RDA and Cartographic Materials: Mapping A New Route, an ALCTS Webinar
Presented by Paige G. Andrew
September 28, 2011
Questions & Answers Log
I. Natural Scale Indicator
I provided one source during the webinar, and someone also shared the name of a person at the Memorial University of Newfoundland in the meantime: Charles Conway, Dept. of Geography at Memorial University. In the meantime, I believe Dr. Clifford Wood is the originator of the plastic see-through version of the NSI and still sells them even though he retired from Memorial University a few years ago. His contact information is:
Dr. Clifford H. Wood
P.O. Box 225
Ilderton, Ontario, Canada
N0M 2A0
Email:
Though I do not know if the email is still accurate or not. I believe the cost for one of his is approximately $15 U.S., at least I know it is in that ballpark.
II. What to use in place of “et al.” if you still want to use the “rule of three”
First, my apologies for providing a partially wrong answer to this question when it came up. At least I was right that one can still employ the “rule of three” in RDA, where I failed was in sharing the method! As some of you shared, and thanks most especially to Paul Frank and others at LC, the correct answer is for you the cataloger to supply a phrase that shares what the situation is, such as “[and 3 others]” or “[and 10 others]”. See RDA 2.4.1.5 Optional Omission, which states “If a single statement of responsibility names more than three persons, families, or corporate bodies…omit all but the first of each group of such persons, families, or bodies. Indicate the omission by summarizing what has been omitted in the language and script preferred by the agency preparing the description. Indicate that the summary was taken from a source outside the resource itself as instructed under 2.2.4. Then turning to 2.2.4 Other Sources of Information, it first gives a list of possible “sources outside the resource itself” to turn to, and if those four things fail, then: “If information taken from a source outside the resource itself is supplied in any of the elements listed below, indicate that fact either by means of a note or by some other means (e.g., through coding or the use of square brackets).” One of the “…elements listed below….” Is the Statement of responsibility area. So, there are two key things to remember here if you wish to continue to use the “rule of three”:
a. We no longer use the Roman abbreviation of “et al.”
b. We still supply this information using square brackets, unless you can figure out what they mean by “through coding”
I hope this clears up the mess I made!
III. British vs. American spelling of words such as “color” or “colour”
I think I touched on this during the webinar, but just to reiterate, since RDA is moving us away from an “Anglo”-based audience to a true international one, it no longer makes sense to require that only one form of spelling be used. Throughout RDA you will see phrases such as “in the language and script preferred by the agency preparing the description” or “in the language preferred by the agency creating the data”. And, under Instruction 11.13.1.2 having to do with adding to a name not conveying the idea of a corporate body, in the examples in two places it notes “Designation added by an agency following British spelling conventions” and “Designation added by an agency following the American spelling”. So, you can see that the precedence for spelling and similar conventions now resides with the local “agency” and is not dictated at a corporate or standard level.
IV. “cm” and the use of the period
I apologize if my example on one slide caused confusion about the use of the period and “cm” in the physical description. First, metric words such as centimeter and kilometer, which we in the U.S. have long considered abbreviated when we use “cm.” and “km.” are actually not abbreviations in that form, again, see Appendix B, specifically B.5.1 Dimensions where it specifically states that metric symbols are not abbreviations, meaning that the “cm” and “km” is a symbol and since it is not a shortened replacement for the full word, in which case we would use a period, we do not use a period. EXCEPT, what visually appears as a contradiction is when a 300 field ends with “cm.” – in this one case the period itself is an indication that this is the end of the string of text (like a “stop” at the end of a sentence) rather than a period used to indicate an abbreviation. The key here is the location of the “cm” in the 300$c string…if it is anywhere inside the string you should never see a period associated with it, but if it comes at the very end of the field then the period stands for “stop” or “end of line” but not “this is an abbreviation for the word “centimeters”.
Other Unanswered Questions
Q: is there a "." after "in" and "ft"?
A:Yes, in certain cases we can still use abbreviations. See Appendix B, specifically the tables B.7 – B.11. If a given word is listed in one of these tables they can be used. Both inch/Inches and foot/feet are in table B.7 “Latin Alphabet Abbreviations” and so we can continue to abbreviate these words. If in doubt, check Appendix B.
Q: can we add 33x fields in OCLC right now?
A:As I noted during the Webinar, yes. I believe Diane also stated that OCLC needed to provide this capability to those participating in the formal RDA Test a year ago so RDA-based fields and codes have been available for awhile.
Q: Is there a good source for obtaining a natural scale indicator?
A:See above.
Q: can we still use et. al.?
A:See above.
Q: If the RDA is international, will British catalogers will be spelling, in the 300 field, "colour" or "color" since it can't be abbreviated anymore?
A:See above.
Q: The example that says 62 X 59 cm, folded to 22 X 10 cm. Why is there not a "." period after the first but the second includes a period (e.g. the terms include the "." it is not a full stop) Shouldn;t it be aftrer both?
A:See above.
Q: Are any ILS vendors that you know of interested in RDA?
A:Answered during the webinar. My opinion is that if even one vendor is interested the others will follow. Another attendee also noted that Ex Libris has announced that their latest version supports RDA, and I believe OCLC’s WorldCat Local also does.
Q: What are your thoughts on the variants in the British and American spelling of "color"?
A:See above.
Q: Charles Conway, Dept. of Geography at Memorial University--source for Natural Scale Indicator.
A:See above.
Q: Punctuation is going be optional??? In 245, 255, 260, 300 fields?
A:In the sense that RDA is not directly tied to a specific punctuation standard then punctuation is “optional”. This aligns with the idea of flexibility and extensibility, meaning that RDA as a framework for data should allow that data to feed easily into other kinds of metadata formats. Adhering to a punctuation standard necessarily slows that transfer from one metadata format to another, and even causes problems in terms of data sharing between something like RDA and web-based content standards. As I mentioned however, due to ISBD being the punctuation standard in the library community for the past three decades at least, and therefore a huge part of the WorldCat database having records that employed that standard, it seems that the best way forward in our profession is to continue to use something that our patrons are used to seeing/reading in terms of a format. Perhaps whatever replaces MARC21 as a new content standard will bring with it a shift in punctuation conventions.
Q: Does RDA supplement AACR2 or is it being developed to replace it?
A:As I noted, RDA is not a supplement to AACR2 even though it developed out of an initial effort to create an “AACR3”. It is meant to replace the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules because of AACR’s limitations and focus on primarily hardcopy formats of information. Instruction 0.2 Relationship to Other Standards for Resource Description and Access lays this out well.
Q: Isn't it {and 6 others} rather tan {et. al]?
A:See above.
Q: Wiill you explain the "Core If" elements again?
A:First, I think you will find reading the document I shared, “RDA Core Elements and FRBR User Tasks” found at: useful, particularly since at the end it presents three “real-life” scenarios to flesh out the discussion prior to it. Essentially, RDA sets the stage in terms of the amount of data that must be provided, when its available, for certain areas of the record, as denoted in Instructions 0.6.2 - 0.6.9. We will be focused primarily on those areas listed in Instruction 0.6.2 for Manifestation and Item since the bulk of information we provide in describing a cartographic item derives from the Manifestation entity level. Each of these instructions starts with “When recording data identifying … include as a minimum all elements listed below that are applicable and readily ascertainable” or similar. So, CORE elements, when available and applying to a given area, are those we must provide at a minimum. IF there is additional data that fits into the same element area that we can provide, that data becomes the CORE IF data. Let’s use the Title element as an example. Under 0.6.2 the first element area listed is “Title” and it states “Title Proper”, meaning that whatever the Title proper is for a given map or other cartographic item MUST be provided in the record. If you are using MARC21 of course that data goes into 245$a. The title proper is the CORE element. That said, we often have variant or alternative titles when it comes to maps, meaning either a second or third title not chosen as the title proper OR if a single title it can also be delivered in a different manner due to layout. IF we have more titles to share OR the title proper can be re-worded (including spelling out abbreviated forms of words in the title) due to layout then we can go beyond “core” and also provide these CORE IF titles using the 246 field. In addition, Other Title Information falls under the CORE IF rubric. See the Instructions starting with 2.3.2 Title and following for this area of the record, and note that immediately following 2.3.2 is the statement “CORE ELEMENT”.
