Planet Cataloging

May 25, 2015

OCLC Cataloging and Metadata News

ALA Annual 2015

Please join us at OCLC programs, events and Booth 2825

May 25, 2015 01:00 PM

May 23, 2015

First Thus

RDA-L RE: RE: Leaves of Plates or Pages of Plates

On 4/23/2015 5:27 PM, Kimberly Montgomery wrote:
> See the definitions for page and leaf at ODLIS (http://www.abc-clio.com/ODLIS/odlis_about.aspx , note the URL change). Basically, a leaf consists of two pages. If there is printing only on one side, you count the leaves. (You don’t count both the printed and the unprinted pages.) If there is printing on both sides, you count the pages. This practice pre-dates RDA.

It is also possible to have an item that is numbered as leaves (meaning that each leaf is printed on both sides) but there is actually printed on both sides. An example is nothing less than a book by Savonarola (the Bonfire of the Vanities guy in Renaissance Florence)!

https://archive.org/stream/predichenvovamen00savo#page/n25/mode/2up

In this case, the extent statement says “leaves” but you make a note saying that the leaves are printed on both sides. The LC record says “Printed in 2 columns, on both sides of the leaves.” http://lccn.loc.gov/16011686

James Weinheimer weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com
First Thus http://blog.jweinheimer.net
First Thus Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus
Personal Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/james.weinheimer.35 Google+ https://plus.google.com/u/0/+JamesWeinheimer
Cooperative Cataloging Rules http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Cataloging Matters Podcasts http://blog.jweinheimer.net/cataloging-matters-podcasts The Library Herald http://libnews.jweinheimer.net/

FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestShare

by James Weinheimer at May 23, 2015 04:12 PM

Resource Description & Access (RDA)

RDA Cataloging Examples

RDA Cataloging Examples of Compilations, Works, Selections, Translations & Cutter Numbers in MARC 21 from Classification and Shelflisting Manual (CSM), Library of Congress Classification (LCC) - Literary Authors: Subarrangement of Works [F 633] 

Resource Description & Access (RDA)
Resource Description & Access (RDA) Examples

Descriptive cataloging part only - For those not using LCC 

Examples of collections.

100 1# $a Rilke, Rainer Maria, $d 1875-1926. 
245 10 $a Duineser elegien. 
[A collection of poems that has not been assigned an RDA conventional collective title. Table P-PZ40 applies. Use .A61-.Z458, Separate works

100 1# $a Rilke, Rainer Maria, $d 1875-1926. 
240 10 $a Duineser Elegien. $l English 
245 10 $a The Duino elegies / $c Rainer Maria Rilke ; translated by John Waterfield. 
[An English translation of a collection of poems that has not been assigned an RDA conventional collective title. Table P-PZ40 applies. Use .A61-.Z458, Separate works, and use the Translation Table to extend the title Cutter by -13] 

100 1# $a Rilke, Rainer Maria, $d 1875-1926. 
245 10 $a The Duino elegies / $c Rainer Maria Rilke ; translated by John Waterfield.  
700 12 $a Rilke, Rainer Maria, $d 1875-1926. $t Duineser Elegien. 
700 12 $a Rilke, Rainer Maria, $d 1875-1926. $t Duineser Elegien. $l English. 
[A collection of poems that has not been assigned an RDA conventional collective title, along with a parallel English translation. Table P-PZ40 applies. Use .A61-.Z458, Separate works, and use the Translation Table to extend the title Cutter by -13] 

100 1# $a Rilke, Rainer Maria, $d 1875-1926. 
240 10 $a Works 
245 10 $a Sämtliche Werke. 
[Rilke’s complete works, to which has been assigned an RDA conventional collective title. Table P-PZ40 applies. Append date, Collected works, By date

100 1# $a Rilke, Rainer Maria, $d 1875-1926.
240 10 $a Poems. $k Selections 
245 10 $a Duineser Elegien ; $b Die Sonette an Orpheus / $c Rainer Maria Rilke. 
700 12 $a Rilke, Rainer Maria, $d 1875-1926. $t Duineser Elegien. 
700 12 $a Rilke, Rainer Maria, $d 1875-1926. $t Sonette an Orpheus. 
[A compilation that has been assigned an RDA conventional collective title. P-PZ40 applies. Use .A6 date, Selected works. Selections. By date

100 1# $a Rilke, Rainer Maria, $d 1875-1926. 
240 10 $a Poems. $k Selections. $l English 
245 10 $a Duino elegies ; $b The sonnets to Orpheus / $c Rainer Maria Rilke ; translated by Robert Hunter ; illustrated by Maureen Hunter. 
700 12 $a Rilke, Rainer Maria, $d 1875-1926. $t Duineser Elegien. $l English. 
700 12 $a Rilke, Rainer Maria, $d 1875-1926. $t Sonette an Orpheus. $l English. 
[An English translation that has been assigned an RDA conventional collective title. P-PZ40 applies. Use .A2 date, Translations (Collected or selected). English. By date

100 1# $a Levine, Philip, $d 1928- 
240 10 $a Works. $k Selections 
245 10 $a Names of the lost : $b poems / $c by Philip Levine. 
[A collection of poems that has been assigned an RDA conventional collective title. Table P-PZ40 applies. Use .A6 date, Selected works. Selections. By date

100 1# $a Wilde, Oscar, $d 1854-1900. 
240 10 $a Plays 
245 10 $a The plays of Oscar Wilde. 
[Complete plays assigned an RDA conventional collective title. Wilde has his own development in the schedule at PR5810-5828. Use PR5815, Collected dramas. By date

100 1# $a Tolstoy, Leo, $c graf, $d 1828-1910. 
240 10 $a Short stories. $k Selections. $l English 
245 14 $a The death of Ivan Ilych and other stories. 
[Selected short stories translated into English. Tolstoy has his own development at PG3365-3417. Use PG3366.A15A-Z, Translations. English. Collected novels and tales. By translator or editor
[Source: Classification and Shelflisting Manual, Library of Congress]


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

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

by Salman Haider (noreply@blogger.com) at May 23, 2015 10:32 AM

May 22, 2015

TSLL TechScans

Open Access Journals

Open access publications can be viewed as a partial way to ease library serial budget woes. There are many high quality open access publications, but predatory open-access publishers present a continuing issue. Predatory open access journals are defined as journals that exist for the sole purpose of profit. They can misrepresent their review process/board, location and/or affiliations.

Jeffery Beall, a librarian at the University of Colorado-Denver, maintains a blacklist of predatory publishers ("Beall's List").  The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) maintains a "white-list" of OA journals meeting base line criteria, such as being chiefly scholarly, providing quality control through an editor, editorial board or peer review, and having a registered ISSN. Another organization maintaining a white-list is the Open Access Scholarly Publisher's Association. Publishers must apply and pledge to adhere to a code of conduct to become members.

As librarians, we can take an advisory role, assisting our patrons as they navigate the OA landscape.

The following articles provide a more detailed, but still quick, overview of the issues surrounding OA publishing.


Berger, Monica and Cirasella, Jill, Beyond Beall's list: better understanding predatory publishers. College and research libraries news 76, no. 3 (March 2015)

Directory of Open Access Journals introduces new standards to help community address quality concerns. SPARC blog, March 5, 2015

Heller, Margaret, Educating your campus about predatory publishers. ACRL TechConnect, April 13, 2013

by noreply@blogger.com (Jackie Magagnosc) at May 22, 2015 03:50 PM

Resource Description & Access (RDA)

Clarification of Role in Statement of Responsibility : RDA Rule 2.4.1.7 : Questions & Answers

Question on Clarification of Role in Statement of Responsibility : RDA Rule 2.4.1.7 by Omar Hernández Perez:


Hi
What language is add a word or short phrase if necessary to clarify the role of a person, family, or corporate body named in a statement of responsibility? RDA 2.4.1.7

1.  language/script of the resource 
2.  language of the agency 
Russlan und Ludmila : Oper in 5 Aufzügen /Mikhail I. Glinka ; [editado por] M. Balakirew und S. Liapunow

Answer: 
RDA 2.4.1.7 suggests to Add a word or short phrase if necessary to clarify the role of a person, family, or corporate body named in a statement of responsibility. Also it prescribes to indicate that the information was taken from a source outside the resource itself.

The Addition made should be in the language/script of resource in which title proper is given.


There is one RDA Rule 2.2.3.1 for "Preferred Sources of Information in Different Languages or Scripts" : If the resource contains preferred sources of information in more than one language or script, use as the preferred source of information (in this order of preference). Under this six points are mentioned from a-f in the order of preference. 
Under this the first option itself is: a) the source in the language or script that corresponds to the language or script of the content of the resource ... ...
This rule can be interpreted and applied to the asked question.



Note: RDA Blog users please evaluate this answer and express your opinions about this question/answer.

[Revised 2015-04-22]

by Salman Haider (noreply@blogger.com) at May 22, 2015 07:25 AM

May 21, 2015

First Thus

ACAT AAACR to RDA Conversion

On 20/04/2015 23.30, Gene Fieg wrote:
> I think this gets back the whole issue of abbreviations. Which is more > understandable to a patron, anglophone or not: 3rd edition, 3rd ed., or > third edition? Our goal should be to communicate the WEMI as clearly as > possible to the patron.

I just figure that if someone is hopelessly confused by 3rd edition, 3rd ed., or third edition, they’ll never be able to figure out 95% of the rest of a bibliographic record. The edition is relatively simple compared to what a series is, how subjects work, finding out what is the “correct” form of a corporate body, and so on. I think the *form* of the edition is unimportant to the users, who– it is true–very definitely want edition information, but they see all kinds of forms an edition statement can take in the real world. They can figure this out.

The real difficulty is for machines: a human can easily see that these variant “textual strings” all represent the same concept (3rd edition), but these are the sorts of practices that drive computers *crazy*! If one of the purposes is to get computers to merge/sort records in various ways, and one way will be by using edition information (I, for one, hope they will use edition information!), then what is most important parts is to have consistent data. For an extreme example, programmers would love an “edition” field, and catalogers would just add, e.g.: 3
or whatever the number happens to be. In fact, this seems to be how Amazon does it. Take a look at http://www.amazon.com/Foundations-Mathematics-Ian-Stewart/dp/019870643X/, and we see: “Publisher: Oxford University Press; 2 edition (May 1, 2015)” but if you “Look inside” the book itself it is all written out “Second edition”.

Doing it the Amazon way would make it childishly simple for the programmers to work with, but of course, catalogers know that edition statements can be a *lot* more complicated than that. Catalogers need at least some kind of freedom to input that complexity.

But still, consistency is absolutely vital if computers are going to work their magic by merging records and so on. This is one of the basic complaints I have had with RDA: for a long time now, the catalog record has provided certain areas of consistency, and in the case of editions, this type of consistency goes back much longer than most other parts of the record. (As an example, here is the “Catalogue of Books in the Mercantile Library, of the City of New York” (1866) found in Google Books, with the search for “ed.” http://bit.ly/1HPV9YR. Scroll through the results, and in with people being the editors, you’ll see lots of edition statements that use the abbreviation)

RDA breaks that consistency with edition statements and as a result, actually *creates* problems where they did not exist before. Merging on edition statements, which can vary *far more widely* with RDA, is only one example of what happens when you break that consistency. In fact, I don’t know how merging could be done now. Today, the computer will have to be programmed to “know” that “3rd edition, 3rd ed., 3d ed. third edition” and probably several more text strings, are actually the same. And catalogers know there are lots more variations than that. Earlier, there were at least numbers to merge on, and consistently input abbreviations. Now, it’s gone, and the complexity goes way up.

This goes for most other parts of the bibliographic record too.

