J. McRee Elrod
Wed, 01 Sep 2010 18:26:54 -0700
Brenda Parker posted:
>This is true--it's what I've been wondering about. Some have they aren't
>implementing RDA, some have said there is time, or that there is a choice
>to do so or not, but how can we not if we are pulling records from OCLC?
Certainly libraries should avoid editing RDA records back to AACR2.
That would be far too costly.
Fortunately the changes in *form* of entry are few, so to have RDA
records interfile, few changes would have to be made, which would be
easier than "cookery" to "cooking".
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes to AACR2 and RDA Entries to Allow RDA Interfiling
In 130/630/730 entries remove '$pN.T.' and '$pO.T.' from between
'Bible' and $p<Book>. Spell out as 'New Testament' and 'Old
Testament' if not followed by $p and the name of a book.
In 130/630/730 entries, replace "Koran" with "Qur'an".
If 008/24-27 contains 'z', remove $k and any following fields from
110/610/710 entries.
In 110/610/710 Change "Dept." to "Department".
Optionally:
Exclude 100/600/700/110/610/710 $e in RDA records from mapping for
indexing and display.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Choice of entry (first author when more then three, first country for
treaties) does not affect interfiling. We live with "illus." vs.
"ill." and can live with those vs. "illustrations".
Something would have to be done about 245$hGMD vs. 336-338. One could
map 245$h, 338, and 336 to display above description, suppressing 336
and 338 display if 337 is unmediated. Or one could display [338 :
336] as 245$h if 337 is not unmediated.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________