Cataloging rules, with explanations and illustrations,

A revision of the preliminary edition published by The New York state library in 1914 as Library school bulletin 36. Based on The A.L.A. catalog rules.

A.L.A. cataloging rules for author and title entries.

"The preliminary American second edition of A.L.A. catalog rules, on Part I of which the present volume is based, was prepared by: American Library Association, Catalog Code Revision Committee." The 1st ed., published in 1908, has title: Catalog rules, author and title entries.

Rules for descriptive cataloging in the Library of Congress.

Mode of access: Internet.

Rules for descriptive cataloging in the Library of Congress.

Accompanied by "Supplement. 1949-51." (19 p. 26 cm.) Published: Washington, 1952.

Catalog rules: series for archives material, Springfield, Illinois, 1938.

Accompanied by "Revision no. 1- " ( v.) Published: [Springfield, 1939- ]

Rules for a printed dictionary catalogue /

Added t.-p.: Public libraries in the United States of America, their history, condition, and management. Special report, Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Education. Part II, 1876.

El cambio en la designación general de material (DGM) de las AACR a las RDA : Definición de los atributos tipo de contenido, tipo de medio y tipo de soporte

Se aborda el estudio de los atributos tipo de contenido, tipo de medio y tipo de soporte definidos por el código de catalogación Resource Description and Access (RDA) para solucionar los problemas que presentaba la lista de términos utilizadas para registrar la designación general de material (DGM) en las Anglo American Cataloging Rules (AACR). Los términos eran ambiguos combinando aspectos referidos al contenido y clase de material del recurso. Se parte de una exhaustiva revisión bibliográfica y del estudio de los documentos que se generaron en el proceso de elaboración del nuevo código. Se menciona el trabajo conjunto entre el Joint Steering Committee (JSC) y el estándar ONIX para el establecimiento de criterios que permitieron definir estos tres atributos, así como el aporte del modelo FRBR en la definición de los mismos. Se presentan ejemplos de registros bibliográficos donde se utilizan estos tres atributos en formato MARC21, ISBD consolidada a partir de la definición del área 0 y en el esquema de metadatos Dublin Core. Se finaliza destacando la necesidad de continuar con investigaciones que permitan concluir sobre la adecuación de estos tres atributos a las necesidades de los catalogadores, usuarios y a la realidad tecnológica

El cambio en la designación general de material (DGM) de las AACR a las RDA : Definición de los atributos tipo de contenido, tipo de medio y tipo de soporte

Se aborda el estudio de los atributos tipo de contenido, tipo de medio y tipo de soporte definidos por el código de catalogación Resource Description and Access (RDA) para solucionar los problemas que presentaba la lista de términos utilizadas para registrar la designación general de material (DGM) en las Anglo American Cataloging Rules (AACR). Los términos eran ambiguos combinando aspectos referidos al contenido y clase de material del recurso. Se parte de una exhaustiva revisión bibliográfica y del estudio de los documentos que se generaron en el proceso de elaboración del nuevo código. Se menciona el trabajo conjunto entre el Joint Steering Committee (JSC) y el estándar ONIX para el establecimiento de criterios que permitieron definir estos tres atributos, así como el aporte del modelo FRBR en la definición de los mismos. Se presentan ejemplos de registros bibliográficos donde se utilizan estos tres atributos en formato MARC21, ISBD consolidada a partir de la definición del área 0 y en el esquema de metadatos Dublin Core. Se finaliza destacando la necesidad de continuar con investigaciones que permitan concluir sobre la adecuación de estos tres atributos a las necesidades de los catalogadores, usuarios y a la realidad tecnológica

El cambio en la designación general de material (DGM) de las AACR a las RDA : Definición de los atributos tipo de contenido, tipo de medio y tipo de soporte

Se aborda el estudio de los atributos tipo de contenido, tipo de medio y tipo de soporte definidos por el código de catalogación Resource Description and Access (RDA) para solucionar los problemas que presentaba la lista de términos utilizadas para registrar la designación general de material (DGM) en las Anglo American Cataloging Rules (AACR). Los términos eran ambiguos combinando aspectos referidos al contenido y clase de material del recurso. Se parte de una exhaustiva revisión bibliográfica y del estudio de los documentos que se generaron en el proceso de elaboración del nuevo código. Se menciona el trabajo conjunto entre el Joint Steering Committee (JSC) y el estándar ONIX para el establecimiento de criterios que permitieron definir estos tres atributos, así como el aporte del modelo FRBR en la definición de los mismos. Se presentan ejemplos de registros bibliográficos donde se utilizan estos tres atributos en formato MARC21, ISBD consolidada a partir de la definición del área 0 y en el esquema de metadatos Dublin Core. Se finaliza destacando la necesidad de continuar con investigaciones que permitan concluir sobre la adecuación de estos tres atributos a las necesidades de los catalogadores, usuarios y a la realidad tecnológica

FORGET WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT THE RCAA2: RDA NOW

It presents a brief overview of what is involved with materials documenting Anglo-American Cataloging Rules and the changes that will be generated using the new RDA. It also notes the importance of introducing new terms such as: work, expression, manifestation and item.

Epistemic, Ontic, Axiologic, and Praxic Constructs in Knowledge Organization Research

The work of knowledge organization requires a particular set of tools. For instance we need standards of content description like Anglo-American Cataloging Rules Edition 2, Resource Description and Access (RDA), Cataloging Cultural Objects, and Describing Archives: A Content Standard. When we intellectualize the process of knowledge organization – that is when we do basic theoretical research in knowledge organization we need another set of tools. For this latter exercise we need constructs. Constructs are ideas with many conceptual elements, largely considered subjective. They allow us to be inventive as well as allow us to see a particular point of view in knowledge organization. For example, Patrick Wilson’s ideas of exploitative control and descriptive control, or S. R. Ranganathan’s fundamental categories are constructs. They allow us to identify functional requirements or operationalizations of functional requirements, or at least come close to them for our systems and schemes. They also allow us to carry out meaningful evaluation.What is even more interesting, from a research point of view, is that constructs once offered to the community can be contested and reinterpreted and this has an affect on how we view knowledge organization systems and processes. Fundamental categories are again a good example in that some members of the Classification Research Group (CRG) argued against Ranganathan’s point of view. The CRG posited more fundamental categories than Ranganathan’s five, Personality, Matter, Energy, Space, and Time (Ranganathan, 1967). The CRG needed significantly more fundamental categories for their work.1 And these are just two voices in this space we can also consider the fundamental categories of Johannes Kaiser (1911), Shera and Egan, Barbara Kyle (Vickery, 1960), and Eric de Grolier (1962). We can also reference contemporary work that continues comparison and analysis of fundamental categories (e.g., Dousa, 2011).In all these cases we are discussing a construct. The fundamental category is not discovered; it is constructed by a classificationist. This is done because it is useful in engaging in the act of classification. And while we are accustomed to using constructs or debating their merit in one knowledge organization activity or another, we have not analyzed their structure, nor have we created a typology. In an effort to probe the epistemological dimension of knowledge organization, we think it would be a fruitful exercise to do this. This is because we might benefit from clarity around not only our terminology, but the manner in which we talk about our terminology. We are all creative workers examining what is available to us, but doing so through particular lenses (constructs) identifying particular constructs. And by knowing these and being able to refer to these we would consider a core competency for knowledge organization researchers.

Rules for descriptive cataloging in the Library of Congress: pictures, designs, and other two-dimensional representations.

Mode of access: Internet.

Sex-change rules, stock dynamics, and the performance of spawning-per-recruit measures in protogynous stocks

Predicting and under-standing the dynamics of a population requires knowledge of vital rates such as survival, growth, and reproduction. However, these variables are influenced by individual behavior, and when managing exploited populations, it is now generally realized that knowledge of a species’ behavior and life history strategies is required. However, predicting and understanding a response to novel conditions—such as increased fishing-induced mortality, changes in environmental conditions, or specific management strategies—also require knowing the endogenous or exogenous cues that induce phenotypic changes and knowing whether these behaviors and life history patterns are plastic. Although a wide variety of patterns of sex change have been observed in the wild, it is not known how the specific sex-change rule and cues that induce sex change affect stock dynamics. Using an individual based model, we examined the effect of the sex-change rule on the predicted stock dynamics, the effect of mating group size, and the performance of traditional spawning-per-recruit (SPR) measures in a protogynous stock. We considered four different patterns of sex change in which the probability of sex change is determined by 1) the absolute size of the individual, 2) the relative length of individuals at the mating site, 3) the frequency of smaller individuals at the mating site, and 4) expected reproductive success. All four pat-terns of sex change have distinct stock dynamics. Although each sex-change rule leads to the prediction that the stock will be sensitive to the size-selective fishing pattern and may crash if too many reproductive size classes are fished, the performance of traditional spawning-per-recruit measures, the fishing pattern that leads to the greatest yield, and the effect of mating group size all differ distinctly for the four sex-change rules. These results indicate that the management of individual species requires knowledge of whether sex change occurs, as well as an understanding of the endogenous or exogenous cues that induce sex change.