Will get back on this tomorrow - have only just returned from a meeting
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: Welsh, Anne [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 24 October 2012 15:11
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc: Danskin, Alan; Gordon Dunsire
Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] Discussion of record 4
No, that's what's confusing me.
I have this vague unsettling feeling that there is something important I
am not finding when I am looking at the Toolkit.
Alan; Gordon; please can you help?
I'm really confused (and it seems others are too - or perhaps I'm just
leading them astray, if so, sorry) about editors.
Under 19.2.1.1 Can the editor of a book like our cloud computing and
records management examples be a creator? Or is that rule solely for
reworkings of other things (like a new selection of, say, Robert
Browning's poetry)?
Anne
On 24/10/2012 15:03, "Slough, Nick" <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>I think it is very confusing (confused?).
>
>Some of the examples given suggest that "an aggregate work" in this
>sense might be (e.g.) a website created by one person out of existing
>material, or a collection of archival papers, or possibly conference
>papers ... or several other things.
>
>But I'm not sure why these differ in principle from the editors of a
>volume of essays?
>
>Nick Slough
>Assistant Librarian
>Bibliographical Services Section
>City of London Libraries, Archives and Guildhall Art Gallery Guildhall
>Library Aldermanbury London EC2V 7HH
>Tel: 020 7332 1093
>Email: [log in to unmask]
>www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/libraries
>
>Follow us on Twitter
>Read our blog
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>Welsh, Anne
>Sent: 24 October 2012 14:48
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] Discussion of record 4
>
>I don't know. I'm confused.
>
>I find this particularly unhelpful, from 19.2.1.1
>
>"A person, family, or corporate body responsible for compiling an
>aggregate work may be considered to be a creator of the compilation if
>the selection, arrangement, editing, etc., of content for the
>compilation effectively results in the creation of a new work."
>
>And by FRBR. If the editor(s) is/are responsible for the creation of a
>work, are they creators?
>
>Or is it, as it was in AACR2, that editors can only be contributors?
>
>Help!
>
>Anne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On 24/10/2012 14:34, "Slough, Nick" <[log in to unmask]>
>wrote:
>
>>I see that it can be difficult to tell how involved the "editors" have
>>been with the creation of the intellectual content of a resource, but
>>would the editors of a volume of essays not usually fit this
>>description
>>
>>"editor of compilation A person, family, or corporate body
>>contributing to an expression of a collective or aggregate work by
>>selecting and putting together works, or parts of works, by one or
>>more creators. The editor of compilation may also be involved in
>>elucidating the content, e.g., adding an introduction, notes, or other
>>critical matter, of the compilation"
>>
>>And so be contributors with the relationship designator "editor of
>>compilation"?
>>
>>
>>
>>Nick Slough
>>Assistant Librarian
>>Bibliographical Services Section
>>City of London Libraries, Archives and Guildhall Art Gallery Guildhall
>>Library Aldermanbury London EC2V 7HH
>>Tel: 020 7332 1093
>>Email: [log in to unmask]
>>www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/libraries
>>
>>Follow us on Twitter
>>Read our blog
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>>Helen Williams
>>Sent: 24 October 2012 14:20
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] Discussion of record 4
>>
>>Agreed - Very very tricky
>>
>>Anne, what you are saying about the editors having more responsibility
>>than simply arranging work, makes me veer back to wondering whether
>>they should be creators, where as before lunch I was veering towards
>>editors as contributors!
>>Lack of sufficient information to make correct judgements could be a
>>real problem. And I can see different institutions making different
>>judgements quite easily on this kind of issue.
>>
>>Gordon, in your role as JSC rep, is this the kind of issue you could
>>ask for more clarification on, or is it really down to interpretation?
>>
>>Helen
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>>Anne Welsh
>>Sent: 24 October 2012 13:42
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] Discussion of record 4
>>
>>I think this is an interesting point. It can be difficult to know the
>>level of contribution someone makes from the statement on the title
>>page.
>>
>>Many editors in books of the kind Facet publishes are responsible for
>>far more than arranging others' work. They may well have come up with
>>the concept for the book, pitched it to the publisher, commissioned
>>the chapter authors (sometimes offering a very specific brief, which
>>includes intellectual content), "tidied up" the material the chapter
>>authors send and so on and so forth. It's difficult to know where, in
>>Darnton's communication cycle, this type of editor fits. And
>>questionable whether cataloguers have sufficient information to make a
>>judgment in each case.
>>
>>Tricky, veeeery tricky.
>>
>>Anne
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On 24/10/2012 13:04, "Helen Doyle" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>>A 20.2 contributor seems to me to be more concerned with bringing the
>>>Expression into being in whatever form it takes (RDA 20.2.1.1),
>>>whereas
>>
>>>a
>>>19.2 creator creates original work in the first place. If editors are
>>>(effectively) arranging chapters written by other people, then I
>>>would view them as contributors, rather than creators.
>>>
>>>I guess it depends how much original input the editors have.
