What would be the point of this? And how would it be different from the
300? It doesn't exactly help a patron decide if the item is say a graphic
novel or picture book. And if the text for patrons says "still image"
would they know what that means? As a public library with thousands of
picture books I don't see the point.
On 2 April 2013 14:19, J. McRee Elrod <m...@slc.bc.ca> wrote:
> Karen Nelson posted:
>
>
> >I am just looking at an LC record for a title which includes
> >significant coloured illustrations. There are two 336's: one for
> >text and one for still image.
>
> RDA has options ranging from giving all, to giving just the single
> most prominent. This will be another area of variety among what
> libraries do, and a requirement for local editing if we are to be
> consistent without our own database.
>
> SLC will opt for a middle path, including only those which are
> significant. For example: an art exhibition catalogue; a much
> illustrated art history, travel, or children's book, would get both
> text and still image. A text with a few illustrations would get only
> text. We hope that this middle path will result in less need to add
> media terms to, or remove media terms from, derived records.
>
> Field 336 still image would be used less that 008/18-21.
>
>
> __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
> ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
>
