RDA models for Provenance Data

RSC/TechnicalWG/1
8 August 2016

RDA models for Provenance Data

 

Submitted by: Gordon Dunsire, Chair, RSC Technical Working Group

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to RDA models for Provenance Data

  1. Kathy Glennan says:

    Recommendation #1:

    I generally agree, although I would have appreciated an explanation of how “undifferentiated name indicator” plays in here.

  2. Kathy Glennan says:

    Recommendation #2:

    Overall, I think this makes sense.

    However, one thing this paper seems to ignore is the difference between general notes (intended for all catalog users) and cataloger’s notes (intended as non-public notes for other catalogers).

  3. Kathy Glennan says:

    Recommendation #3:

    I see no problem with considering the development of these meta-elements.

    However, as noted in my comment on Recommendation #2, I think there’s a difference between public notes & non-public notes, with the latter currently encompassed by “Cataloguer’s Note”. A source of title note may not really fall in the latter category, although that’s implied in the narrative section leading to this recommendation.

    • Robert L. Maxwell says:

      This should be clarified in the scope sections, e.g.

      0.14.1.1. Scope. A cataloguer’s note is an annotation that clarifies the selection and recording of identifying attributes, relationship data, or access points for the entity, and the annotation is judged to be of no interest to non-cataloguers.

  4. Kathy Glennan says:

    Recommendation #4:

    Generally agree. I do wonder just how often some of these properties can be expressed through a VES (vocabulary encoding scheme). I suppose some can, such as “Latest issue consulted”.

  5. Kathy Glennan says:

    Change #1: 0.13

    Generally agree, although I have some concerns about the final paragraph under “Optional additions” in 0.13.1.3. I don’t think this is an addition. It’s a separate recording of a consulted source that provides no useful information. I think this should be moved back as a “normal” paragraph in this instruction, but retain its placement as the last thing in the instruction.

    The question remains if some language should be added to convey that this is “optional”, such as “if considered important”. However, the current instructions about sources consulted include this language and don’t have that type of application guidance. The entire element isn’t core, so it wouldn’t be required….

    • Kathy Glennan says:

      The Optional additions section includes instructions about giving the data in a specified order (source, followed by brief statement). Is a mandated order necessary?

    • Diane Napert says:

      I’m having trouble with the wording 0.13.1.2 “Take information on source consulted from any source”
      Does this mean “Take information on source consulted from any area on that source”

    • Robert L. Maxwell says:

      I also think it’s startling to think of recording the data as an “optional addition”. To me recording the data is the main purpose of making a sources consulted note. I don’t see the point of just recording the title of the source consulted without also recording what you actually found there. I’d prefer to stay with the current RDA wording, e.g., 5.8.1.3.

      I also think it’s a bit bizarre not to include any instructions on how to record the element in an instruction labeled “Recording Sources Consulted”. “Cite a source …” is not an instruction about how to record an element. I realize this is also a problem with the current RDA wording.

  6. Kathy Glennan says:

    Change #1: 0.14:

    By collapsing all of the existing instructions here, but only basing the new instruction on the wording from Chapters 5 & 8, we’ve lost the concept from Chapters 24 & 29 about making a note to help catalogers dealing with relationship data or creating an AAP.

    I wonder if 0.14.1.3 should be revised to give a general nod to this use as well [wording based on 18.0.f]:

    “Make a cataloguer’s note if the information is considered important for clarification, justification, or to provide additional information about relationships.”

    Additional rewording suggestions welcomed!

    • Kathy Glennan says:

      Note too that we’ve lost the a) through d) lists of types of notes to make. I can’t think of a way to retain these if RDA goes down this path. (Maybe they move to an application profile?)

    • Kathy Glennan says:

      I’d also like to see the example box include a “not the same as” or “do not confuse with” example.

    • Robert L. Maxwell says:

      Why are we “making” cataloguer’s notes here, but “recording” sources consulted in 0.13.1.3?

      I agree with you, Kathy, on the need to include the relationship information. But why not the other elements of the scope note as well?

      “Make a cataloguer’s note if the information clarifies the selection and recording of identifying attributes, relationship data, or access points for the entity and is not judged to be of interest to non-cataloguers.”

  7. Kathy Glennan says:

    Change 2a:

    It is unfortunate that the paper does not include a draft of the necessary wording at the beginning of Chapter 1. I have a general sense of what this would say, but I’m not exactly clear on the actual wording/placement.

  8. Kathy Glennan says:

    Change 2a1:

    Overall, I think this revision is acceptable. However, I’m confused about why all of 18.6 needs to disappear. This comes back to my concerns about public and non-public notes. I think the types of notes on manifestation listed here should not be only addressed by a cataloguer’s note.

  9. Kathy Glennan says:

    Change 2a2:

    I would be happy to support the contextualized wording here instead of the approach in 2a1.

    Does CC:DA have a preference?

  10. Kathy Glennan says:

    Change 2b:

    The markup of the Chapter 2 text here demonstrates the need for the (missing) Chapter 1 text.

    In the context of 2.8.2.1, I do wonder how 0.14 relates to 2.17.7 (Note on Publisher Statement). In our current context, the 2.17.7 text isn’t really on the entirety of the publisher statement, which may actually be part of the problem.

  11. Amy Tims says:

    Consolidating the responses that I received on this proposal:

    Recommendation 1: No comments. I, too, would have liked to see more of how “undifferentiated name indicator” played in.

    Recommendation 2: General agreement. “Cataloger’s note” and “source consulted” are both relevant to manifestations and items.

    Recommendation 3: Supported. Transcription is often near and dear to rare materials catalogers’ hearts, and we often add notes related to the transcribed elements during the course of cataloging. For example, if the source of title proper, the statement of responsibility, etc. isn’t the title page, we add a note about where it’s from (see DCRM(B) 7B3.1, 7B6.1, etc.). I feel that note elements that have a formal, defined relationship to the transcribed element is a step in the right direction.

    One comment on “transcription rules” is simply “yes, please.” We wouldn’t want RDA to define a list of prescribed values for transcription rules, feeling that they are best defined by communities of practice and cataloging agencies, but having a location to formally record the transcription rules is desirable. I feel that this is especially desirable in a linked data environment, where cataloging data can be extracted and used in locations beyond the catalog.

    Two questions/concerns were raised related to Recommendation 3, both related to implementation and best practices. The first was whether the “transcription rules” meta-element would be applied to the individual transcribed element or to the entire “RDA Manifestation Data Set” (manifestation description). The second was whether the use of “transcription source” would necessitate noting if the title page was the source of transcription in all cases.

    Recommendation 4: No comments. I generally support the proposal.

    Change 1: 1.13.1.3 — The examples follow the NACO/SACO pattern; is this prescribed? Where would current practices like “Date of publication from Evans, C. American bibliography” fit in?

    Change 2: 2a1 or 2a2 preferred to 2b.

Leave a Reply