Q: Paige, could you please check about the et. al. response. I believe that under RDA you can say [and 3 other] [and 10 others] but not the latin abbreviations. I don't have RDA to hand but you may want to check. - Ana Cristan LC
A:See above.
Q: How will RDA change 650/651 fields regarding geographic places with subjects. e.g. 651 Golden (Colo.) 650 Geology $z Colorado $z Golden.
A:As I noted, for geographic subject headings/subheadings themselves, and also abbreviating place names, there isn’t any changes. If you need to see what the correct form of abbreviation is for a given state of the U.S. or other places around the world see Appendix B, Table B.11, which remains unchanged from the list in Appendix B in AACR2 for now.
Q: Thanks good explanation!
A:You’re welcome!
Q: The cm never had a period in "Cartographic Materials" anyway so is this really a change?
A:Very true! And that reflects the situation in which the rest of the world recognizes that the symbol “cm” (and others) are not abbreviations, only we in the U.S. who did not “go metric” also are/were unwilling to accept this. There was some heavy discussion on this point amongst those of us AACCCM members who met in Washington, D.C. in the late 1990s to hammer out final changes and additions to Cartographic Materials second edition.We in the U.S. simply continued to deploy this as if it were an abbreviation.
Q: WIll geographic places be abbreviated in 651 fields?
A:As noted in an answer above, yes. See Appendix B, the table “Names of Certain Countries, States, Provinces, Territories, Etc.” at B.11.
Q: what is an example of a map that could be cataloged at the work level & how would this be done? how does this differ from an expression, and manifestation, item cataloging record for the map?
A:As I stated at the time, I believe the Work entity level to be something that exists in a person’s mind and thus we cannot catalog, descriptively, at that level. That said, I also showed which elements in a bib. record are relationships based on the Work level, in particular names of Creators. As we work with a “thing” in our hands or online, the descriptions created primarily are at the Manifestation level.
Q: will most map cataloging records be at the manifestation level?
A:Yes, see my reply directly above this one.
Q: There was an edition statement ("revised...") on one of the examples in the 250 field associated with the manifestation. Should it be associated with the expression?
A:As explained to me, since the example I used contains a statement of revision of a given title (manifestation) then this indicates a manifestation-level piece of data. If one has a different edition of a manifestation then that points to a new expression of the work. Section 2 of RDA, Recording Attributes of Work and Expression covers these two entities.
Q: what would the 33x fields be for raised relief maps?
A:I believe it would be:
336 cartographic three-dimensional form $b crf $2 rdacontent
337 unmediated $b n $2 rdamedia
338 object $b nr $2 rdacarrier
though the 338 might be “other unmediated carrier” with a $b of “rz”.
Q: During the test, some said that "cm" should not end with a full stop at the end of the 300 field unless it was followed by a series statement. Is this the case?
A:I cannot find something like this in RDA and I’m thinking that perhaps that was a decision made exclusively for the testers for some reason. May I suggest contacting LC [Paul Frank?] for clarification on this? And, if you find that this is true please share it out via those lists that other catalogers use, such as OLAC-L, MAPS-L and AUTOCAT.
Q: Will OCLC be able to harvest information from current records to add 33x fields to those records?
A:Yes, and in fact they are doing so now I believe. I would contact Glenn Patton or Jay Weitz to get the latest status on this project.
Q: Do you think we can still use CIA as a main entry for the maps that they don't admit they do?
A:Absolutely! The circumstance has not changed, so I do not see a reason for changing the Creator for these particular maps.
Q: Typically, it has been accepted that one does not create a "work" record. Some vendors have posited that one could create a "superwork" record to cover mulitple works and expressions of that base work.
A:Thanks for sharing this. And, as a followup to this idea, see Chapter 6, “Bibliographic Families and Superworks” in Arlene Taylor’s book Understanding FRBR: What it is and How it will Affect our Retrieval Tools published by Libraries Unlimited in 2007. The chapter is authored by Richard Smiraglia.
1