RDA-L

Gordon,

I thank you for the courtesy of explaining. This saves me the time to report the oddities as mistakes via the feedback form.

For the time being, I'll just reply to the first half of your mail (I haven't worked out the second part yet).

Let me first point out that in German, other title information is traditionally called "Zusatz zum Sachtitel", i.e. "addition to title proper" and, as far as I know, has always been considered as some form of title information. The definition in the RAK rules read: "Explanations, extensions, or limitations of the topical designation which are mentioned in connection with a topical designation are called additions to title proper." (In German: "Als Zusatz zum Sachtitel werden Erläuterungen, Erweiterungen oder Einschränkungen der sachlichen Benennung bezeichnet, die im Zusammenhang mit einer sachlichen Benennung genannt sind."). To my mind, this is also implied by the ISBD where other title information is to be found in the title and statement of responsibility area.

I've tried hard to think of cases where other title information is not a title. Checking the ISBD consolidated, I find that there are some cases which are recorded as other title information without being, strictly speaking, a title. One case in point is notated music, where the ISBD says: "Statements of key, numbering, date of composition, and medium of performance that appear with a distinctive title are treated as other title information." Perhaps one could also claim that certain other things (e.g., "a novel") do not have the character of a true title.

But this is, to my mind, an entirely academic discussion and far removed from the realms of real cataloging. I would argue that cataloging tradition has decided to treat such things as title information-that's why we catalog it in this position of the ISBD. (By the way: Many other things are now seen as being up to the decision of the communities. Why shouldn't this be?)

But for the sake of the argument, let's accept that there needs to be a distinction between two kinds of other title information. I'll try to follow your guidance.

At least for the present, the German-speaking community won't use the new manifestation statements, so this option canot be applied. Then if I understand your explanation correctly, what we need to do for a large part of the cases (when the other title information has the character of a title) is to record it not as other title information, but in a different element, namely either as title of manifestation or as variant title of manifestation.

In current bibliographic formats there is no data field for the broad title of manifestation. Instead, we have more granular fields for title proper, other title information, variant title etc. If my actual cataloging is supposed to conform to the official Toolkit, then I would have to record these bits of information in the data field for variant title. Using MARC as an example, I would use 246 instead of 245 $b.

What would this mean, in practice? Firstly, catalogers would have to decide in each case whether the other title information they are looking at has the character of a title or not (which in many cases, certainly wouldn't be a clear-cut decision), and then record it either in 246 or 245. If it is recorded in 246, the presentation in the catalog would change and the other title information would no longer be presented where it belongs, namely in conjunction with the title proper. This would certainly go against the principle of representation, as we're supposed to represent things as they represent themselves.

The alternative would be to record it as other title information, after all, even though it does have the character of a title. You pointed out the relevant option under "Recording": "Record an unstructured description by transcribing text and spoken word content from a manifestation (…)." We're probably all agreed that this is the only sensible thing to do, and the sentence "A value of this element may include a value of a Manifestation: title of manifestation that is not a title proper" seems to allow it. But still, it does not really fit the LRM model as titles should be treated as relationships to the Nomen entity.

So in fact I could either try to be true to the model, which would mean additional work in distinguishing the two kinds of other title information and lead to unhelpful catalog displays. Or I could ignore the theory and lump them all together in the meagre and completely isolated other title information element.

I say "meagre", because there is almost no guidance for catalogers here apart from the instruction to transcribe it. As it isn't treated as an element subtype of title of manifestation, there is no link to important basic rules for the treatment of titles (e.g., abridging long titles or the treatment of typographical errors), which of course are relevant for other title information as well.

So, the official Toolkit and the theoretical model behind it turns out not support real-world cataloging, but rather to hinder it. 

Heidrun

Gordon,

I thank you for the courtesy of explaining. This saves me the time to report the oddities as mistakes via the feedback form.

For the time being, I'll just reply to the first half of your mail (I haven't worked out the second part yet).

Let me first point out that in German, other title information is traditionally called "Zusatz zum Sachtitel", i.e. "addition to title proper" and, as far as I know, has always been considered as some form of title information. The definition in the RAK rules read: "Explanations, extensions, or limitations of the topical designation which are mentioned in connection with a topical designation are called additions to title proper." (In German: "Als Zusatz zum Sachtitel werden Erläuterungen, Erweiterungen oder Einschränkungen der sachlichen Benennung bezeichnet, die im Zusammenhang mit einer sachlichen Benennung genannt sind."). To my mind, this is also implied by the ISBD where other title information is to be found in the title and statement of responsibility area.

I've tried hard to think of cases where other title information is not a title. Checking the ISBD consolidated, I find that there are some cases which are recorded as other title information without being, strictly speaking, a title. One case in point is notated music, where the ISBD says: "Statements of key, numbering, date of composition, and medium of performance that appear with a distinctive title are treated as other title information." Perhaps one could also claim that certain other things (e.g., "a novel") do not have the character of a true title.

But this is, to my mind, an entirely academic discussion and far removed from the realms of real cataloging. I would argue that cataloging tradition has decided to treat such things as title information-that's why we catalog it in this position of the ISBD. (By the way: Many other things are now seen as being up to the decision of the communities. Why shouldn't this be?)

But for the sake of the argument, let's accept that there needs to be a distinction between two kinds of other title information. I'll try to follow your guidance.

At least for the present, the German-speaking community won't use the new manifestation statements, so this option canot be applied. Then if I understand your explanation correctly, what we need to do for a large part of the cases (when the other title information has the character of a title) is to record it not as other title information, but in a different element, namely either as title of manifestation or as variant title of manifestation.

In current bibliographic formats there is no data field for the broad title of manifestation. Instead, we have more granular fields for title proper, other title information, variant title etc. If my actual cataloging is supposed to conform to the official Toolkit, then I would have to record these bits of information in the data field for variant title. Using MARC as an example, I would use 246 instead of 245 $b.

What would this mean, in practice? Firstly, catalogers would have to decide in each case whether the other title information they are looking at has the character of a title or not (which in many cases, certainly wouldn't be a clear-cut decision), and then record it either in 246 or 245. If it is recorded in 246, the presentation in the catalog would change and the other title information would no longer be presented where it belongs, namely in conjunction with the title proper. This would certainly go against the principle of representation, as we're supposed to represent things as they represent themselves.

The alternative would be to record it as other title information, after all, even though it does have the character of a title. You pointed out the relevant option under "Recording": "Record an unstructured description by transcribing text and spoken word content from a manifestation (…)." We're probably all agreed that this is the only sensible thing to do, and the sentence "A value of this element may include a value of a Manifestation: title of manifestation that is not a title proper" seems to allow it. But still, it does not really fit the LRM model as titles should be treated as relationships to the Nomen entity.

So in fact I could either try to be true to the model, which would mean additional work in distinguishing the two kinds of other title information and lead to unhelpful catalog displays. Or I could ignore the theory and lump them all together in the meagre and completely isolated other title information element.

I say "meagre", because there is almost no guidance for catalogers here apart from the instruction to transcribe it. As it isn't treated as an element subtype of title of manifestation, there is no link to important basic rules for the treatment of titles (e.g., abridging long titles or the treatment of typographical errors), which of course are relevant for other title information as well.

So, the official Toolkit and the theoretical model behind it turns out not support real-world cataloging, but rather to hinder it. 

Heidrun

Gordon,

I thank you for the courtesy of explaining. This saves me the time to report the oddities as mistakes via the feedback form.

For the time being, I'll just reply to the first half of your mail (I haven't worked out the second part yet).

Let me first point out that in German, other title information is traditionally called "Zusatz zum Sachtitel", i.e. "addition to title proper" and, as far as I know, has always been considered as some form of title information. The definition in the RAK rules read: "Explanations, extensions, or limitations of the topical designation which are mentioned in connection with a topical designation are called additions to title proper." (In German: "Als Zusatz zum Sachtitel werden Erläuterungen, Erweiterungen oder Einschränkungen der sachlichen Benennung bezeichnet, die im Zusammenhang mit einer sachlichen Benennung genannt sind."). To my mind, this is also implied by the ISBD where other title information is to be found in the title and statement of responsibility area.

I've tried hard to think of cases where other title information is not a title. Checking the ISBD consolidated, I find that there are some cases which are recorded as other title information without being, strictly speaking, a title. One case in point is notated music, where the ISBD says: "Statements of key, numbering, date of composition, and medium of performance that appear with a distinctive title are treated as other title information." Perhaps one could also claim that certain other things (e.g., "a novel") do not have the character of a true title.

But this is, to my mind, an entirely academic discussion and far removed from the realms of real cataloging. I would argue that cataloging tradition has decided to treat such things as title information-that's why we catalog it in this position of the ISBD. (By the way: Many other things are now seen as being up to the decision of the communities. Why shouldn't this be?)

But for the sake of the argument, let's accept that there needs to be a distinction between two kinds of other title information. I'll try to follow your guidance.

At least for the present, the German-speaking community won't use the new manifestation statements, so this option canot be applied. Then if I understand your explanation correctly, what we need to do for a large part of the cases (when the other title information has the character of a title) is to record it not as other title information, but in a different element, namely either as title of manifestation or as variant title of manifestation.

In current bibliographic formats there is no data field for the broad title of manifestation. Instead, we have more granular fields for title proper, other title information, variant title etc. If my actual cataloging is supposed to conform to the official Toolkit, then I would have to record these bits of information in the data field for variant title. Using MARC as an example, I would use 246 instead of 245 $b.

What would this mean, in practice? Firstly, catalogers would have to decide in each case whether the other title information they are looking at has the character of a title or not (which in many cases, certainly wouldn't be a clear-cut decision), and then record it either in 246 or 245. If it is recorded in 246, the presentation in the catalog would change and the other title information would no longer be presented where it belongs, namely in conjunction with the title proper. This would certainly go against the principle of representation, as we're supposed to represent things as they represent themselves.

The alternative would be to record it as other title information, after all, even though it does have the character of a title. You pointed out the relevant option under "Recording": "Record an unstructured description by transcribing text and spoken word content from a manifestation (…)." We're probably all agreed that this is the only sensible thing to do, and the sentence "A value of this element may include a value of a Manifestation: title of manifestation that is not a title proper" seems to allow it. But still, it does not really fit the LRM model as titles should be treated as relationships to the Nomen entity.

So in fact I could either try to be true to the model, which would mean additional work in distinguishing the two kinds of other title information and lead to unhelpful catalog displays. Or I could ignore the theory and lump them all together in the meagre and completely isolated other title information element.

I say "meagre", because there is almost no guidance for catalogers here apart from the instruction to transcribe it. As it isn't treated as an element subtype of title of manifestation, there is no link to important basic rules for the treatment of titles (e.g., abridging long titles or the treatment of typographical errors), which of course are relevant for other title information as well.

So, the official Toolkit and the theoretical model behind it turns out not support real-world cataloging, but rather to hinder it. 

Heidrun

Kevin,

You need to help me a bit with MARC, as I'm not completely fluent there (we don't use it for recording here, but only as an exchange format): In which situations would you record other title information in 246? If you're thinking of the cases when other title information is taken from another source of information, then this would be a different criterion which has nothing to do with the „title-ness".

Apart from my general objections to the new treatment and the deviation from a long-standing cataloging tradition, I note that almost all instructions have gone from the element page. As I've already pointed out, due to the isolation of the element, there is no link to the basic rules for recording titles, although at least some of them certainly do apply to other title information as well. Other, more specialized rules, have also gone (e.g., this bit: „If an original title appears on the same source of information as a title proper, and it is in the same language as the title proper, record it as an other title information."). And if the main option only tells us to transcribe „text and spoken word content from a manifestation", I do not find this terribly helpful.

Heidrun

Gordon,

I thank you for the courtesy of explaining. This saves me the time to report the oddities as mistakes via the feedback form.

For the time being, I'll just reply to the first half of your mail (I haven't worked out the second part yet).

Let me first point out that in German, other title information is traditionally called "Zusatz zum Sachtitel", i.e. "addition to title proper" and, as far as I know, has always been considered as some form of title information. The definition in the RAK rules read: "Explanations, extensions, or limitations of the topical designation which are mentioned in connection with a topical designation are called additions to title proper." (In German: "Als Zusatz zum Sachtitel werden Erläuterungen, Erweiterungen oder Einschränkungen der sachlichen Benennung bezeichnet, die im Zusammenhang mit einer sachlichen Benennung genannt sind."). To my mind, this is also implied by the ISBD where other title information is to be found in the title and statement of responsibility area.

I've tried hard to think of cases where other title information is not a title. Checking the ISBD consolidated, I find that there are some cases which are recorded as other title information without being, strictly speaking, a title. One case in point is notated music, where the ISBD says: "Statements of key, numbering, date of composition, and medium of performance that appear with a distinctive title are treated as other title information." Perhaps one could also claim that certain other things (e.g., "a novel") do not have the character of a true title.

But this is, to my mind, an entirely academic discussion and far removed from the realms of real cataloging. I would argue that cataloging tradition has decided to treat such things as title information-that's why we catalog it in this position of the ISBD. (By the way: Many other things are now seen as being up to the decision of the communities. Why shouldn't this be?)

But for the sake of the argument, let's accept that there needs to be a distinction between two kinds of other title information. I'll try to follow your guidance.

At least for the present, the German-speaking community won't use the new manifestation statements, so this option canot be applied. Then if I understand your explanation correctly, what we need to do for a large part of the cases (when the other title information has the character of a title) is to record it not as other title information, but in a different element, namely either as title of manifestation or as variant title of manifestation.

In current bibliographic formats there is no data field for the broad title of manifestation. Instead, we have more granular fields for title proper, other title information, variant title etc. If my actual cataloging is supposed to conform to the official Toolkit, then I would have to record these bits of information in the data field for variant title. Using MARC as an example, I would use 246 instead of 245 $b.

What would this mean, in practice? Firstly, catalogers would have to decide in each case whether the other title information they are looking at has the character of a title or not (which in many cases, certainly wouldn't be a clear-cut decision), and then record it either in 246 or 245. If it is recorded in 246, the presentation in the catalog would change and the other title information would no longer be presented where it belongs, namely in conjunction with the title proper. This would certainly go against the principle of representation, as we're supposed to represent things as they represent themselves.

The alternative would be to record it as other title information, after all, even though it does have the character of a title. You pointed out the relevant option under "Recording": "Record an unstructured description by transcribing text and spoken word content from a manifestation (…)." We're probably all agreed that this is the only sensible thing to do, and the sentence "A value of this element may include a value of a Manifestation: title of manifestation that is not a title proper" seems to allow it. But still, it does not really fit the LRM model as titles should be treated as relationships to the Nomen entity.

So in fact I could either try to be true to the model, which would mean additional work in distinguishing the two kinds of other title information and lead to unhelpful catalog displays. Or I could ignore the theory and lump them all together in the meagre and completely isolated other title information element.

I say "meagre", because there is almost no guidance for catalogers here apart from the instruction to transcribe it. As it isn't treated as an element subtype of title of manifestation, there is no link to important basic rules for the treatment of titles (e.g., abridging long titles or the treatment of typographical errors), which of course are relevant for other title information as well.

So, the official Toolkit and the theoretical model behind it turns out not support real-world cataloging, but rather to hinder it. 

Heidrun

I'm still not quite sure which cases of recording other title information in 246 Kevin was referring to -- maybe something like this?

245 00 $aLibrary resources market place : $bLRMP.

246 10 $aLRMP

But in this case, I believe the 246 is only used for reasons of indexing (to produce what we used to call an added entry). The initialism is still treated as other title information and appears as such in the catalog display.

But tet me come back to my argument that the information given to a cataloger who needs to record other title information in the official Toolkit is less than satisfactory.

For example, imagine the cataloger comes across a typo in some bit of other title information which cannot considered to be a title. The options for „Titles that contain errors" (86.60.19.97) cannot be applied because we aren't talking about a title here, and (as I already pointed out) catalogers aren't referred to this section. (By the way, did you notice that it is now possible to transcribe a corrected version instead? This is at 08.19.72.80: „Record a value that corrects a typographical error.")

We only get options to transcribe something (the wording is rather vague) according to the transcription guidelines we choose to use, e.g., at 75.93.75.28:

„Record an unstructured description by transcribing text and spoken word content from a manifestation using Guidance: Transcription guidelines. Guidelines on normalized transcription."

But for our cataloging problem, this doesn't help at all, because the guidelines on normalized transcription do not include an instruction for how to treat typos.

Now people might say this isn't a problem after all, because everybody knows what do with other title information anyway, and they wouldn't need to look in the Toolkit for this. But what about somebody who wasn't lucky enough to learn RDA in the times of the original Toolkit? Also, I think that a proper cataloging code needs to be exhaustive and must also cover basic things.

If the official Toolkit fails to do this, then it would be up to every community to invest a lot of time in adding all that's needed, but unfortunately isn't there. In my example, this would be a policy statement saying that, e.g., the version with the typo is to be transcribed, but a corrected version is to be recoded as... well, what exactly? You couldn't use the element note on title, as it's not about a title, so you'd have to use the broader note on manifestation.

I'm not saying that adding all this is impossible (although I note that LC/PCC hasn't done so yet... I wonder if they've been aware of this problem at all). But I find it very hard to understand why all this additional work (for every community!) should be necessary, just to satisfy an extremely theoretical and academic distinction between different kinds of what we call other title information.

Heidrun

P.S.: I feel a bit like talking to myself as there aren't many replies. I hope that my mails in this matter have, nevertheless, been helpful for some of the people transcribed to this list, and that I'm not going on everybody's nerves.

Kevin,

You need to help me a bit with MARC, as I'm not completely fluent there (we don't use it for recording here, but only as an exchange format): In which situations would you record other title information in 246? If you're thinking of the cases when other title information is taken from another source of information, then this would be a different criterion which has nothing to do with the „title-ness".

Apart from my general objections to the new treatment and the deviation from a long-standing cataloging tradition, I note that almost all instructions have gone from the element page. As I've already pointed out, due to the isolation of the element, there is no link to the basic rules for recording titles, although at least some of them certainly do apply to other title information as well. Other, more specialized rules, have also gone (e.g., this bit: „If an original title appears on the same source of information as a title proper, and it is in the same language as the title proper, record it as an other title information."). And if the main option only tells us to transcribe „text and spoken word content from a manifestation", I do not find this terribly helpful.

Heidrun

Gordon,

I thank you for the courtesy of explaining. This saves me the time to report the oddities as mistakes via the feedback form.

For the time being, I'll just reply to the first half of your mail (I haven't worked out the second part yet).

