Dear Mr. Morimoto, This looks great! Thank you! since I haven't started using RDA, I may have more questions, hope you don't mind.
For your file S2-pt 1, for slide 3, do you mind to spell out WEMI since you have enough space? I hope the slides will be available after workshop on CTP web site. If I have to think what it stands for, others will do, especially if folks not familiar with RDA structure/organization alignment to FRBR. Just a thought. Or should we mention it in intro session trainers may refer them using their initial at the later session, i.e. WEMI, or WE, MI...?
Slide 10, I think there is registered vocabulary list for three types which new terms can be proposed via RDA fast track, I believe, if I am correct, you may want to mention it here , or you probably have it in your note area already.
Slide 12 right side on LCRI, does it mean to be LCPS?
That's for now. I may have more as I finish reading tonight. --Shi
Slide 25: LC has a training slide on compilations at: http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/Refresher_training_dec_2011.html, wonder if it is included in reference or pointed out when discuss this slide.
Slide 41: Here use ME refers to main entry could be confused with WE for work level/expression level, maybe better to spell it out.
It's really good especially with CJK examples to illustrate the differences. I really appreciate all you did. I am sure that I will have to refer and consult this training handout when my library start to implementing RDA. There are few slides mentioned about punctuations, some are very ridiculous, like the period in slide 5. Barbara mentioned that JSC is working with ISBD, hope this kind non-sense change can be modified. Thanks. --shi
RDA Refresher Training at LC is not so much of comparison between AACR2/LCRI and RDA/LCPS. The topic of Session 2 is comparison. RDA Refresher Training at LC may be mentioned in another session.
Dear Mr. Morimoto, I really like the way you presented. I will re-read Charlene's file to see if the format should be adjusted to be the same. I will add notes below. I read some and accidentally close this window and lost my note last night, so I will re-do it. Add some in between my other duties.
slide 5, I have example that a conference name includes frequency for the instruction mentioned in this slide. It's 2nd example I added: 台北當代水墨...展. -->台北當代水墨雙年展 if you want to use it.
slide 15, RDA side, would it possible to show what it would if dates unknown under the RDA instruction, pretend that his bio date of 1872-1944 were unknown?
slide 17, general comments on place name, I would not know Izomu is a place name when it appears as part of church's name, I actually feel the heading formulated per LCRI is more helpful.
Just a few comments for session 2, part 1:
1) For slide 11, is the 546 note in RDA record different from AACR2 record? If yes, what RDA rule could justify it?
2) For slide 38, you may add a brief note "If none of the sources listed above bears a title, use as the preferred source of information another source within the resource that bears a title ..." in RDA 2.2.2.2. Just in case these three options not
present on piece...
3) For slide 43, it's unclear to me if 500 and 775 need to present together. According to LC class, one example has 500 note and the other has 775 with a note explaining 775 is optional. Is 500 note mandatory? We know there is no difference in edition statement between AACR2 and RDA, but it's a primary element to indicate different edition, perhaps briefly mentioned...
That's it for now.
Slide 11: In this particular case, an AACR2 record may not have under field 245 the parallel title from other source than the title proper. So, field 245 is completely in Korean. In an RDA record, the parallel title is recorded under field 245, because of the difference in rule for the source of parallel titles. Thus RDA field 245 is both in Korean and English, which calls for a language note, as per RDA, 7.12.1.3; LCPS, 7.12.
Slide 38: This slide is only about early printed monographs. In RDA, the sources of information for early printed monographs are instructed only as an exception inside general RDA, 2.2.2, while, in AACR2, it was a separate rule from the general one.
Slide 43: This slides clearly labels "optionally:" preceding fields 500 and 775.
You don't have permission to comment on this page.
Comments (8)
sdeng@ucsd.edu said
at 10:02 pm on Feb 14, 2012
Dear Mr. Morimoto, This looks great! Thank you! since I haven't started using RDA, I may have more questions, hope you don't mind.
For your file S2-pt 1, for slide 3, do you mind to spell out WEMI since you have enough space? I hope the slides will be available after workshop on CTP web site. If I have to think what it stands for, others will do, especially if folks not familiar with RDA structure/organization alignment to FRBR. Just a thought. Or should we mention it in intro session trainers may refer them using their initial at the later session, i.e. WEMI, or WE, MI...?
