Friday, October 11, 2013

Date of Publication Not Identified in a Single-Part Resource

For Date of Publication Not Identified in a Single-Part Resource RDA Rule 2.8.6.6 says that If the date of publication is not identified in a single-part resource, supply the date or approximate date of publication.

EXAMPLE

[1998?]

If an approximate date of publication for a single-part resource cannot reasonably be determined, record date of publication not identified. Indicate that the information was taken from a source outside the resource itself.

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


LC-PCC PS for 2.8.6.6 DATE OF PUBLICATION NOT IDENTIFIED IN THE RESOURCE (very useful with many examples)


[Source: RDA Toolkit]


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


008


 130424q20072013ii 
264 _1 |a Jayapura : |b Navajīvana Pablikeśana, |c [between 2007 and 2013?]
[Source: Library of Congress Catalog]


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


q-Questionable date. A range of years is the only date that can be specified (e.g., between 1824 and 1840). Give the earliest year in Date 1 and latest in Date 2.
DtSt:


q
Dates:


1966,1967
[1966 or 1967] 

DtSt:


q
Dates:


1965,1969
[Between 1965 and 1969] 

DtSt:


q
Dates:


18uu,19uu
260


Amsterdam : ‡b Elsevier, ‡c [19th century and early 20th century]
[Decade is missing for both earliest and latest date.] 

DtSt:


q
Dates:


1963,1966
260


New York : ‡b Hippocrene Books, ‡c [between 1963 and 1966]

DtSt:


q
Dates:


1983,1984
260


Yerushalayim : ‡b E. Fisher, ‡c 744 [1983 or 1984]

[Source: RDA Toolkit and OCLC]

Incomplete Resource

RDA Rule 3.4.1.10 for Incomplete Resource record the term indicating the type of unit without the number. This has to be applied also for a resource when the total number of units issued is unknown.

300 $a volumes
300 $a volumes (loose-leaf)

LC-PCC PS for 3.4.1.10 - INCOMPLETE RESOURCE


Incomplete Multipart Monographs

LC practice: Do not give LC’s local holdings for incomplete multipart monographs in MARC field 300; ensure that there are item records for each part or unit.
PCC practice: Do not give local holdings for multipart monographs in MARC field 300.

Updating Loose-leafs

LC practice/PCC practice: If the updating loose-leaf includes transfer volumes, describe the extent in terms of "loose-leaf" and "transfer."

EXAMPLE
300 ## $a volumes (loose-leaf), volume (transfer)

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


NOTE: ABOVE PRACTICES ARE "CHANGES FROM AACR2 TO RDA"

[Source: RDA Toolkit]

EXAMPLE OF MARC FIELDS 372, 374 AND QUALIFIER TO 100



LC control no.: n 2012217915
LCCN permalink: http://lccn.loc.gov/n2012217915
HEADING: Singh, Preeti (Researcher in Women’s Studies)
000 00874cz a2200193n 450
001 9305885
005 20130722235808.0
008 130708n| azannaabn |a aaa
010 __ |a n 2012217915
040 __ |a DLC |b eng |e rda |c DLC |d DLC
100 1_ |a Singh, Preeti |c (Researcher in Women’s Studies)
370 __ |e Vārānasi, Uttar Pradesh, India
372 __ |a Women’s studies
373 __ |a Banaras Hindu University. Centre for Women’s Studies and Development |2 naf
374 __ |a Researcher
375 __ |a female
377 __ |a eng
400 0_ |a Preeti Singh |c (Researcher in Women’s Studies)
670 __ |a Concept of stridhana in ancient Hindu Law, 2007: |b title page (Preeti Singh) page 4 of cover (project fellow in the Centre for Women’s Studies and Development, Banaras Hindu University; presently doing Ph.D. on Women’s rights from the Department of Political Science, Banaras Hindu University)

[Source : Library of Congress Catalog]

BEST PRACTICES

372 - May I suggest that372 field be changed to: Women's studies instead of Women's right). Term should represent a discipline not an occupation.