Let me first point out that in German, other title information is traditionally called "Zusatz zum Sachtitel", i.e. "addition to title proper" and, as far as I know, has always been considered as some form of title information. The definition in the RAK rules read: "Explanations, extensions, or limitations of the topical designation which are mentioned in connection with a topical designation are called additions to title proper." (In German: "Als Zusatz zum Sachtitel werden Erläuterungen, Erweiterungen oder Einschränkungen der sachlichen Benennung bezeichnet, die im Zusammenhang mit einer sachlichen Benennung genannt sind."). To my mind, this is also implied by the ISBD where other title information is to be found in the title and statement of responsibility area.

I've tried hard to think of cases where other title information is not a title. Checking the ISBD consolidated, I find that there are some cases which are recorded as other title information without being, strictly speaking, a title. One case in point is notated music, where the ISBD says: "Statements of key, numbering, date of composition, and medium of performance that appear with a distinctive title are treated as other title information." Perhaps one could also claim that certain other things (e.g., "a novel") do not have the character of a true title.

But this is, to my mind, an entirely academic discussion and far removed from the realms of real cataloging. I would argue that cataloging tradition has decided to treat such things as title information-that's why we catalog it in this position of the ISBD. (By the way: Many other things are now seen as being up to the decision of the communities. Why shouldn't this be?)

But for the sake of the argument, let's accept that there needs to be a distinction between two kinds of other title information. I'll try to follow your guidance.

At least for the present, the German-speaking community won't use the new manifestation statements, so this option canot be applied. Then if I understand your explanation correctly, what we need to do for a large part of the cases (when the other title information has the character of a title) is to record it not as other title information, but in a different element, namely either as title of manifestation or as variant title of manifestation.

In current bibliographic formats there is no data field for the broad title of manifestation. Instead, we have more granular fields for title proper, other title information, variant title etc. If my actual cataloging is supposed to conform to the official Toolkit, then I would have to record these bits of information in the data field for variant title. Using MARC as an example, I would use 246 instead of 245 $b.

What would this mean, in practice? Firstly, catalogers would have to decide in each case whether the other title information they are looking at has the character of a title or not (which in many cases, certainly wouldn't be a clear-cut decision), and then record it either in 246 or 245. If it is recorded in 246, the presentation in the catalog would change and the other title information would no longer be presented where it belongs, namely in conjunction with the title proper. This would certainly go against the principle of representation, as we're supposed to represent things as they represent themselves.

The alternative would be to record it as other title information, after all, even though it does have the character of a title. You pointed out the relevant option under "Recording": "Record an unstructured description by transcribing text and spoken word content from a manifestation (…)." We're probably all agreed that this is the only sensible thing to do, and the sentence "A value of this element may include a value of a Manifestation: title of manifestation that is not a title proper" seems to allow it. But still, it does not really fit the LRM model as titles should be treated as relationships to the Nomen entity.

So in fact I could either try to be true to the model, which would mean additional work in distinguishing the two kinds of other title information and lead to unhelpful catalog displays. Or I could ignore the theory and lump them all together in the meagre and completely isolated other title information element.

I say "meagre", because there is almost no guidance for catalogers here apart from the instruction to transcribe it. As it isn't treated as an element subtype of title of manifestation, there is no link to important basic rules for the treatment of titles (e.g., abridging long titles or the treatment of typographical errors), which of course are relevant for other title information as well.

So, the official Toolkit and the theoretical model behind it turns out not support real-world cataloging, but rather to hinder it. 

Heidrun

I'm still not quite sure which cases of recording other title information in 246 Kevin was referring to -- maybe something like this?

245 00 $aLibrary resources market place : $bLRMP.

246 10 $aLRMP

But in this case, I believe the 246 is only used for reasons of indexing (to produce what we used to call an added entry). The initialism is still treated as other title information and appears as such in the catalog display.

But tet me come back to my argument that the information given to a cataloger who needs to record other title information in the official Toolkit is less than satisfactory.

For example, imagine the cataloger comes across a typo in some bit of other title information which cannot considered to be a title. The options for „Titles that contain errors" (86.60.19.97) cannot be applied because we aren't talking about a title here, and (as I already pointed out) catalogers aren't referred to this section. (By the way, did you notice that it is now possible to transcribe a corrected version instead? This is at 08.19.72.80: „Record a value that corrects a typographical error.")

We only get options to transcribe something (the wording is rather vague) according to the transcription guidelines we choose to use, e.g., at 75.93.75.28:

„Record an unstructured description by transcribing text and spoken word content from a manifestation using Guidance: Transcription guidelines. Guidelines on normalized transcription."

But for our cataloging problem, this doesn't help at all, because the guidelines on normalized transcription do not include an instruction for how to treat typos.

Now people might say this isn't a problem after all, because everybody knows what do with other title information anyway, and they wouldn't need to look in the Toolkit for this. But what about somebody who wasn't lucky enough to learn RDA in the times of the original Toolkit? Also, I think that a proper cataloging code needs to be exhaustive and must also cover basic things.

If the official Toolkit fails to do this, then it would be up to every community to invest a lot of time in adding all that's needed, but unfortunately isn't there. In my example, this would be a policy statement saying that, e.g., the version with the typo is to be transcribed, but a corrected version is to be recoded as... well, what exactly? You couldn't use the element note on title, as it's not about a title, so you'd have to use the broader note on manifestation.

I'm not saying that adding all this is impossible (although I note that LC/PCC hasn't done so yet... I wonder if they've been aware of this problem at all). But I find it very hard to understand why all this additional work (for every community!) should be necessary, just to satisfy an extremely theoretical and academic distinction between different kinds of what we call other title information.

Heidrun

P.S.: I feel a bit like talking to myself as there aren't many replies. I hope that my mails in this matter have, nevertheless, been helpful for some of the people transcribed to this list, and that I'm not going on everybody's nerves.

Kevin,

You need to help me a bit with MARC, as I'm not completely fluent there (we don't use it for recording here, but only as an exchange format): In which situations would you record other title information in 246? If you're thinking of the cases when other title information is taken from another source of information, then this would be a different criterion which has nothing to do with the „title-ness".

Apart from my general objections to the new treatment and the deviation from a long-standing cataloging tradition, I note that almost all instructions have gone from the element page. As I've already pointed out, due to the isolation of the element, there is no link to the basic rules for recording titles, although at least some of them certainly do apply to other title information as well. Other, more specialized rules, have also gone (e.g., this bit: „If an original title appears on the same source of information as a title proper, and it is in the same language as the title proper, record it as an other title information."). And if the main option only tells us to transcribe „text and spoken word content from a manifestation", I do not find this terribly helpful.

