John,
We are at an admittedly early stage of RDA implementation although we are thinking about catalogue display and indexing as we progress with training. We currently intend to suppress the 336, 337, and 338 fields from display, at least for now. Primo makes its own deductions about material types from the existing MARC fields, so I don't think they would help there either at the moment. I would like to follow this up later when things have settled down though (see also relator terms), including the possibility of adding them to existing records, and would be very interested to hear if anyone is in fact making use of them.
Thanks,
Tom
---
Thomas Meehan
Head of Current Cataloguing
Library Services
University College London
Gower Street
London WC1E 6BT
[log in to unmask]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic standards in UK libraries [mailto:LIS-
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John McManus
> Sent: 21 June 2013 13:14
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: 336, 337, 338
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Now that RDA cataloguing has begun in earnest I would like to ask if anyone
> has managed to make use of the new 3xx fields in any practical way -
> anecdotal evidence would suggest that everyone is suppressing them for
> the moment.
>
> Are you indexing the terms? Are you using them to enhance the display of
> search results? We have neither indexed them nor found a way to exploit
> the greater specificity in terms of the display of icons/formats in our
> catalogue, although in truth we haven’t tried too hard as our focus at the
> moment is on learning how to catalogue correctly according to RDA. I’d be
> interested to hear your thoughts, especially given that the abandonment of
> the GMD caused such consternation amongst (some) cataloguers,
>
> Regards
>
> John McManus
> Assistant Librarian
> Bibliographic Data Management
> Trinity College Library
|