Friday, July 31, 2015

Numbering of Serials in RDA Cataloging

Resource Description & Access (RDA)

Numbering of Serials

  • Numeric and/or alphabetic designation of first issue or part of sequence, chronological designation of first issue or part of sequence, numeric and/or alphabetic designation of last issue or part of sequence, and chronological designation of last issue or part of sequence are CORE ELEMENTS. Other numbering is optional.
P         Look at instruction 2.6.1

Numbering of serials is the identification of each of the issues or part of a serial. It may include a numeral, a letter, a character, or the combination of these with or without an accompanying caption (volume, number, etc.) and/or a chronological designation (RDA 2.6.2-2.6.5).

Recording Numbering of Serials
  • Record numbers expressed as numerals or as words applying the general guidelines given under 1.8. Transcribe other words, characters, or groups of words and/or characters as they appear on the source of information. Apply the general guidelines on transcription given under 1.7.  Substitute a slash for a hyphen, as necessary, for clarity.
  • Record the number for the first issue; if it has ceased publication, record the last issue
  • If the numbering starts a new sequence with a different system, record the numbering of the first issue of each sequence and the numbering of the last issue of each sequence.
362 0# $a Volume X, number 1-          (formatted style)
362 1# $a Began with January 2010 issue (unformatted style) 

[Source: Library of Congress]



Aaron Kuperman The biggest problem with serials is that the "oral traditions" of serial catalogers are such that even when a work clearly has a single creator (and should get a 100 entry), and is cited that way in reference sources and by users of the catalog, the serial catalogers insist the person is a mere editor and therefore a contributor (only a 700 entry) -- and as more on more monographs are being cataloged as serials/continuing resources, we are losing access to the most important access point (n.b. Cutter's first rule that the catalog needs to provide access to works by the name of the author). Under RDA, serial catalogers should make 100 heading entries for author who create the work - which is what RDA says to do, and which they don't.
[Aaron Kuperman is a Law cataloger at Library of Congress, Washington D.C.]

<<<<<-----Revised 2015-07-31----->>>>>

[This RDA Blog post is best viewed in Google Chrome web browser]

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

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

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Inaccuracies in RDA

Please see Inaccuracies [RDA Blog post revised with Question & Answer on 2015-07-28]

Resource Description & Access (RDA)

Please provide your comments on this interpretations of RDA Rules, as mentioned in the Question & Answer part of this RDA Blog post.


Comment by Bob Kosovsky, Curataor, Rare Books and Manuscripts, Music Division, The New York Public Library, New York, United States:
Bob Kosovsky Oh! I thought it was about things wrong in RDA. Rather, it's about how to deal with inaccuracies in cataloging materials. smile emoticon

<<<<<-----Revised 2016-01-18----->>>>>

See also:

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

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

Thursday, July 2, 2015

LC RDA Implementation of Relationship Designators in Bibliographic Records


Library of Congress Implementation of Resource Description and Access Relationship Designators in Bibliographic Records with MARC 21 RDA Cataloging Examples, Guidelines, and Best Practices

Key points
  • The training manual is only for relationship designators in bibliographic records.
  • The requirement for providing relationship designators is only applicable to creators, whether coded in MARC 1XX or 7XX.
  • Relationship designators for Person-Family-Corporate Body  should not be used in a name/title access point tagged 7XX or 8XX, even if they are creators.
  • If the nature of the relationship cannot be ascertained even at a general level, do not assign a relationship designator (if in doubt, leave it out).
  • Other relationship designators are encouraged.
  • The element name, e.g., “creator”, may be used as a relationship designator when you can’t determine a more appropriate relationship designator.
  • The training manual also provides a useful section on “Punctuation and Capitalization”.
  • Relationship designators in RDA may change so always search Appendix I or J for the correct term before assigning one.
The new policy applies to newly completed RDA records, not to routine maintenance of already completed records, or to non-RDA records.

Monographs:  apply to full level original RDA records being coded 042 “pcc”.  It is encouraged, but not required, to apply to minimal level cataloging or imported records treated as “copycat” or “pccadap” in 906$c.  Note that relationship designators are “passed through” if present in copied records, unless egregiously incorrect.

Serials and Integrating Resources: apply to all CONSER authenticated records.

Implementation date:  July 1, 2015”

Best Practices 
  • Using relationship designators for other types of relationships (for example, contributor relationships), is strongly encouraged. 
  • Include a relationship designator, even if it repeats a term used as a qualifier to the name. 
  • Consult RDA Appendix I.2.1: Relationship Designators for Creators. Remember that the relationship designators that are used with creators are on the list in RDA Appendix I.2.1, not on the lists in I.2.2 or I.3.1. 
  • It is recommended that PCC catalogers use relationship designators from the RDA appendices. If the term needed is not there, use the Fast Track PCC relationship designator proposal form to propose a new term or request a revision of an existing term. 

General Guidelines

Guideline 1: Use of this Training Manual 
This training manual is intended to be used as a resource when applying relationship designators in RDA bibliographic records. It does not apply to authority records.

Guideline 2: Sources for Relationship Designators 
It is recommended that PCC catalogers use relationship designators from the RDA appendices. If the term needed is not there, use the PCC relationship designator proposal form to propose a new term or request a revision of an existing term. 

If a PCC cataloger wishes to use a term from a different registered vocabulary (e.g., MARC relator terms, RBMS relationship designators, etc.), he/she may do so.

Guideline 3: Specificity 
Within a hierarchy of relationship designators, prefer a specific term to a general one if it is easily determined. For example, use librettist rather than author for the creator of a libretto, or lyricist rather than author for the creator of the words for songs in a musical.

Guideline 4: RDA Element Name as Relationship Designator 
Assign an RDA element name as a relationship designator (e.g., "creator" (19.2) or "publisher" (21.3)) if it will most appropriately express the relationship. 

However, do not propose RDA element names for inclusion in RDA relationship designator lists. 

Guideline 5: Unclear Relationship 
If the nature of the relationship cannot be ascertained even at a general level, do not assign a relationship designator.

Guideline 6: Adding a Relationship Designator to Existing Terms and/or Codes 
Do not evaluate or edit older codes or terms in cataloging records unless they are clearly in error. Add an RDA relationship designator following an existing term, and before any existing code.

Guideline 7: Applying Relationship Designators in Accordance with their Definitions 
Be careful to apply relationship designators in accordance with their definitions. For example, note the difference between artist and illustrator. If the definitions or the hierarchies appear to be problematic, propose changes to them. Fast Track procedures are in process. See the PCC Relationship Designator Proposal Form

Guideline 8: Access Point and Relationship Designator for an Entity Not Named in a Resource 

In general, it is not necessary to provide access points for related entities not named in the resource. However, other sources of information may be consulted to identify related entities and determine the nature of their relationship to the resource.

Guidelines for Appendix I Relationship Designators 

Guideline 9: Relationship Designators for All Access Points 
PCC highly encourages including relationship designators for all access points whenever it is clear what the relationship is. 

Guideline 10: More than One Relationship Designator Appropriate 
If more than one relationship designator is appropriate because the same entity has multiple roles, preferably use repeating $e (or $j for MARC X11 fields). If necessary, multiple headings may be used instead. Add relationship designators in WEMI order. 

Guideline 11: Relationship Designators for Families and Corporate Bodies 
Note that the relationship designators in RDA Appendix I may be applied to families and corporate bodies as well as to individuals.

Guideline 12: Relationship Designators and Name/Title Access Points in 7XX 
Appendix I relationship designators should not be used in a name/title access point tagged MARC 700- 711 or 800-811, or in a name/title linking field tagged MARC 76X-78X.

Guidelines for Appendix J Relationship Designators 

Guideline 13: Relationship Designators for Resource-to-Resource Relationships 
The use of relationship designators for resource-to-resource relationships is encouraged.

Guideline 14: Relationship Designator Implied by MARC 7XX Content Designation 
If a cataloger wishes to indicate a known relationship to a known resource, and the $i relationship information subfield is defined for the MARC 7XX field being used, provide a relationship designator. Do so even if the field coding otherwise already expresses a relationship.

Guideline 15: Multiple Relationships 
Where multiple relationships exist, e.g., an abridged translation, provide separate access points, each with a single relationship designator in a single $i subfield. Alternatively, identify one relationship as primary and record that relationship alone.

Guideline 16: Reciprocal Relationships for Sequential Works and/or Expressions 
Except in the case of sequential work or expression relationships and equivalent manifestation relationships for serials, it is not necessary to provide reciprocal relationship fields.

Guideline 17: Relationship Designator for Related Resource when MARC 130 or 240 is Present 
Catalogers may add a 7XX field with a relationship designator referring to a specific related resource even if a 130 or 240 field is already present implying that they are versions of the same work.

Guideline 18: Unknown or Uncertain Relationship in a Resource 
If there is reason to believe that the resource being cataloged is related to another resource, but the resource in question cannot be identified (e.g., in the case of an expression that is believed to be a translation but the original is unknown), give the information in a note.

Guideline 19: Related Resource with Same Principally Responsible Creator 
When constructing a reference to a related resource sharing the same principally responsible creator as the resource being described, record the authorized access point for the related entity in a 700/710/711/730 author-title access point explicitly naming the creator in its $a, rather than a 740 title entry with an implied relationship to the 1XX in the same record. 

Guideline 20: Unstructured Descriptions 
For unstructured descriptions it is not necessary to indicate the WEMI level at which the relationship is asserted. 

Punctuation and Capitalization 

Designators that Follow Authorized Access Points 
Relationship designators that follow authorized access points are not capitalized and are always preceded by a comma, unless the authorized access point ends in an open date. 

Designators that Precede Authorized Access Points or Appear at the Beginning of a Field 
Relationship designators that precede authorized access points or that appear at the beginning of a field are capitalized and are followed by a colon.

See also: Relationship Designators in RDA: Connecting the Dots 

See also related RDA Blog posts:



Comment by Bob Kosovsky, Curataor, Rare Books and Manuscripts, Music Division, The New York Public Library, New York, United States:
Bob Kosovsky Actually the latest blog entry has a nice detailed entry on relationship designators. I couldn't find them choosing between the codes or the full designation, but they speak of the codes only in the past tense, and considering RDA's general drift to spell things out, I take that to mean one should spell out the designator.

Comment by Robln Fay, Metadata, Web, & Social Media Consultant for libraries & beyond
RobIn Fay yes, I agree with Bob Kosovsky. I would not abbreviate the relationship designators. Now, in theory (in theory), machines should be (should be) smart enough to figure out abbreviations in context, but they can't really yet. The best you can do is program the options and with a fast enough machine it will run through the choices so fast it will seem that it thinks (vs probability). So something like: $e ed. maps to $e editor

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

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