James Weinheimer weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com First Thus http://blog.jweinheimer.net First Thus Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus Cooperative Cataloging Rules http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ Cataloging Matters Podcasts http://blog.jweinheimer.net/cataloging-matters-podcasts

FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestShare

by James Weinheimer at May 21, 2015 12:29 PM

Mod Librarian

5 Things Thursday: Governance, DAM, #Twitter Metadata

Here are five more things:

  1. DAM and the Art of Governance from the Librarian Tips for DAM Managers series.
  2. Are hashtags metadata? When Metadata Comes to Twitter.
  3. Digital asset management best practices for heritage.
  4. Smith College digital asset management IT and libraries.
  5. Nice article on Controlled Vocabulary.

View On WordPress

May 21, 2015 11:01 AM

May 20, 2015

TSLL TechScans

Linked Data URIs and Libraries: The Story So Far

The linked data movement is a relatively new trend on the web that, among other things, enables diverse data providers to publish their content in an interoperable, machine-understandable way. Libraries around the world appear to be embracing linked data technologies that render their content more accessible to both humans and computers. This paper focuses on linked data URIs that refer to authority data.  The specific MARC fields that are capable of hosting linked data information are identified. Additionally, seven major national libraries are examined to determine to what degree they have adopted the fundamental linked data principles.

From  http://www.dlib.org/dlib/may15/papadakis/05papadakis.html
D-Lib Magazine, May/June 2015

by noreply@blogger.com (Marlene Bubrick) at May 20, 2015 05:14 PM

Resource Description & Access (RDA)

May 18, 2015

Metadata Matters (Diane Hillmann)

What’s up with this Jane-athon stuff?

The RDA Development Team started talking about developing training for the ‘new’ RDA, with a focus on the vocabularies, in the fall of 2014. We had some notion of what we didn’t want to do: we didn’t want yet another ‘sage on the stage’ event, we wanted to re-purpose the ‘hackathon’ model from a software focus to data creation (including a major hands-on aspect), and we wanted to demonstrate what RDA looked like (and could do) in a native RDA environment, without reference to MARC.

This was a tall order. Using RIMMF for the data creation was a no-brainer: the developers had been using the RDA Registry to feed new vocabulary elements into their their software (effectively becoming the RDA Registry’s first client), and were fully committed to FRBR. Deborah Fritz had been training librarians and other on RIMMF for years, gathering feedback and building enthusiasm. It was Deborah who came up with the Jane-athon idea, and the RDA Development group took it and ran with it. Using the Jane Austen theme was a brilliant part of Deborah’s idea. Everybody knows about JA, and the number of spin offs, rip-offs and re-tellings of the novels (in many media formats) made her work a natural for examining why RDA and FRBR make sense.

One goal stated everywhere in the marketing materials for our first Jane outing was that we wanted people to have fun. All of us have been part of the audience and on the dais for many information sessions, for RDA and other issues, and neither position has ever been much fun, useful as the sessions might have been. The same goes for webinars, which, as they’ve developed in library-land tend to be dry, boring, and completely bereft of human interaction. And there was a lot of fun at that first Jane-athon–I venture to say that 90% of the folks in the room left with smiles and thanks. We got an amazing response to our evaluation survey, and the preponderance of responses were expansive, positive, and clearly designed to help the organizers to do better the next time. The various folks from ALA Publishing who stood at the back and watched the fun were absolutely amazed at the noise, the laughter, and the collaboration in evidence.

No small part of the success of Jane-athon 1 rested with the team leaders at each table, and the coaches going from table to table helping out with puzzling issues, ensuring that participants were able to create data using RIMMF that could be aggregated for examination later in the day.

From the beginning we thought of Jane 1 as the first of many. In the first flush of success as participants signed up and enthusiasm built, we talked publicly about making it possible to do local Jane-athons, but we realized that our small group would have difficulty doing smaller events with less expertise on site to the same standard we set at Jane-athon 1. We had to do a better job in thinking through the local expansion and how to ensure that local participants get the same (or similar) value from the experience before responding to requests.

As a step in that direction CILIP in the UK is planning an Ag-athon on May 22, 2015 which will add much to the collective experience as well as to the data store that began with the first Jane-athon and will be an increasingly important factor as we work through the issues of sharing data.