Heidrun

Gordon,

I thank you for the courtesy of explaining. This saves me the time to report the oddities as mistakes via the feedback form.

For the time being, I'll just reply to the first half of your mail (I haven't worked out the second part yet).

Let me first point out that in German, other title information is traditionally called "Zusatz zum Sachtitel", i.e. "addition to title proper" and, as far as I know, has always been considered as some form of title information. The definition in the RAK rules read: "Explanations, extensions, or limitations of the topical designation which are mentioned in connection with a topical designation are called additions to title proper." (In German: "Als Zusatz zum Sachtitel werden Erläuterungen, Erweiterungen oder Einschränkungen der sachlichen Benennung bezeichnet, die im Zusammenhang mit einer sachlichen Benennung genannt sind."). To my mind, this is also implied by the ISBD where other title information is to be found in the title and statement of responsibility area.

I've tried hard to think of cases where other title information is not a title. Checking the ISBD consolidated, I find that there are some cases which are recorded as other title information without being, strictly speaking, a title. One case in point is notated music, where the ISBD says: "Statements of key, numbering, date of composition, and medium of performance that appear with a distinctive title are treated as other title information." Perhaps one could also claim that certain other things (e.g., "a novel") do not have the character of a true title.

But this is, to my mind, an entirely academic discussion and far removed from the realms of real cataloging. I would argue that cataloging tradition has decided to treat such things as title information-that's why we catalog it in this position of the ISBD. (By the way: Many other things are now seen as being up to the decision of the communities. Why shouldn't this be?)

But for the sake of the argument, let's accept that there needs to be a distinction between two kinds of other title information. I'll try to follow your guidance.

At least for the present, the German-speaking community won't use the new manifestation statements, so this option canot be applied. Then if I understand your explanation correctly, what we need to do for a large part of the cases (when the other title information has the character of a title) is to record it not as other title information, but in a different element, namely either as title of manifestation or as variant title of manifestation.

In current bibliographic formats there is no data field for the broad title of manifestation. Instead, we have more granular fields for title proper, other title information, variant title etc. If my actual cataloging is supposed to conform to the official Toolkit, then I would have to record these bits of information in the data field for variant title. Using MARC as an example, I would use 246 instead of 245 $b.

What would this mean, in practice? Firstly, catalogers would have to decide in each case whether the other title information they are looking at has the character of a title or not (which in many cases, certainly wouldn't be a clear-cut decision), and then record it either in 246 or 245. If it is recorded in 246, the presentation in the catalog would change and the other title information would no longer be presented where it belongs, namely in conjunction with the title proper. This would certainly go against the principle of representation, as we're supposed to represent things as they represent themselves.

The alternative would be to record it as other title information, after all, even though it does have the character of a title. You pointed out the relevant option under "Recording": "Record an unstructured description by transcribing text and spoken word content from a manifestation (…)." We're probably all agreed that this is the only sensible thing to do, and the sentence "A value of this element may include a value of a Manifestation: title of manifestation that is not a title proper" seems to allow it. But still, it does not really fit the LRM model as titles should be treated as relationships to the Nomen entity.

So in fact I could either try to be true to the model, which would mean additional work in distinguishing the two kinds of other title information and lead to unhelpful catalog displays. Or I could ignore the theory and lump them all together in the meagre and completely isolated other title information element.

I say "meagre", because there is almost no guidance for catalogers here apart from the instruction to transcribe it. As it isn't treated as an element subtype of title of manifestation, there is no link to important basic rules for the treatment of titles (e.g., abridging long titles or the treatment of typographical errors), which of course are relevant for other title information as well.

So, the official Toolkit and the theoretical model behind it turns out not support real-world cataloging, but rather to hinder it. 

Heidrun

I'm still not quite sure which cases of recording other title information in 246 Kevin was referring to -- maybe something like this?

245 00 $aLibrary resources market place : $bLRMP.

246 10 $aLRMP

But in this case, I believe the 246 is only used for reasons of indexing (to produce what we used to call an added entry). The initialism is still treated as other title information and appears as such in the catalog display.

But tet me come back to my argument that the information given to a cataloger who needs to record other title information in the official Toolkit is less than satisfactory.

For example, imagine the cataloger comes across a typo in some bit of other title information which cannot considered to be a title. The options for „Titles that contain errors" (86.60.19.97) cannot be applied because we aren't talking about a title here, and (as I already pointed out) catalogers aren't referred to this section. (By the way, did you notice that it is now possible to transcribe a corrected version instead? This is at 08.19.72.80: „Record a value that corrects a typographical error.")

We only get options to transcribe something (the wording is rather vague) according to the transcription guidelines we choose to use, e.g., at 75.93.75.28:

„Record an unstructured description by transcribing text and spoken word content from a manifestation using Guidance: Transcription guidelines. Guidelines on normalized transcription."

But for our cataloging problem, this doesn't help at all, because the guidelines on normalized transcription do not include an instruction for how to treat typos.

Now people might say this isn't a problem after all, because everybody knows what do with other title information anyway, and they wouldn't need to look in the Toolkit for this. But what about somebody who wasn't lucky enough to learn RDA in the times of the original Toolkit? Also, I think that a proper cataloging code needs to be exhaustive and must also cover basic things.

If the official Toolkit fails to do this, then it would be up to every community to invest a lot of time in adding all that's needed, but unfortunately isn't there. In my example, this would be a policy statement saying that, e.g., the version with the typo is to be transcribed, but a corrected version is to be recoded as... well, what exactly? You couldn't use the element note on title, as it's not about a title, so you'd have to use the broader note on manifestation.

I'm not saying that adding all this is impossible (although I note that LC/PCC hasn't done so yet... I wonder if they've been aware of this problem at all). But I find it very hard to understand why all this additional work (for every community!) should be necessary, just to satisfy an extremely theoretical and academic distinction between different kinds of what we call other title information.

Heidrun

P.S.: I feel a bit like talking to myself as there aren't many replies. I hope that my mails in this matter have, nevertheless, been helpful for some of the people transcribed to this list, and that I'm not going on everybody's nerves.