374 - I also would like to suggest using the term Researcher instead of Project fellow. Term should represent an occupation/profession


QUESTION [REPRINT DATE VS COPYRIGHT DATE] / REPRINT NOTE

RESOURCE DESCRIPTION & ACCESS RDA

QUESTION: What code in FFD 008/06 (r or t) and 2nd date in 008/11-14 should be given when we are getting both 1st and 2nd reprint dates and copyright date as well in the publication? 

ANSWER: In answer to your FFD 008/06 (r or t) question:  code r takes precedence over code t.   MARC 21 (008/07-11)--Precedence of codes (monographic items): when more than one code applies to bibliographic item, use the table provided.  According to this table r Reprint/original date takes precedence over t (copyright date).


005 20130921045548.0
008 130719r20112006ii b 001 0 eng


010 __ |a 2013319376
020 __ |a 9788179931875
025 __ |a I-E-2013-319376; 49-90
037 __ |b Library of Congress -- New Delhi Overseas Office
040 __ |a DLC |b eng |e rda |c DLC |d DLC
042 __ |a lcode
100 1_ |a Ramachandra, T. V.
245 10 |a Management of municipal solid waste / |c T.V. Ramachandra.
264 _1 |a New Delhi : |b The Energy and Resources Institute, |c [2009]
264 _3 |a New Delhi : |b The Energy and Resources Institute, |c 2011.
264 _4 |c ©2006
300 __ |a xiv, 321 pages ; |c 25 cm.
336 __ |a text |2 rdacontent
337 __ |a unmediated |2 rdamedia
338 __ |a volume |2 rdacarrier
490 0_ |a Environmental engineering series
500 __ |a "Commonwealth of Learning, Canada ; Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, India ; Karnataka Environment Research Foundation, India."
500 __ |a Reprint Originally published: New Delhi : Capital Publication Co., 2006.
504 __ |a Includes bibliographical references and index.
710 2_ |a Energy and Resources Institute.
710 2_ |a Commonwealth of Learning.
952 __ |a Acquired for the Library of Congress only.
985 __ |e ODE-nd

[Source: Library of Congress Online Catalog]

Some observations on this record:

(1) 2006 published by : New Delhi : Capital Pub. Co., 2006. (copyright date)
(2) reissued/reprinted in 2009 by: New Delhi, India : The Energy and Resources Institute, 2009
(3) Now--reissued/reprinted in 2011? by: New Delhi : The Energy and Resources Institute, 2011

SUGGESTIONS: You need either a 500 note or 775:   Previously published: New Delhi, Capital Pub. Co., 2006.


Query for more than three authors [Answer from Library of Congress]

RESOURCE DESCRIPTION & ACCESS RDA

From: salman haider <salman.mlisc@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:19 AM
Subject: Query for more than three authors
To: LChelp4rda@loc.gov


Following is taken from LC RDA training materials: (Statement of Responsibility)


1.  AACR2 - no more than three named in a single statement

100 1#  $a Skaarup, Jørgen.
245 10 $a Møllegabet II : $b a submerged Mesolithic settlement in southern Denmark / $c Jørgen Skaarup, Ole Grøn ; with contributions by Sarah Mason ... [et al.].

1.  RDA - no limit on number of persons, families, corporate bodies included
100 1# $a Skaarup, Jørgen.
245 10  $a Møllegabet II : $b a submerged Mesolithic settlement in southern Denmark / $c Jørgen Skaarup, Ole Grøn ; with contributions by Sarah Mason, Lisa Hodgetts, Peter Rowley-Conwy and Annica Cardell.


