RDA-L

 View Only
last person joined: 2 days ago 

Open discussion of RDA, RDA Toolkit, and related topics
  • 1.  Instruction in the New Toolkit for when a serial title includes date, name, number, etc.

    Posted Mar 08, 2022 03:24 PM
    The original RDA Toolkit included the instruction  in section 2.3.1.4 "Date, name, number, etc., that varies from issue to issue or from part to part. If a title of a serial or multipart monograph includes a date, name, number, etc., that varies from issue to issue or from part to part, omit this date, name, number, etc. Use a mark of omission (…) to indicate such an omission."
    Can anyone point me to the equivalent instruction in the New Toolkit? Thank you.


    ------------------------------
    Noah Sheola
    Special Collections Cataloging Librarian
    Boston College
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: Instruction in the New Toolkit for when a serial title includes date, name, number, etc.

    Posted Mar 08, 2022 07:00 PM
    Hello, Noah, and thanks for raising this.  This instruction was brought to the attention of the RSC a few months ago by Ed Jones, so it is on the radar of the RDA Steering Committee.  I need to do a little more analysis, but preliminarily, I believe this instruction was inadvertently omitted. I hope that this will be resolved in time for the June Toolkit release. Best --  Linda

    ------------------------------
    Linda Barnhart
    Secretary
    RDA Steering Committee
    ------------------------------



  • 3.  RE: Instruction in the New Toolkit for when a serial title includes date, name, number, etc.

    Posted Mar 09, 2022 06:11 AM
    Colleagues

    Some background:

    The instruction at 2.3.1.4 in the original Toolkit does not make it clear that this applies to the title of the manifestation as a whole, and not a specific part or issue, and there is no cross-reference to 2.3.1.7 which does apply to a part, etc.

    The concept of "serial or multipart monograph" is superseded in the current Toolkit by "diachronic work".

    The WEM lock (which states that a diachronic Work as a whole is characterized by a single Expression (which is in parts for a successive diachronic work and is a single whole for an integrating diachronic work) and a single Manifestation) indicates that the title of a diachronic work is essentially the same as the title of its expression and its manifestation.

    So the instruction at 2.3.1.4 was generalized and relocated during 3R to be associated with Work rather than Manifestation. The relevant instruction in the current Toolkit is in guidance on Describing a work ( https://access.rdatoolkit.org/en-US_ala-4d4d3f5b-8d94-3ee5-89d8-241a98366db4/div_iw2_5cx_qhb):

    "Record values of elements that are common to parts, issues, or iterations of a diachronic work."

    This is not restricted to title elements. It applies to other Work elements such as 'subject' elements, nature of content, etc. It also flips from the negative instruction to 'omit' issue-specific content.

    The treatment of diachronic works (and aggregates!) in the LRM is a radical change from previous models, and most user communities have yet to absorb the new approaches. Section 5.8 of the IFLA Library Reference Model discusses these issues. The 3R Project kept guidance and instructions at a very general level until workflows, policy statements, and application profiles for diachronic works and aggregates (which come together as "serial works") are developed, and the need for more detailed guidance and instructions is identified.

    ------------------------------
    Gordon Dunsire
    ------------------------------