Kevin,

You need to help me a bit with MARC, as I'm not completely fluent there (we don't use it for recording here, but only as an exchange format): In which situations would you record other title information in 246? If you're thinking of the cases when other title information is taken from another source of information, then this would be a different criterion which has nothing to do with the „title-ness".

Apart from my general objections to the new treatment and the deviation from a long-standing cataloging tradition, I note that almost all instructions have gone from the element page. As I've already pointed out, due to the isolation of the element, there is no link to the basic rules for recording titles, although at least some of them certainly do apply to other title information as well. Other, more specialized rules, have also gone (e.g., this bit: „If an original title appears on the same source of information as a title proper, and it is in the same language as the title proper, record it as an other title information."). And if the main option only tells us to transcribe „text and spoken word content from a manifestation", I do not find this terribly helpful.

Heidrun

Gordon,

I thank you for the courtesy of explaining. This saves me the time to report the oddities as mistakes via the feedback form.

For the time being, I'll just reply to the first half of your mail (I haven't worked out the second part yet).

Let me first point out that in German, other title information is traditionally called "Zusatz zum Sachtitel", i.e. "addition to title proper" and, as far as I know, has always been considered as some form of title information. The definition in the RAK rules read: "Explanations, extensions, or limitations of the topical designation which are mentioned in connection with a topical designation are called additions to title proper." (In German: "Als Zusatz zum Sachtitel werden Erläuterungen, Erweiterungen oder Einschränkungen der sachlichen Benennung bezeichnet, die im Zusammenhang mit einer sachlichen Benennung genannt sind."). To my mind, this is also implied by the ISBD where other title information is to be found in the title and statement of responsibility area.

I've tried hard to think of cases where other title information is not a title. Checking the ISBD consolidated, I find that there are some cases which are recorded as other title information without being, strictly speaking, a title. One case in point is notated music, where the ISBD says: "Statements of key, numbering, date of composition, and medium of performance that appear with a distinctive title are treated as other title information." Perhaps one could also claim that certain other things (e.g., "a novel") do not have the character of a true title.

But this is, to my mind, an entirely academic discussion and far removed from the realms of real cataloging. I would argue that cataloging tradition has decided to treat such things as title information-that's why we catalog it in this position of the ISBD. (By the way: Many other things are now seen as being up to the decision of the communities. Why shouldn't this be?)

But for the sake of the argument, let's accept that there needs to be a distinction between two kinds of other title information. I'll try to follow your guidance.

At least for the present, the German-speaking community won't use the new manifestation statements, so this option canot be applied. Then if I understand your explanation correctly, what we need to do for a large part of the cases (when the other title information has the character of a title) is to record it not as other title information, but in a different element, namely either as title of manifestation or as variant title of manifestation.

In current bibliographic formats there is no data field for the broad title of manifestation. Instead, we have more granular fields for title proper, other title information, variant title etc. If my actual cataloging is supposed to conform to the official Toolkit, then I would have to record these bits of information in the data field for variant title. Using MARC as an example, I would use 246 instead of 245 $b.

What would this mean, in practice? Firstly, catalogers would have to decide in each case whether the other title information they are looking at has the character of a title or not (which in many cases, certainly wouldn't be a clear-cut decision), and then record it either in 246 or 245. If it is recorded in 246, the presentation in the catalog would change and the other title information would no longer be presented where it belongs, namely in conjunction with the title proper. This would certainly go against the principle of representation, as we're supposed to represent things as they represent themselves.

The alternative would be to record it as other title information, after all, even though it does have the character of a title. You pointed out the relevant option under "Recording": "Record an unstructured description by transcribing text and spoken word content from a manifestation (…)." We're probably all agreed that this is the only sensible thing to do, and the sentence "A value of this element may include a value of a Manifestation: title of manifestation that is not a title proper" seems to allow it. But still, it does not really fit the LRM model as titles should be treated as relationships to the Nomen entity.

So in fact I could either try to be true to the model, which would mean additional work in distinguishing the two kinds of other title information and lead to unhelpful catalog displays. Or I could ignore the theory and lump them all together in the meagre and completely isolated other title information element.

I say "meagre", because there is almost no guidance for catalogers here apart from the instruction to transcribe it. As it isn't treated as an element subtype of title of manifestation, there is no link to important basic rules for the treatment of titles (e.g., abridging long titles or the treatment of typographical errors), which of course are relevant for other title information as well.

So, the official Toolkit and the theoretical model behind it turns out not support real-world cataloging, but rather to hinder it. 

Heidrun

I'm still not quite sure which cases of recording other title information in 246 Kevin was referring to -- maybe something like this?

245 00 $aLibrary resources market place : $bLRMP.

246 10 $aLRMP

But in this case, I believe the 246 is only used for reasons of indexing (to produce what we used to call an added entry). The initialism is still treated as other title information and appears as such in the catalog display.

But tet me come back to my argument that the information given to a cataloger who needs to record other title information in the official Toolkit is less than satisfactory.

For example, imagine the cataloger comes across a typo in some bit of other title information which cannot considered to be a title. The options for „Titles that contain errors" (86.60.19.97) cannot be applied because we aren't talking about a title here, and (as I already pointed out) catalogers aren't referred to this section. (By the way, did you notice that it is now possible to transcribe a corrected version instead? This is at 08.19.72.80: „Record a value that corrects a typographical error.")

We only get options to transcribe something (the wording is rather vague) according to the transcription guidelines we choose to use, e.g., at 75.93.75.28:

„Record an unstructured description by transcribing text and spoken word content from a manifestation using Guidance: Transcription guidelines. Guidelines on normalized transcription."

But for our cataloging problem, this doesn't help at all, because the guidelines on normalized transcription do not include an instruction for how to treat typos.

Now people might say this isn't a problem after all, because everybody knows what do with other title information anyway, and they wouldn't need to look in the Toolkit for this. But what about somebody who wasn't lucky enough to learn RDA in the times of the original Toolkit? Also, I think that a proper cataloging code needs to be exhaustive and must also cover basic things.

If the official Toolkit fails to do this, then it would be up to every community to invest a lot of time in adding all that's needed, but unfortunately isn't there. In my example, this would be a policy statement saying that, e.g., the version with the typo is to be transcribed, but a corrected version is to be recoded as... well, what exactly? You couldn't use the element note on title, as it's not about a title, so you'd have to use the broader note on manifestation.

I'm not saying that adding all this is impossible (although I note that LC/PCC hasn't done so yet... I wonder if they've been aware of this problem at all). But I find it very hard to understand why all this additional work (for every community!) should be necessary, just to satisfy an extremely theoretical and academic distinction between different kinds of what we call other title information.

Heidrun

P.S.: I feel a bit like talking to myself as there aren't many replies. I hope that my mails in this matter have, nevertheless, been helpful for some of the people transcribed to this list, and that I'm not going on everybody's nerves.

Kevin,

You need to help me a bit with MARC, as I'm not completely fluent there (we don't use it for recording here, but only as an exchange format): In which situations would you record other title information in 246? If you're thinking of the cases when other title information is taken from another source of information, then this would be a different criterion which has nothing to do with the „title-ness".

Apart from my general objections to the new treatment and the deviation from a long-standing cataloging tradition, I note that almost all instructions have gone from the element page. As I've already pointed out, due to the isolation of the element, there is no link to the basic rules for recording titles, although at least some of them certainly do apply to other title information as well. Other, more specialized rules, have also gone (e.g., this bit: „If an original title appears on the same source of information as a title proper, and it is in the same language as the title proper, record it as an other title information."). And if the main option only tells us to transcribe „text and spoken word content from a manifestation", I do not find this terribly helpful.

Heidrun

Gordon,

I thank you for the courtesy of explaining. This saves me the time to report the oddities as mistakes via the feedback form.

For the time being, I'll just reply to the first half of your mail (I haven't worked out the second part yet).

Let me first point out that in German, other title information is traditionally called "Zusatz zum Sachtitel", i.e. "addition to title proper" and, as far as I know, has always been considered as some form of title information. The definition in the RAK rules read: "Explanations, extensions, or limitations of the topical designation which are mentioned in connection with a topical designation are called additions to title proper." (In German: "Als Zusatz zum Sachtitel werden Erläuterungen, Erweiterungen oder Einschränkungen der sachlichen Benennung bezeichnet, die im Zusammenhang mit einer sachlichen Benennung genannt sind."). To my mind, this is also implied by the ISBD where other title information is to be found in the title and statement of responsibility area.

I've tried hard to think of cases where other title information is not a title. Checking the ISBD consolidated, I find that there are some cases which are recorded as other title information without being, strictly speaking, a title. One case in point is notated music, where the ISBD says: "Statements of key, numbering, date of composition, and medium of performance that appear with a distinctive title are treated as other title information." Perhaps one could also claim that certain other things (e.g., "a novel") do not have the character of a true title.

But this is, to my mind, an entirely academic discussion and far removed from the realms of real cataloging. I would argue that cataloging tradition has decided to treat such things as title information-that's why we catalog it in this position of the ISBD. (By the way: Many other things are now seen as being up to the decision of the communities. Why shouldn't this be?)

But for the sake of the argument, let's accept that there needs to be a distinction between two kinds of other title information. I'll try to follow your guidance.

At least for the present, the German-speaking community won't use the new manifestation statements, so this option canot be applied. Then if I understand your explanation correctly, what we need to do for a large part of the cases (when the other title information has the character of a title) is to record it not as other title information, but in a different element, namely either as title of manifestation or as variant title of manifestation.

In current bibliographic formats there is no data field for the broad title of manifestation. Instead, we have more granular fields for title proper, other title information, variant title etc. If my actual cataloging is supposed to conform to the official Toolkit, then I would have to record these bits of information in the data field for variant title. Using MARC as an example, I would use 246 instead of 245 $b.

What would this mean, in practice? Firstly, catalogers would have to decide in each case whether the other title information they are looking at has the character of a title or not (which in many cases, certainly wouldn't be a clear-cut decision), and then record it either in 246 or 245. If it is recorded in 246, the presentation in the catalog would change and the other title information would no longer be presented where it belongs, namely in conjunction with the title proper. This would certainly go against the principle of representation, as we're supposed to represent things as they represent themselves.

The alternative would be to record it as other title information, after all, even though it does have the character of a title. You pointed out the relevant option under "Recording": "Record an unstructured description by transcribing text and spoken word content from a manifestation (…)." We're probably all agreed that this is the only sensible thing to do, and the sentence "A value of this element may include a value of a Manifestation: title of manifestation that is not a title proper" seems to allow it. But still, it does not really fit the LRM model as titles should be treated as relationships to the Nomen entity.

So in fact I could either try to be true to the model, which would mean additional work in distinguishing the two kinds of other title information and lead to unhelpful catalog displays. Or I could ignore the theory and lump them all together in the meagre and completely isolated other title information element.

I say "meagre", because there is almost no guidance for catalogers here apart from the instruction to transcribe it. As it isn't treated as an element subtype of title of manifestation, there is no link to important basic rules for the treatment of titles (e.g., abridging long titles or the treatment of typographical errors), which of course are relevant for other title information as well.

So, the official Toolkit and the theoretical model behind it turns out not support real-world cataloging, but rather to hinder it. 

Heidrun

Speaking of things in another language or script, I was trying to find a definition of "dumbing-up", but other than an example from Gordon, I could only find this, in a 2013 paper by Alan Danskin: "Rich RDA metadata linked as sub-properties of less granular elements can be dumbed-up into simple Dublin Core for applications that don't want RDA ("Turtle Dreaming")."

Frankly, it didn't help. Could anyone on the list explain for me, plesae?

Regards,

Alan

Dr Alan MacLennan
Lecturer
School of Creative and Cultural Business
Robert Gordon University
Garthdee Rd, Aberdeen AB10 7QE
T: 01224 263910 F: 01224 263553 E: a.maclennan@rgu.ac.uk
The Robert Gordon University, a Scottish charity registered under charity number SCO 13781

Robert Gordon University, a Scottish charity registered under charity number SC 013781.

This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Robert Gordon University.

Thank you.

I'm still not quite sure which cases of recording other title information in 246 Kevin was referring to -- maybe something like this?

245 00 $aLibrary resources market place : $bLRMP.

246 10 $aLRMP

But in this case, I believe the 246 is only used for reasons of indexing (to produce what we used to call an added entry). The initialism is still treated as other title information and appears as such in the catalog display.

But tet me come back to my argument that the information given to a cataloger who needs to record other title information in the official Toolkit is less than satisfactory.