Comments:

#1.  If cataloger applies the alternative (RDA 2.4.1.5) for more than three entities performing the same function, only the first-named entity is given and a summary is included to explain the omission (“[et al.]” is not used):

#2.  Only the principal or first-named creator (in the MARC 100 field) is a core element; it would be library policy or cataloger’s judgment to include additional creators in 7XX fields

QUESTION ON COMMENT 2: What is the RDA Rule and/or LC-PCC PS which prescribes the principal or first-named creator (in the MARC 100 field) and not in 700


ANSWER BY Ana Lupe Cristán, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS


From: LChelp4rda <LChelp4rda@loc.gov>
Date: Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 1:04 AM
Subject: RE: Query for more than three authors
To: salman haider <salman.mlisc@gmail.com>


Dear Salman Haider,
The Library of Congress applies RDA instruction 19.2.1 Basic instructions on recording creators.  RDA is format agnostic and does not provide instructions as to where in the MARC 21 bibliographic record to record anything.  Thus it is necessary to access the the mapping in Appendix D (specifically D.2.1 in this case) to determine which of the MARC fields to use.  Apologies for the delay in responding.

Ana Lupe Cristán
Library of Congress
Policy and Standards Division


046 - Special Coded Dates (R) - MARC 21 Bibliographic

Monday, September 9, 2013

2A CATALOGING IN RDA

2A CATALOGING

This statement is in response to questions stimulated by 2A cataloging done under RDA.  2A cataloging is a cataloging technique applied to certain unnumbered (or, rarely, partially numbered) multipart sets classified as a collection and not analyzed.  Such materials are judged of significance primarily as a group; individual items are not considered significant enough to catalog separately.  Though the set is "made up" because the individual items lack numerical designation, the individual items in the set are usually closely related by subject and other strong similarities, such as title (or parts of title), issuing body, or publisher.

With respect to the inventory aspect of 2A cataloging under RDA, we want on the one hand to make it clear in the bibliographic record the state of the material as it was issued by the publisher but on the other hand to state clearly the rearrangement/repackaging that LC has done.  Thus, the extent statement (300 $a) expresses the number of volumes as issued by the publisher, and a copy-specific 500 note expresses the rearrangement done by LC.

Example illustrating complete 2A set (LCCN 2011308398):

300 ## $a 7 volumes : $b chiefly color illustrations ; $c 22 x 28 cm
500 ## $a LC copy bound together in 1 volume subsequent to publication.
          $5 DLC
Enum. area of item record: v. 1-7

Example illustrating complete 2A set (LCCN 2011311219):

300 ## 14 volumes : $b illustrations, maps ; 25 cm
500 ## LC copy bound together in 2 volumes subsequent to publication. $5 DLC
Enum. area of each item record: v. 1, no. 1-7
                                v. 2, no. 8-14

Note that in this example illustrating the LC rearrangement that is itself in more than one volume, the contents note must be done in such a way as to show the contents of each of the LC volumes.

Example illustrating a 2A incomplete multipart monograph (LCCN 2011308239):

264 #4 $a Quezon City, Philippines : $b Precious Pages Corporation, $c 2009-<2010>
300 ## $a volumes ; $c 18 cm
500 ## $a LC copy bound together in 2 volumes subsequent to publication.
          $5 DLC
Enum. area of each item record: v. 1, no. 1-3
                                v. 2, no. 4-6

Note that 264 subfield $c indicates the incomplete state of the set, only a generic extent is recorded in 300 $a while the set is still in progress; specific holdings are recorded in the holdings and item records.  However, note that the copy-specific 500 note is updated as more volumes are added to keep the information about the number of bound volumes accurate.

Example illustrating the binding together of a multipart monograph for reasons of economy          (LCCN 2011308247):

300 ## $a 6 volumes ; $c 17 cm
500 ## $a LC copy bound together in 1 volume subsequent to publication.
          $5 DLC

Enum. area of item record: v. 1-6

[Source: Library of Congress]

See also:

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

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

Wednesday, September 4, 2013

040 - Cataloging Source - MARC

Add subfield $d {MARC 21 code} when modifying NARs or SARs unless your institution's is already the last MARC subfield $d in the 040 field.

