Bernhard said: >RDA, to my knowledge, doesn't define the term, although why not? >I mean, in the light of RDA's ambitions...
In light of RDA's ambitions to be used outside the bibliographic world, there certainly needs to be better provisions for objects. Museums for example could use 264 0 for the artist who carved a statue, and should be able to use 264 3 for the manufacturer of the period telephone in its collection. Museums have far more objects than books, and RDA is very book centric, particularly in not recognizing that objects may be manufactured or distributed, but are not "published" in the public's understanding of that word. When/if RDA is coded in Bibframe, bf: tags need to be specific for producer, publisher, distributor, and manufacturer. We are not in Alice's Wonderland, in which words may mean whatever we want them to mean. We are part of a larger culture in which words have meanings, including "publisher" and "published". I suspect nobody on the JSC deals with the sorts of things which cross Julie Moore's desk daily. __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________