Tuesday, December 30, 2014

Resource Description & Access (RDA) & RDA Blog History Timeline

Resource Description & Access (RDA) History


Important Dates in the History and Development of Resource Description & Access (RDA). 
  • Click on the + sign to expand the timeline as shown by the arrow. 
  • RDA History Timeline can also be viewed in a Flipbook or List format as shown by the arrows. 
  • Click on each item to view detailed description and sources of information, photos, videos.

Contribute in the further development of this RDA History Timeline by suggesting important dates in the history of RDA and RDA implementation in libraries around the world. For example you can suggest a date when your library implemented RDA Cataloging, or any date which is important to be noted in the Resource Description & Access (RDA) History. Suggestions should by accompanied with proper reference sources, from which the information could be verified/cited.

If you like it, then show it with your Likes, +1, Tweets, and shares.


Friday, December 26, 2014

Parallel Titles in RDA, AACR2 Cataloging & MARC21

Parallel Titles RDA AACR2 MARC21 Cataloging



  • Questions and Answers on treatment Parallel Titles in RDA, AACR2 and MARC21 in Google+ Community RDA Cataloging
  • Join the Google+ Community RDA Cataloging to view, ask, and share information and issues related to Resource Description & Access (RDA) and AACR2 Cataloging

See also following Resource Description & Access (RDA) Blog posts:


<<<<<---------->>>>>







Aaron Kuperman
Yesterday 10:55 PM
+
1
0
1
 
 
At LC, and this is very important for records of works in non-Roman scripts, if there is a parallel title (typically in English or another Latin script langauge) anywhere in the item being cataloged, it ends up both as a parallel title (245, following an "="), and usually as a 246 , often with a $i indicating where the parallel title came from, such as the verso t.p., added title page, the collophon, or whereever.  In the past the 246 would have sufficient if the Roman script title was not on the title page.


Saturday, December 20, 2014

Correct Coding of ISBN in MARC21 field 020 in RDA & AACR2 Cataloging with Examples



Several years ago the definition of $z of the 020 (International Standard Book Identifier) was expanded—it is now used for “structurally invalid” ISBNs (those that are too short, too long, wrong check digit, etc.) and also for “application invalid” ISBNs (ISBNs for a manifestation that would be described in a different bibliographic record).

The LC-PCC Policy Statement for 2.15.1.7 provides the following instruction:  
Record ISBNs in $z (Canceled/invalid) of MARC field 020 if they clearly represent a different manifestation from the resource being cataloged and would require a separate record (e.g., an ISBN for the large print version, e-book, or teacher’s manual on the record for a regular trade publication). If separate records would not be made (e.g., most cases where ISBNs are given for both the hardback and paperback simultaneously), or in cases of doubt, record the ISBNs in $a (International Standard Book Number) of MARC field 020

Please remember to use $z for ISBNs when appropriate. For regular print publications, this is most likely to occur when you also have an ISBN for a large print edition or e-book that would be cataloged on a separate record.

When we do not use the correct subfield code in field 020, systems that receive records from LC may incorrectly merge or replace records for the wrong format—we have received several complaints about this, and we hope we can improve the situation with your help.

[Source: Dave Reser, Library of Congress, Policy and Standards Division] 

<<<<<---------->>>>>

RESOURCE DESCRIPTION & ACCESS RDA


Question: Record ISBNs in 020 $z if they represent a different manifestation from the resource being cataloged.

  • If a printed monograph presents different ISBNs for different manifestation, do we have to transcribe them like below given example?


AACR2            020 $a 9780415692847 (hardback: alk. paper)
                                        020 $a 9780203116852 (e-book)

RDA                020 $a 9780415692847 (hardback: alk. paper)
                                      020 $z 9780203116852 (e-book)   (recorded in $z ISBN clearly representing an e-book version of the same manifestation)

Answer: Yes, the example you have given shows LC’s practice documented in LC PCC PS 2.15.1.7 for multiple ISBN:

“…if they clearly represent a different manifestation from the resource being cataloged and would require a separate record (e.g., an ISBN for the large print version, e-book, or teacher’s manual on the record for a regular trade publication). If separate records would not be made (e.g., most cases where ISBNs are given for both the hardback and paperback simultaneously), or in cases of doubt, record the ISBNs in $a”

<<<<<---------->>>>>


See Also: RDA Blog Labels (Categories) in below links for posts on related information on treatment of ISBN in RDA.


<<<<<---------->>>>>









David Bigwood

12 hours ago  -  Shared publicly
While not part of the question and answer it would be nice to show subfield q being used. 


RDA                020 $a 9780415692847 $q (hardback: alk. paper)

                                      020 $z 9780203116852 $q (e-book) 



<<<<<---------->>>>>










Sasha Birman
Yesterday 4:29 PM
+
1
0
1
 
Reply

We use both fields, 440 is former series field. 490 is very current.







<<<<<---------->>>>>


Sasha Birman
Yesterday 4:29 PM

We use both fields, 440 is former series field. 490 is very current.

                           <<<<<---------->>>>>



See also:

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

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