Steven Awakara wrote, and Deborah Fritz replied:
b. If the presentation on the cover is ambiguous -- the other title
could possibly be interpreted as the title proper -- make a 246 1 $i Other
title on cover: $a <other title> -- Just as you would if you had the same
situation on the title page. Do not transcribe the other title in 245 $b
with or without brackets.
[DF:] Yes, but based on John's explanation again, this would be:
246 1# $i Variant title on cover: $a <variant title>
In looking at the examples in 2.20.2.3 (b) for variant title notes, there
is no use of "variant title," only the standard formulations that are part
of MARC documentation for 246 1-8. I don't think the note info in $i needs
to specify that the title is "variant."
Cary T. Isley
Catalog & Metadata Librarian
Tulsa Community College
918-595-7177
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller <
wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote:
> Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
>
>
>> 1. What about the "rewording"? Does it reduce the amount of necessary
>> exegesis?
>>
>
> Perhaps a bit, but not dramatically so.
>
> Readability has certainly increased considerably in the reworded chapters.
> But the rewording doesn't help with matters of arrangement. E.g. in the
> case of rule 2.3.4.2 ("Take other title information from the same source as
> the title proper") there should be a reference saying roughly: "Information
> which looks like other title information but is not positioned on the same
> source as the title proper can be recorded as a variant title (see 2.3.6)."
>
>
>
>> 2. Based on the fact that next to no one will have all the time
>> it would take to do all this careful reading and reasoning,
>> what will be the chances for consistent data?
>>
>
> I often wonder how many catalogers will really work with the text of RDA
> itself, at least in the long run. Because of the costs, I expect that even
> at larger libraries there will often be only a license for one concurrent
> user.
>
> People will turn to other materials instead. Hopefully, we'll have a
> couple of good general textbooks on RDA soon which will explain things much
> better than the rules itself. In my opinion, the 20/80 rule also applies to
> cataloging, i.e. only a fairly small number of rules is needed to cope with
> the majority of the stuff catalogers are confronted with in their everyday
> work. So, although a general textbook won't be able to cover every rule of
> RDA, it will still make the life of catalogers a lot easier. Add a couple
> of more specialized textbooks for different kinds of media. Then it should
> be no longer necessary for everybody to work through all the minutiae and
> find their path through the labyrinth of RDA for themselves.
>
> By the way: When exactly will Robert Maxwell's "Handbook for RDA" be
> published?
>
>
>
>
>> 3. Hadn't one of the objectives for RDA been to make cataloging
>> more economical? Who's going to evaluate this and to determine
>> if the results fit the business case for RDA?
>>
>
> Who indeed.
>
> But it certainly needs to be done, and my prognosis is that RDA won't look
> too good when it comes to "easy cataloging". A few things may be easier
> than before, but on the whole I'd argue that RDA is no less complex than
> AACR2.
>
>
>
>
>> 4. How will all of this appeal to the "other communities"? (If they
>> can be persuaded to buy access to the rules, that is.)
>>
>
>
> Well, I've always been rather sceptical in this respect. Here in Germany,
> even archivists claim that RDA has nothing to do with them - and that's
> certainly a community which is still very close to our profession. But
> perhaps everything will come alright with BIBFRAME??
>
> Heidrun
>
>
>
> --
> ---------------------
> Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
> Stuttgart Media University
> Faculty of Information and Communication
> Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
> www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
>
