J. McRee Elrod <m...@slc.bc.ca> wrote: > Why would one wish to do that? Nobody has suggested 264 1 $bGod for a > rock. All we need is 264 2 for the seller of the rock. Like > manuscripts, equipment and naturally occurring objects are not > published, and should have the appropriate 264 indicator for > manufacturer and distributor. >
Don't confuse RDA's "production statement", which refers to man-made stuff, with what might be similar statements in another universe for naturally occurring objects. RDA woefully lacks any direction on telling us to forego 260/264-like statements for these objects--if that's the intent of the standard. Presumption through silence isn't good guidance. > No they are not. Much of RDA is very unclear, and not in accord with > reality. I disagree. Some of it is unclear. I have the same problems with parts of AACR2. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex <http://www.minitex.umn.edu/>