The collection and storage of the Jane-athon data was envisioned prior to the first event, and the R-Balls site was designed as a place to store and share RIMMF-based information. Though a valuable step towards shareable RDA data, rballs have their limits. The data itself can be curated by human experts or available with warts, depending on the needs of the user of the data. For the longer term, RIMMF can output RDF statements based on the rball info, and a triple store is in development for experimentation and exploration. There are plans to improve the visualization of this data and demonstrate its use at Jane-athon 2 in San Francisco, which will include more about RDA and linked data, as well as what the created data can be used for, in particular, for new and improved services.

So, what are the implications of the first Jane-athon’s success for libraries interested in linked data? One of the biggest misunderstandings floating around libraryland in linked data conversations is that it’s necessary to make one and only one choice of format, and eschew all others (kind of like saying that everyone has to speak English to participate in LOD). This is not just incorrect, it’s also dangerous. In the MARC era, there was truly no choice for libraries–to participate in record sharing they had to use MARC. But the technology has changed, and rapidly evolving semantic mapping strategies [see: dcpapers.dublincore.org/pubs/article/view/3622] will enable libraries to use the most appropriate schemas and tools for creating data to be used in their local context, and others for distributing that data to partners, collaborators, or the larger world.

Another widely circulated meme is that RDA/FRBR is ‘too complicated’ for what libraries need; we’re encouraged to ‘simplify, simplify’ and assured that we’ll still be able to do what we need. Hmm, well, simplification is an attractive idea, until one remembers that the environment we work in, with evolving carriers, versions, and creative ideas for marketing materials to libraries is getting more complex than ever. Without the specificity to describe what we have (or have access to), we push the problem out to our users to figure out on their own. Libraries have always tried to be smarter than that, and that requires “smart” , not “dumb”, metadata.

Of course the corollary to the ‘too complicated’ argument lies the notion that a) we’re not smart enough to figure out how to do RDA and FRBR right, and b) complex means more expensive. I refuse to give space to a), but b) is an important consideration. I urge you to take a look at the Jane-athon data and consider the fact that Jane Austen wrote very few novels, but they’ve been re-published with various editions, versions and commentaries for almost two centuries. Once you add the ‘based on’, ‘inspired by’ and the enormous trail created by those trying to use Jane’s popularity to sell stuff (“Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters” is a favorite of mine), you can see the problem. Think of a pyramid with a very expansive base, and a very sharp point, and consider that the works that everything at the bottom wants to link to don’t require repeating the description of each novel every time in RDA. And we’re not adding notes to descriptions that are based on the outdated notion that the only use for information about the relationship between “Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters” and Jane’s “Sense and Sensibility” is a human being who looks far enough into the description to read the note.

One of the big revelations for most Jane-athon participants was to see how well RIMMF translated legacy MARC records into RDA, with links between the WEM levels and others to the named agents in the record. It’s very slick, and most importantly, not lossy. Consider that RIMMF also outputs in both MARC and RDF–and you see something of a missing link (if not the Golden Gate Bridge :-) .

Not to say there aren’t issues to be considered with RDA as with other options. There are certainly those, and they’ll be discussed at the Jane-In in San Francisco as well as at the RDA Forum on the following day, which will focus on current RDA upgrades and the future of RDA and cataloging. (More detailed information on the Forum will be available shortly).

Don’t miss the fun, take a look at the details and then go ahead and register. And catalogers, try your best to entice your developers to come too. We’ll set up a table for them, and you’ll improve the conversation level at home considerably!

by Diane Hillmann at May 18, 2015 03:13 PM

May 16, 2015

Resource Description & Access (RDA)

Edition in RDA & AACR2 Cataloging with MARC 21 Examples

Resource Description & Access RDA

Edition

  • Designation of edition and designation of a named revision of an edition are CORE ELEMENTS. Other sub-elements of edition statements are optional.
An edition statement is a statement identifying the edition to which a resource belongs. An edition statement may also include a designation of a named revision of an edition. An edition statement may also include a statement or statements of responsibility relating to the edition and/or to a named revision of an edition.

