Print

Print


And from me:

 

Creators/contributors in stmt of responsibility – we’d try to tie this up with access points. 

 

Related works/expressions/manifestations – we’ve been less prescriptive about this at the moment.  A lot of the material we get where this would be needed are going to be vendor supplied records, so we wouldn’t need to do it from scratch and we’d take what was on the supplied or downloaded record.  We’ll continue to do bound with relationships through our usual parent/child instructions (though this is on  my list of ‘things to address’ this year when we put in a new LMS) and we’d reference previous editions in records where we could easily get those details.  Like William we’re not linking ebooks and print books. 

 Are you able to share what you’re doing on this issue Thurstan?  And what are others doing? 

 

Multiples of content/media/carrier types – we’ve said for resources with more than one physical medium, multiple fields should be recorded.  It’s fair to say that we don’t have vast quantities of material falling into this category though, so at the moment that’s not a decision that will have particularly onerous consequences for us. 

 

Relationship designators – yes, aiming to record these from appendix I. 

 

Helen

 

From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Clifford, Katrina M
Sent: 14 January 2014 12:12
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] Choice of RDA options, alternatives and exceptions

 

Very briefly,

 

Access points – no limit, though I would use judgement for excessive amounts.

 

Related works/expressions/manifestations – I’ll hold my hand up now and say it’s not something I’d really developed any sort of thinking on… It may be more relevant once we fully start DVDs… (have now made a note of it though)

 

Content type etc… I have used multiple 336 for very image heavy books in the art library… (though not entirely sure why, given we don’t display them)

 

Relationship designators – we felt these were really important. Certainly the subject teams responded really positively to the inclusion of these.

 

Katrina

 

From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Young, Thurstan
Sent: 14 January 2014 12:06
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] Choice of RDA options, alternatives and exceptions

 

Some interesting feedback below as regards going beyond the core RDA requirement. Besides access points, it is also worth noting that cataloguers have latitude in terms of how many creators / contributors are recorded in the statement of responsibility. Do people generally try to relate this with the number of access points they give?

 

How about related works / expressions / manifestations? Are people providing access points for those too?

 

There’s also the content / carrier / media type to consider. Are people recording multiples of these in certain circumstances?

 

Last but not least, relationship designators. They’re not part of the RDA core requirement but are people choosing to record them?

 

Thurstan  

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Helen Williams
Sent: 14 January 2014 11:44
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] Choice of RDA options, alternatives and exceptions

 

Hi Thurstan

We’ve suggested that if the resource would require the creation of over 10 access points then advice is sought.  We’ve tried to emphasise that the access points are useful to the user, but that we need to consider the time taken to create the record as well.  For over 10 access points we’d start considering things like whether any of them were creators connected with our institution.

Helen

 

From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Young, Thurstan
Sent: 14 January 2014 11:34
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] Choice of RDA options, alternatives and exceptions

 

Thanks Neil,

 

Interesting that you’ve chosen to fix an upper limit of five access points for authors. We haven’t set an upper limit in this regard so far. However, we have found that its important to consider not only the extra work required in the bibliographic record but also the downstream impact of creating access points on authority control.

 

Thurstan  

 

From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nicholson, Neil
Sent: 14 January 2014 11:25
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] Choice of RDA options, alternatives and exceptions

 

We have pretty well gone with a similar approach to the British Library, including going beyond the core requirement. With regard to the rule of three we have made a decision to create access points for up to 5 authors. Also, we try to record relationship designators whenever it is clear what the designation should be. We have written in an in-house document (largely based on the BL policy document) about these decisions.

 

Best wishes,

Neil

 

From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Young, Thurstan
Sent: 14 January 2014 10:58
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [CIG-E-FORUM] Choice of RDA options, alternatives and exceptions

 

In my last posting I mentioned that determining British Library policy partly involved an analysis of RDA options and alternatives. How have other people been dealing with this issue? For example, RDA no longer contains a rule of three in terms of creating authorized access points; its only mandatory to create a single content and carrier type as part of and RDA record; it isn’t an RDA core requirement to record relationship designators.

 

In all of these cases, we’ve gone beyond the minimum core requirement where its practically possible to do so. However, cataloguer judgement plays a part in determining what could be regarded ‘onerous’ in terms of record description.

 

Thurstan

 

 

Follow us on Twitter and Facebook

 

National Library of Scotland, Scottish Charity, No: SCO11086

This communication is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the addressee please inform the sender and delete the email from your system. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of National Library of Scotland. This message is subject to the Data Protection Act 1998 and Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. No liability is accepted for any harm that may be caused to your systems or data by this message.

 

www.nls.uk

 


Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer


This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.


This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.


Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer