Renette Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2.3.2.2. Sources of information [of parallel titles]
RD - I would also prefer to treat parallel titles as variant titles
and not part of the title field regardless of where they appear on the
resource.
J. McRee (Mac) Elrod wrote:
[]Mac - It would
Adam Schiff wrote:
... what was being suggested was not changing the term parallel
title in the rules, but ...when we create notes about parallel
titles we should use more understandable language. Instead of a recording
a catalog record
note as Parallel title: or Former parallel title on
Adam Schiff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mac, I think what was being suggested was not changing the term parallel
title in the rules, but that catalog users would not be familiar with
such a term, so that when we create notes about parallel titles we should
use more understandable language.
Deborah Fritz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[]Mac - It would seem to me that parallel titles are as much a part of
[] DF - I think it is more likely that it is because an alternate title is
connected to the title by the word 'or'
In my view, alternate titles should be coded ,$bor - so that gmd
Following are some new comments on 2.4-2.5.
Renette
2.4.0.6. More than one statement of responsibility
RD - I think someone has already mentioned this in another context, but I
find it very confusing the way multiple statements of responsibility are
shown on separate lines like this. I
Adam Schiff wrote:
Mac, I think what was being suggested was not changing the term parallel
title in the rules, but that catalog users would not be familiar with
such a term, so that when we create notes about parallel titles we should
use more understandable language. Instead of a recording a
I'd also really like to hear a principled argument for having the option as
it is. Why does this apply only when there are more than 3 entities? What
is so special about 3? I don't fully see how this arbitrary number can
be defended intellectually.
RD - Are you saying that you would like to
In my workshops, one of the most frequently asked questions about publishers
is which name to enter when both a parent publisher and its subsidiary
(imprint) are given on the same source of a resource. It is clear enough
when either the parent or the subsidiary is given on the chief source and
Deborah Fritz wrote:
For the sake of consistency in the information provided in this field,
should we be asking for a rule that addresses this issue:
* first named?
* most prominent?
* highest level (parent)?
* lowest level (imprint)?
Or am I the only
Renette Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2.6.1.3. Recording numeric and/or alphabetic designations.
RD - I would like to see an option that would allow catalogers to always
record this information in an unformatted 362 as Began with: Vol. 1, no. 6,
even if they have the first issue in hand.
10 matches
Mail list logo