Slide 10, I think there is registered vocabulary list for three types which new terms can be proposed via RDA fast track, I believe, if I am correct, you may want to mention it here , or you probably have it in your note area already.
Slide 12 right side on LCRI, does it mean to be LCPS?
That's for now. I may have more as I finish reading tonight. --Shi
sdeng@ucsd.edu said
at 12:40 am on Feb 15, 2012
Slide 25: LC has a training slide on compilations at: http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/Refresher_training_dec_2011.html, wonder if it is included in reference or pointed out when discuss this slide.
Slide 41: Here use ME refers to main entry could be confused with WE for work level/expression level, maybe better to spell it out.
It's really good especially with CJK examples to illustrate the differences. I really appreciate all you did. I am sure that I will have to refer and consult this training handout when my library start to implementing RDA. There are few slides mentioned about punctuations, some are very ridiculous, like the period in slide 5. Barbara mentioned that JSC is working with ISBD, hope this kind non-sense change can be modified. Thanks. --shi
Hideyuki Morimoto said
at 6:51 pm on Feb 16, 2012
RDA Refresher Training at LC is not so much of comparison between AACR2/LCRI and RDA/LCPS. The topic of Session 2 is comparison. RDA Refresher Training at LC may be mentioned in another session.
Hideyuki Morimoto said
at 7:00 pm on Feb 16, 2012
LC's training material specifically on compilations is mentioned in part 3, slide 13.
sdeng@ucsd.edu said
at 1:58 pm on Feb 16, 2012
Dear Mr. Morimoto, I really like the way you presented. I will re-read Charlene's file to see if the format should be adjusted to be the same. I will add notes below. I read some and accidentally close this window and lost my note last night, so I will re-do it. Add some in between my other duties.
For your file S2-pt. 3
slide 3, LCRI --> LCPS?
sdeng@ucsd.edu said
at 3:38 pm on Feb 16, 2012
slide 5, I have example that a conference name includes frequency for the instruction mentioned in this slide. It's 2nd example I added: 台北當代水墨...展. -->台北當代水墨雙年展 if you want to use it.
slide 15, RDA side, would it possible to show what it would if dates unknown under the RDA instruction, pretend that his bio date of 1872-1944 were unknown?
slide 17, general comments on place name, I would not know Izomu is a place name when it appears as part of church's name, I actually feel the heading formulated per LCRI is more helpful.
That's all for this file. Thanks. --Shi
Charlene Chou said
at 12:39 pm on Feb 23, 2012
Hi Hideyuki,
Just a few comments for session 2, part 1:
1) For slide 11, is the 546 note in RDA record different from AACR2 record? If yes, what RDA rule could justify it?
2) For slide 38, you may add a brief note "If none of the sources listed above bears a title, use as the preferred source of information another source within the resource that bears a title ..." in RDA 2.2.2.2. Just in case these three options not
present on piece...
3) For slide 43, it's unclear to me if 500 and 775 need to present together. According to LC class, one example has 500 note and the other has 775 with a note explaining 775 is optional. Is 500 note mandatory? We know there is no difference in edition statement between AACR2 and RDA, but it's a primary element to indicate different edition, perhaps briefly mentioned...
That's it for now.
Thanks.
/Charlene
Hideyuki Morimoto said
at 8:33 pm on Feb 23, 2012
Slide 11: In this particular case, an AACR2 record may not have under field 245 the parallel title from other source than the title proper. So, field 245 is completely in Korean. In an RDA record, the parallel title is recorded under field 245, because of the difference in rule for the source of parallel titles. Thus RDA field 245 is both in Korean and English, which calls for a language note, as per RDA, 7.12.1.3; LCPS, 7.12.
Slide 38: This slide is only about early printed monographs. In RDA, the sources of information for early printed monographs are instructed only as an exception inside general RDA, 2.2.2, while, in AACR2, it was a separate rule from the general one.
Slide 43: This slides clearly labels "optionally:" preceding fields 500 and 775.
You don't have permission to comment on this page.