6JSC/BL/15/rev
18 June 2014
British Library (BL)
———————–
6JSC/BL/15/rev/ALA response Revision of 0.6 Core Elements (September 6, 2014)
-
Recent posts
Recent comments
- Kathy Glennan on Expanding RDA 6.29.1.3, Laws Governing More Than One Jurisdiction
- Amanda Ros on Adding Controlled Vocabulary to RDA 3.19.6, Regional Encoding, and to the Glossary
- Amanda Ros on Adding Controlled Vocabulary to RDA 3.19.6, Regional Encoding, and to the Glossary
- Amanda Ros on Adding Controlled Vocabulary to RDA 3.19.6, Regional Encoding, and to the Glossary
- Amanda Ros on Adding Controlled Vocabulary to RDA 3.19.6, Regional Encoding, and to the Glossary
Archives
Comment policy
Only current CC:DA members and liaisons are authorized to comment on posts. Others who wish to contribute to CC:DA's discussions are invited to provide input by contacting the Chair, a member of the Committee, or their appropriate liaison.
New CC:DA members and liaisons will be assigned an account for the CC:DA Blog during the month of their initial appointment. For assistance with an account contact the CC:DA Webmaster.
All first-time comments on this site are moderated. We ask that all comments be relevant to the post to which they are directed and maintain professional courtesy.
All categories
Tag cloud
agenda ALA2012 ALA2013 ALA2014 ALA2015 ALA2016 ALA proposal Annual 2012 Annual 2013 Annual 2014 Annual 2015 Behrens Bourassa British Library Canadian Committee on Cataloguing Chair's report corporate bodies Dunsire European Regional Representative Glennan Iseminger JSC JSC rep Lapka Leonard Library of Congress McGrath Midwinter 2012 Midwinter 2013 Midwinter 2014 Midwinter 2016 minutes music Music Working Group (JSC) Myers OLAC PCC Rendall Reser response Robare Rolla RSC Shrader SnyderLinks
There is a clear difference in treatment regarding Core elements between 0.6.2 Attributes of Manifestation and Item and the subsequent guidance in 0.6.3-0.6.7 regarding the attributes of other entities addressed by RDA. There is room for improvement here. But I do not feel that abandoning a centralized, early list of such elements is the solution. The current structure corresponds to the “levels of description” rules in AACR2. It is the essential guidance on what constitutes or fails to constitute an acceptable RDA record. I like the early and clear articulation of “Cardinality.” The main thrust of the proposal is unacceptable.
I agree with John. I disagree with removing the core element list–0.6.2 is a convenient list of all the core elements in RDA and I always use it when I’m doing RDA training.
Bob
Note that the core element instructions in 1.3, 5.3, 8.3, 17.3, 18.3, 24.3 and 29.3 are unaffected by this proposal.
It also seems clear that some comprehensive list will still be available for core elements — hence the BL “link to authoritative source” at the end of 0.6.2.
Is the proposed title “Conformance” at 0.6.4 acceptable? Do we have anything else to suggest?
I disagree with John & Bob. The duplication here is a problem for the continued maintenance of RDA, and it violates one of my personal principles in document design: whenever possible, make a reference – don’t quote.
The current 0.6.2 is duplicated in 1.3.
The current 0.6.3 is duplicated in 5.3
The current 0.6.4 is duplicated in 8.3.
The current 0.6.5 is duplicated in 17.3.
The current 0.6.6 is duplicated in 18.3.
In the ALA proposal for subjects, 0.6.7 is duplicated in 23.3.
The current 0.6.8 is duplicated in 24.3.
The current 0.6.9 is duplicated in 29.3.
Yes, and they’re all duplicated in the core statements at the individual rules. The 0.6 list is a convenient place where ALL the core elements are listed, not split out here and there throughout the document.
Given the current linkages between 0.6 and the subsequent instructions entitled “Core elements”, should the revised 0.6 refer to those instructions somehow? If so, how?
One possibility…
In 0.6.4, 1st sentence, add the following reference at the end (in italics below):
At a minimum, a resource description for a work, expression, manifestation, or item should include all the core elements that are applicable and readily ascertainable (see 1.3).
This practice could be extended to the rest of the instruction, although I think it’s a bit less clear about how to proceed with that (references to 5.3, 8.3, 17.3 and 18.3 are all about entities associated with a resource — I think).
If we like this reference approach, we may want to suggest rewording for the paragraphs in the new 0.6.4 (although the 1st paragraph is probably basically OK).
Thoughts?
I see your point, Kathy. I like the idea of making a reference to 1.3 and other relevant sections in 0.6.4. But I agree it might be difficult to formulate this. I was also wondering if it would be possible to make the reference to 1.3, 5.3, 8.3, 17.3, 18.3, 24.3 and 29.3 at the end of “0.6.2 Core elements” (instead or in addition to “link to authoritative source”). Something along the lines of what we see elsewhere in RDA where we have a list showing where to go for certain instructions. Again, I am not sure exactly how to word this correctly:
a) For core elements recorded when describing a manifestation or item, see 1.3
b) For core elements recorded when identifying a work and expression, see 5.3
c) For core elements recorded when identifying a person, family, or corporate body, see 8.3
etc…
I agree that this is a good solution.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with the proposal as written, but I think this would be a good enhancement.
In some contexts, I think duplication is a wonderful thing. In this case, I agree with Kathy that it is potentially confusing and unnecessary. I like Dominique’s idea for making the references/links.
I also like Dominique’s approach. I think the tidy, brief list of references to the relevant X.3 instructions is a must.
I lean slightly toward leaving the list of core elements where it is, but I don’t feel very strongly one way or the other.
I’ve used the list in 0.6 in training and found it very useful, but a brief list of references to lists elsewhere in RDA as Dominique suggests would work well.
Much as I like this centralized gathering of information, Kathy’s argument has swayed me to let it go. As I mentioned previously, it is closely modeled on AACR2’s early presentation of Levels of Description. Given RDA’s shift away from a composite bibliographic description towards individual entity descriptions though, the articulation of Core elements at the point of addressing the elements for a given entity is adequate. I hope a set of cross references will adequately serve training needs.