>>>
>>>HelenD.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Helen Doyle
>>>Assistant Librarian
>>>
>>>Royal Academy of Dance
>>>36 Battersea Square
>>>London
>>>SW11 3RA
>>>0207 326 8032
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Helen Williams <[log in to unmask]> 10/24/2012 12:32 pm >>>
>>>I thought we were at the Work level because an aggregate work had
>>>been compiled which effectively resulted in the creation of a new
work.
>>>What
>>
>>>do others think?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Also, although in MARC the editors would go in 700 fields, in the
>>>non-MARC format, do people see them fitting in 19.2 creator (which is
>>>where I ended up putting them) or 20.2 contributor?
>>>
>>>I was rather unsure about this.
>>>
>>>Helen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>>>Freedman, Vanessa
>>>Sent: 24 October 2012 12:27
>>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>>Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] Discussion of record 4
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Or are the individual chapters "expressions" and the compilation a
>>>"manifestation" (still can't get my head round FRBR)?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Vanessa
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Vanessa Freedman
>>>
>>>Hebrew & Jewish Studies Librarian
>>>
>>>UCL Library Services
>>>
>>>University College London
>>>
>>>Gower Street
>>>
>>>London WC1E 6BT
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Tel: +44 (0) 20 7679 2598 (Internal ext. 32598)
>>>
>>>Fax: +44 (0) 20 7679 7373
>>>
>>>E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>Website: www.ucl.ac.uk/library
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>**Please remember the environment and only print this if necessary**
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>>>Amies, Paul
>>>Sent: 24 October 2012 12:09
>>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>>Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] Discussion of record 4
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I used "compiler", although looking now at the definition of a
>>>compiler
>>
>>>that doesn't seem quite right.
>>>
>>>I think I was determined to select something from I.2 (associated
>>>with
>>>work) as it didn't seem right to use something from I.3 (associated
>>>with an expression), as surely we are at the level of "work" here?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>
>>>Paul Amies
>>>
>>>Cataloguer
>>>
>>>UCL Library Services
>>>
>>>University College London
>>>
>>>Gower Street
>>>
>>>London
>>>
>>>WC1E 6BT
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Tel: +44 (0)20 7679 2204 (Internal ext: 32204)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>E-mail: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>>>Helen Williams
>>>Sent: 24 October 2012 12:03
>>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>>Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] Discussion of record 4
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Looking at the notes in Debbie's record has reminded me of a good
>>>point
>>
>>>to make on this record - in all the records I've looked at so far I
>>>think we've all made the decision to enter all 4 editors, rather than
>>>use the option to abridge.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Also, what do people think about relationship designators here. I
>>>was unsure whether to use editor, or editor of compilation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Helen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>>>Helen Williams
>>>Sent: 24 October 2012 12:00
>>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>>Subject: [CIG-E-FORUM] Discussion of record 4
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Let's kick off discussion of record 4 before lunchtime.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Did anyone else add a related work for 'In series: Principles and
>>>practice in records management and archives'
>>>
>>>I wasn't quite sure how to format this either.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Helen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Helen Williams
>>>
>>>Assistant Librarian, Bibliographic Services
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>LSE Library Services
>>>
>>>The London School of Economics and Political Science
>>>
>>>10 Portugal Street
>>>
>>>London WC2A 2HD
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>[log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>020 7955 7234
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
>>>communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer
>>>
>>>
>>>Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
>>>communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer
>>>
>>>
>>>Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
>>>communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
>>communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer
>>
>>
>>THIS E-MAIL AND ANY ATTACHED FILES ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY BE LEGALLY
>>PRIVILEGED. If you are not the addressee, any disclosure,
>>reproduction, copying, distribution or other dissemination or use of
>>this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
>>transmission in error please notify the sender immediately and then
>>delete this e-mail. Opinions, advice or facts included in this message
>>are given without any warranties or intention to enter into a
>>contractual relationship with the City of London unless specifically
>>indicated otherwise by agreement, letter or facsimile signed by a City
>>of London authorised signatory. Any part of this e-mail which is
>>purely personal in nature is not authorised by the City of London.
>>All e-mail through the City of London's gateway is potentially the
>>subject of monitoring. All liability for errors and viruses is
>>excluded. Please note that in so far as the City of London falls
>>within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or the
>>Environmental Information Regulations 2004, it may need to disclose
this e-mail.
>>Website:
>>http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk
>>
>
>
>THIS E-MAIL AND ANY ATTACHED FILES ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY BE LEGALLY
>PRIVILEGED. If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, reproduction,
>copying, distribution or other dissemination or use of this
>communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
>transmission in error please notify the sender immediately and then
>delete this e-mail. Opinions, advice or facts included in this message
>are given without any warranties or intention to enter into a
>contractual relationship with the City of London unless specifically
>indicated otherwise by agreement, letter or facsimile signed by a City
>of London authorised signatory. Any part of this e-mail which is purely
>personal in nature is not authorised by the City of London.
>All e-mail through the City of London's gateway is potentially the
>subject of monitoring. All liability for errors and viruses is
>excluded. Please note that in so far as the City of London falls within
>the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or the Environmental
>Information Regulations 2004, it may need to disclose this e-mail.
>Website:
>http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk
>
>
>
>
|