At 02:17 PM 1/9/2006, John Radencich wrote:
This rule [i.e., 2.6] needs to be explained. Either the rule itself is at
fault or it could be the problems this attempt to sanitize the examples of
all ISBD and other punctuation finally came to roost here doesn't
matter. It seems to be both, as
Here are some comments on RDA draft chapters 4-6 and appendix D:
4.3.0.3. Describing the nature and scope of the content
All of the geographic note examples seem to be from cartographic
materials. I'd like to see a geographic coverage note that's explicitly
labeled as such, and could be
2 matches
Mail list logo