For example, imagine the cataloger comes across a typo in some bit of other title information which cannot considered to be a title. The options for „Titles that contain errors" (86.60.19.97) cannot be applied because we aren't talking about a title here, and (as I already pointed out) catalogers aren't referred to this section. (By the way, did you notice that it is now possible to transcribe a corrected version instead? This is at 08.19.72.80: „Record a value that corrects a typographical error.")

We only get options to transcribe something (the wording is rather vague) according to the transcription guidelines we choose to use, e.g., at 75.93.75.28:

„Record an unstructured description by transcribing text and spoken word content from a manifestation using Guidance: Transcription guidelines. Guidelines on normalized transcription."

But for our cataloging problem, this doesn't help at all, because the guidelines on normalized transcription do not include an instruction for how to treat typos.

Now people might say this isn't a problem after all, because everybody knows what do with other title information anyway, and they wouldn't need to look in the Toolkit for this. But what about somebody who wasn't lucky enough to learn RDA in the times of the original Toolkit? Also, I think that a proper cataloging code needs to be exhaustive and must also cover basic things.

If the official Toolkit fails to do this, then it would be up to every community to invest a lot of time in adding all that's needed, but unfortunately isn't there. In my example, this would be a policy statement saying that, e.g., the version with the typo is to be transcribed, but a corrected version is to be recoded as... well, what exactly? You couldn't use the element note on title, as it's not about a title, so you'd have to use the broader note on manifestation.

I'm not saying that adding all this is impossible (although I note that LC/PCC hasn't done so yet... I wonder if they've been aware of this problem at all). But I find it very hard to understand why all this additional work (for every community!) should be necessary, just to satisfy an extremely theoretical and academic distinction between different kinds of what we call other title information.

Heidrun

P.S.: I feel a bit like talking to myself as there aren't many replies. I hope that my mails in this matter have, nevertheless, been helpful for some of the people transcribed to this list, and that I'm not going on everybody's nerves.

Kevin,

You need to help me a bit with MARC, as I'm not completely fluent there (we don't use it for recording here, but only as an exchange format): In which situations would you record other title information in 246? If you're thinking of the cases when other title information is taken from another source of information, then this would be a different criterion which has nothing to do with the „title-ness".

Apart from my general objections to the new treatment and the deviation from a long-standing cataloging tradition, I note that almost all instructions have gone from the element page. As I've already pointed out, due to the isolation of the element, there is no link to the basic rules for recording titles, although at least some of them certainly do apply to other title information as well. Other, more specialized rules, have also gone (e.g., this bit: „If an original title appears on the same source of information as a title proper, and it is in the same language as the title proper, record it as an other title information."). And if the main option only tells us to transcribe „text and spoken word content from a manifestation", I do not find this terribly helpful.

Heidrun

Gordon,

I thank you for the courtesy of explaining. This saves me the time to report the oddities as mistakes via the feedback form.

For the time being, I'll just reply to the first half of your mail (I haven't worked out the second part yet).

Let me first point out that in German, other title information is traditionally called "Zusatz zum Sachtitel", i.e. "addition to title proper" and, as far as I know, has always been considered as some form of title information. The definition in the RAK rules read: "Explanations, extensions, or limitations of the topical designation which are mentioned in connection with a topical designation are called additions to title proper." (In German: "Als Zusatz zum Sachtitel werden Erläuterungen, Erweiterungen oder Einschränkungen der sachlichen Benennung bezeichnet, die im Zusammenhang mit einer sachlichen Benennung genannt sind."). To my mind, this is also implied by the ISBD where other title information is to be found in the title and statement of responsibility area.

I've tried hard to think of cases where other title information is not a title. Checking the ISBD consolidated, I find that there are some cases which are recorded as other title information without being, strictly speaking, a title. One case in point is notated music, where the ISBD says: "Statements of key, numbering, date of composition, and medium of performance that appear with a distinctive title are treated as other title information." Perhaps one could also claim that certain other things (e.g., "a novel") do not have the character of a true title.

But this is, to my mind, an entirely academic discussion and far removed from the realms of real cataloging. I would argue that cataloging tradition has decided to treat such things as title information-that's why we catalog it in this position of the ISBD. (By the way: Many other things are now seen as being up to the decision of the communities. Why shouldn't this be?)

But for the sake of the argument, let's accept that there needs to be a distinction between two kinds of other title information. I'll try to follow your guidance.

At least for the present, the German-speaking community won't use the new manifestation statements, so this option canot be applied. Then if I understand your explanation correctly, what we need to do for a large part of the cases (when the other title information has the character of a title) is to record it not as other title information, but in a different element, namely either as title of manifestation or as variant title of manifestation.

In current bibliographic formats there is no data field for the broad title of manifestation. Instead, we have more granular fields for title proper, other title information, variant title etc. If my actual cataloging is supposed to conform to the official Toolkit, then I would have to record these bits of information in the data field for variant title. Using MARC as an example, I would use 246 instead of 245 $b.

What would this mean, in practice? Firstly, catalogers would have to decide in each case whether the other title information they are looking at has the character of a title or not (which in many cases, certainly wouldn't be a clear-cut decision), and then record it either in 246 or 245. If it is recorded in 246, the presentation in the catalog would change and the other title information would no longer be presented where it belongs, namely in conjunction with the title proper. This would certainly go against the principle of representation, as we're supposed to represent things as they represent themselves.

The alternative would be to record it as other title information, after all, even though it does have the character of a title. You pointed out the relevant option under "Recording": "Record an unstructured description by transcribing text and spoken word content from a manifestation (…)." We're probably all agreed that this is the only sensible thing to do, and the sentence "A value of this element may include a value of a Manifestation: title of manifestation that is not a title proper" seems to allow it. But still, it does not really fit the LRM model as titles should be treated as relationships to the Nomen entity.

So in fact I could either try to be true to the model, which would mean additional work in distinguishing the two kinds of other title information and lead to unhelpful catalog displays. Or I could ignore the theory and lump them all together in the meagre and completely isolated other title information element.

I say "meagre", because there is almost no guidance for catalogers here apart from the instruction to transcribe it. As it isn't treated as an element subtype of title of manifestation, there is no link to important basic rules for the treatment of titles (e.g., abridging long titles or the treatment of typographical errors), which of course are relevant for other title information as well.

So, the official Toolkit and the theoretical model behind it turns out not support real-world cataloging, but rather to hinder it. 

Heidrun