 |
 |
Oh crikey, whole new sections I didn't know existed!! How did I miss this?! (aside: makes me worry what else I've missed through not reading the whole of the toolkit) HelenD. Helen Doyle Assistant Librarian Royal Academy of Dance 36 Battersea Square London SW11 3RA 0207 326 8032 >>> "Slough, Nick" <[log in to unmask]> 10/24/2012 2:45 pm >>> It's in Appendix I.3.1 Relationship Designators for Contributors 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: Helen Doyle [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: 24 October 2012 14:43 To: Slough, Nick; [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] Discussion of record 4 Hi Nick, Where is your definition from? (can't find it in the RDA glossary) Thanks, HelenD. Helen Doyle Assistant Librarian Royal Academy of Dance 36 Battersea Square London SW11 3RA 0207 326 8032 >>> "Slough, Nick" <[log in to unmask]> 10/24/2012 2:34 pm >>> >>> 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