For example if LC is modifying agency, when making revisions to a NAR, we should add a $d DLC to the 040, if that is not the latest subfield present.

Monday, August 26, 2013

RDA -- INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

Resource Description and Access (RDA) is a standard for cataloguing that provides instructions and guidelines on formulating data for resource description and discovery. Intended for use by libraries and other cultural organizations such as museums and archives, RDA is the successor to the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, Second Edition (AACR2), the current cataloging standard set for English language libraries. RDA was initially released in June 2010. In March 2012, the Library of Congress announced it will have fully implemented RDA cataloging by March 31, 2013. Several other national libraries including the British Library, Library and Archives Canada, National Library of Australia, and Deutsche Nationalbibliothek also planned to implement RDA in 2013.

Background

RDA emerged from the International Conference on the Principles & Future Development of AACR held in Toronto in 1997. It was quickly realised that substantial revision of AACR2 was required, which encouraged the adoption of a new title for what had been envisaged as a third edition of AACR.
The primary distinction between RDA and AACR is structural. RDA is organised based on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). These principles identify both the 'user tasks' which a library catalog should make possible and a hierarchy of relationships in bibliographic data. Descriptions produced using the instructions of RDA are intended to be compatible with any coding schema, including the data environments used for existing records created under the AACR2 rules.

RDA is published jointly by the American Library Association, the Canadian Library Association, and the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP) in the UK. RDA instructions and guidelines are available through RDA Toolkit, an online subscription site, and in a print format. Maintenance of RDA is the responsibility of the Joint Steering Committee for the Development of RDA (JSC). The JSC is composed of representatives from the American Library Association, the Australian Committee on Cataloguing, the British Library, the Canadian Committee on Cataloguing, CILIP, Deutsche Nationalbibliothek, and the Library of Congress.

[Source: Wikipedia]


Designed for the digital world and an expanding universe of metadata users, RDA: Resource Description and Access is the new, unified cataloging standard.

Built on the foundations established by AACR2, RDA provides a comprehensive set of guidelines and instructions on resource description and access covering all types of content and media.



[Source: RDA Toolkit]

Sunday, August 25, 2013

RDA -- INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

RDA: Resource Description and Access

Background


RDA: Resource Description and Access was developed by JSC as part of its strategic plan (2005-2009) to replace the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd Edition Revised, which were first published in 1978.

RDA provides a set of guidelines and instructions on formulating data to support resource discovery.  RDA provides a comprehensive set of guidelines and instructions covering all types of content and media.

Details of how to subscribe to the RDA Toolkit can be found on the publisher’s website.

For a brief summary of RDA see the RDA Brochure (PDF format). The text of the brochure is also available in the following languages: Arabic; Catalan; Chinese; German; French (Canada); French (France); Persian [Word format]; Polish; Portuguese; Russian; Spanish; Swedish; Turkish. JSC also welcomes translations of RDA Supporting Documentation.

Work on the new standard began in 2004, and in the same year the Committee of Principals for AACR (CoP) appointed Tom Delsey as the Editor. In December 2004 a draft of part I of AACR3 was made available to the constituencies for review. In 2005 a new approach was agreed on, and the decision made to adopt the title: “RDA: Resource Description and Access”. In December 2005, the draft of RDA part I was made available for review. Further drafts of RDA chapters were issued in 2006 and 2007. At the October 2007 meeting, the JSC agreed on a new organization for RDA, see A New Organization for RDA. A full draft of RDA was issued in November 2008. JSC discussed the responses to the full draft at its meeting in April 2009 and the revised text was delivered to the publishers in June 2009.  RDA was published in the RDA Toolkit in June 2010.


RDA: Resource Description and Access is developed in a collaborative process led by the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA.  JSC gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the many institutions and individuals who have generously given their time and energies to the creation of RDA.

[Source: JSC RDA]


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

RDA Blog : RDA Blog is a blog on Resource Description and Access (RDA), a new library cataloging standard that provides instructions and guidelines on formulating data for resource description and discovery, organized based on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), intended for use by libraries and other cultural organizations replacing Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR2). This blog lists description and links to resources on Resource Description & Access (RDA). It is an attempt to bring together at one place all the useful and important information, rules, references, news, and links on Resource Description and AccessFRBRFRADFRSADMARC standardsAACR2BIBFRAME, and other items related to current developments and trends in library cataloging practice.

RDA Blog History: RDA Blog was created by Salman Haider, a Cataloging & Metadata Librarian Blogger & Online Social Media Expert from India. RDA Blog embarked on its journey to provide useful information to Resource Description and Access (RDA) in August 2011. It received good response from librarians, catalogers, and library professionals from all around the world. It is interesting to note that the first hundred thousand pageviews to RDA Blog came in 3 years, but it took just 8 months to reach another hundred thousand pageviews. At present it is viewed at a rate of fifteen to twenty thousand times per month. RDA Blog is widely followed in social media.

See also:

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

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

Saturday, August 24, 2013

RDA in OCLC WorldCat

For some months now, OCLC's WorldCat Quality Management Division has been planning and implementing a project to incorporate Resource Description and Access (RDA) practices, references, and examples into OCLC's Bibliographic Formats and Standards (BFAS) http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en.html. We have thus far incorporated the changes to BFAS that were part of OCLC-MARC Update 2012 & 2013 (as documented in Technical Bulletin 261 & 262 http://oc.lc/zcWZjW).
We have now begun the larger job of reviewing BFAS in its entirety. Policies will be updated, links to Searching WorldCat Indexes http://oc.lc/5SfZ7D will be added, occasional references to RDA and the LC-PCC PSs will be incorporated, and some examples will be updated and others added to reflect RDA practices. This is a huge undertaking and will be happening gradually over time. Meanwhile, we have

brought together on the OCLC About RDA page http://www.oclc.org/rda/about.en.html links to LC, OCLC, other documentation about RDA, a new policy statement, and a webinar about it: http://oc.lc/2PC2UO. You will be seeing changes regularly as the BFAS Update Project progresses. Questions? AskQC@oclc.org.

[Source: OCLC message of the day through OCLC Connexion, August 23, 2013]

Friday, August 23, 2013

Inaccuracies

RDA Rule 1.7.9 is for "Inaccuracies". It instructs that When instructed to transcribe an element as it appears on the source, transcribe an inaccuracy or a misspelled word unless the instructions for a specific element indicate otherwise.

There are some exceptions to this rule, for example rule 2.3.1.4 of RDA.

It also instructs to make a note correcting the inaccuracy if considered important for identification or access (based on 2.17).

Also if the inaccuracy appears in a title and a corrected form of the title is considered important for identification or access, this RDA rule prescribes to record a corrected form of the title as a variant title.

[Source: Based on instructions from RDA Toolkit]

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

See also:


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


Resource Description & Access (RDA)

Question: In a book the name of the author is "inaccurately" printed on title page, and correct name is given on pages inside the book. How to transcribe it?


Answer: Based on guidelines mentioned above transcribe "as it is" found on the title page in the subfield "c" of MARC tag 245. Then make a "Note" of it in MARC21 500 tag.


From above description we get "... ... make a note correcting the inaccuracy if considered important for identification or access (based on 2.17)".


[2.17.3--Note on Statement of Responsibility>>2.17.3.4--Variant Forms of Names-->Make notes on variant forms of names if: the names of persons, families, or corporate bodies appear in the resource in forms that are different from those recorded in the statement of responsibility and the different forms are considered important for identification.]


See lccn: 2014348021 in Library of Congress Catalog in MARC21 view. Also check the established Name Authority Record for the name printed inaccurately on title page.

Please provide your comments on this interpretations of RDA Rules

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



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


See also:


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

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