This data is recorded in MARC field 250

  • Look at instruction 2.5.1
Transcribe an edition statement as it appears on the source of information. Apply the general guidelines on transcription given under 1.7.  Following various LCPS in 1.7 and 1.8 leads you to always transcribe the data as found.  Appendix B4 says, “For transcribed elements, use only those abbreviations found in the sources of information for the element.”

Examples:
Source reads:   Third revised edition
AACR2 says:  250 $a 3rd rev. ed.
RDA says:       250 $a Third revised edition

Source reads:   2nd enlarged ed., revised
AACR2 says:  2nd enl. ed., rev.           
RDA says:       2nd enlarged ed., revised


Recording Changes in Edition Statement (2.20.4.5)

·         If edition statements differ from one part of a multipart monograph to another, make a note if the difference is considered to be important for identification or access.

  • For serials, if an edition statement is added, deleted, or changed on a subsequent issue or part of a serial, make a note if the change is important for identification or access.
  • For integrating resources, change the edition statement to reflect the current iteration if the change does not require a new description.  However, if the earlier edition statement is considered to be important, make a note for the earlier statement. 

[Source: Library of Congress]


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

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

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

by Salman Haider (noreply@blogger.com) at May 16, 2015 09:15 AM

May 14, 2015

Mod Librarian

5 Things Thursday: DAM - #DAMNY, Librarian Tips and More

In honor of last week’s DAMNY conference, here are five things:

  1. How the AP uses rights metadata by Stuart Myles.
  2. Standards and metadata for DAM by Lisa Grimm.
  3. An interview with Heather Goodnow from Gaylord Archival on becoming a DAMster.
  4. More DAM knowledge from Travis McElroy from Ivie and Associates, a DAM Guru.
  5. Get a Certificate of DAM from the DAM Foundation.

View On WordPress

May 14, 2015 11:06 AM

May 13, 2015

First Thus

BIBFRAME BIBFRAME implementation

On 4/13/2015 3:19 PM, Kathleen Lamantia wrote:
> BIBFRAME needs to be rigorously tested and studied to see if it delivers > on its promise.

I agree that testing needs to be done, but still, I think that creating a SPARQL endpoint(s) to provide developers who want to use library catalog data in BIBFRAME, can have only positive benefits.

Of course, there are pitfalls. There are no guarantees that developers will want to use our data; they have gotten along without our data for a long time and may see no need for it. Or it may turn out that the developers will not be able to create anything that their own public(s) will find useful. I’ve mentioned some others in earlier posts.

The answers to such practical questions are completely unknown and no research has been done to find out, at least to my knowledge. Still, I will grant that the only way to know if developers will want to use our information for their own purposes is to provide it to them in a format they can use. Setting up a SPARQL endpoint is not all that expensive–much less expensive than switching to RDA for instance or retooling our catalogs for FRBR-type structures. So I am all for BIBFRAME. I just think it should have been step 1 or 2 of the changes in cataloging and catalogs instead of one of the last, but that is “water under the bridge”.

As far as the “innards” of library catalogs changing substantially, and changing into directions of BIBFRAME, I see no reason why that has to happen–at least, not for a long time. Records can be created and maintained in our current catalogs just as they are today–maybe some minor changes will be needed occasionally–and then exported to whatever SPARQL endpoints the library chooses.

If the idea is to create more FRBR-like structures so that the author entity will be linked to the work entity, the work entity to the expression entity … (it all reminds me of that old song “Dry Bones” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYeQUXXYvK0), then in that case, there probably would be major expenses.

James Weinheimer weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com
First Thus http://blog.jweinheimer.net
First Thus Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus
Personal Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/james.weinheimer.35 Google+ https://plus.google.com/u/0/+JamesWeinheimer
Cooperative Cataloging Rules http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Cataloging Matters Podcasts http://blog.jweinheimer.net/cataloging-matters-podcasts The Library Herald http://libnews.jweinheimer.net/

FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestShare

by James Weinheimer at May 13, 2015 05:07 PM

OCLC Cataloging and Metadata News

Institution Record questions, answers and next steps

We will be hosting this webinar to answer questions and provide guidance to those who elect to migrate their Institution Records to Local Bibliographic Data.

May 13, 2015 12:00 PM