatisfactory AACR2 was:
  • “It has become increasingly complex”
  • “There is no logical structure”
  • “It mixes content and carrier data”
  • “Hierarchical and other important relationships are not adequately addressed” 
  • “It reflects an Anglo-American centric viewpoint” 
  • “It pre-dates the FRBR entity-relationship conceptual model”
  • “There is not enough support for the ‘collocation’ function of cataloging”
  • “It did not foresee the Internet or the existence of well-formed metadata or vocubularies”

[Source: Library of Congress]


RELATIONSHIP DESIGNATORS - QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

RESOURCE DESCRIPTION & ACCESS RDA

Question: I have seen some of the OCLC records coming with relationship designator “Joint author” for collaborative works, can retain the term as it is or change it to “author” because as such there is no term called “joint author” is defined in the Appendix I2.

Answer: “Joint author” is not in Appendix I, so we have to use “author” instead. As discussed in the document via http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/PCC%20RDA%20guidelines/Relat-Desig-Guidelines.docx we are supposed to use terms from Appendix I. Guideline 4 does provide for exceptions for element names (for example “creator” or “producer”) if they are more appropriate.


RDA RELATIONSHIP DESIGNATORS
RDA RELATIONSHIP DESIGNATORS

Number of Bibliographic Volumes Differing from Number of Physical Volumes - Questions and Answers

Question: AACR2 says If the number of bibliographic volumes differs from the number of physical volumes, give the number of bibliographic volumes followed by in and the number of physical volumes: 8 v. in 5. How will we treat this in RDA.

Answer: Relevant RDA rule is given below from RDA Toolkit.

RDA rule 3.21.2.8 is for "Number of Bibliographic Volumes Differing from Number of Physical Volumes"

According to this rule it should be given in MARC as:

300 $a 5 volumes
500 $a 8 bibliographic volumes in 5 physical volumes

Please note that 3.21.2.8 is revised. Earlier it was numbered as 3.22.2.8.

Note: Serials are exception.

[Revised: 2015-02-04]

Distributor's Name - Questions and Answers

RESOURCE DESCRIPTION & ACCESS RDA

Question: I have a book on which distributor statement is given as "Distributed by National Book Trust". Now the MARC 264 field with second indicator 2 stands for Distribution statement. So how should we transcribe distributor statement.
i) National Book Trust
or
ii) Distributed by National Book Trust

Answer: Distributed by National Book Trust

According to RDA Rule 2.9.4.4 for "Statement of Function" you have to Record words or phrases indicating the function performed by a person, family, or corporate body as they appear on the source of information.

Edition statement - MARC to RDA Mapping

MARC 21
FIELD
TAG
MARC 21
SUBFIELD CODE
MARC 21 FIELD /
SUBFIELD NAME
RDA
INSTRUCTION
NUMBER
RDA
ELEMENT
NAME
250Edition statement
250aEdition statement2.5.2Designation of Edition
250aEdition statement2.5.6Designation of a Named Revision of an Edition
250bRemainder of edition statement2.5.3Parallel Designation of Edition
250bRemainder of edition statement2.5.4Statement of Responsibility Relating to the Edition
250bRemainder of edition statement2.5.5Parallel Statement of Responsibility Relating to the Edition
250bRemainder of edition statement2.5.6Designation of a Named Revision of an Edition
250bRemainder of edition statement2.5.7Parallel Designation of a Named Revision of an Edition
250bRemainder of edition statement2.5.8Statement of Responsibility Relating to a Named Revision of an Edition
250bRemainder of edition statement2.5.9Parallel Statement of Responsibility Relating to a Named Revision of an Edition

[Source: RDA Toolkit]

See also:

Thanks all for your love, suggestions, testimonials, likes, +1, tweets and shares ....

See also related posts in following RDA Blog Categories (Labels):