What I would imagine we could is this:
245 14 $a The Hobbit
246 1? $a There and back again
246 1? $a The Hobbit, or, There and back again
(I used ? for the 2nd indicator because I'm not sure what we would use,
since we've kind of run out of indicator values, unless MARC 21 starts
using
J. McRee Elrod said:
The very basic principle of describing an item in its *own* terms
seems to be missing here. Why in the world would one translate a word
into a code, and then back again into a word, which may or may not
reflect the prime source?
I was wondering about this myself.
Ed Jones said:
ISBD, including the draft 2006 Consolidated ISBD, defines the title
proper as including the alternative title (Consolidated ISBD 1.1.1).
IMNSHO ISBD's major flaw and inconsistency.
But to maintain compatibility with ISBD, such a change would need to be
accompanied by a
Quoting John Attig [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
An alternative title does actually use the word OR or its linguistic
equivalent to connect parts of the title. For example, the title of
Shakespeare's play in the earliest editions (and many modern ones) is
Twelfth night, or What you will; the title of
Robert Maxwell said:
Except that in this case, if we consider or to be a part of the title,
we *don't* want the system to skip over it in filing.
Speak for yourself sir.
Personally, I want all my Twelfth night, or, What you will's
together under Twelfth night, not split between the shorter
I don't understand. Are you saying you think the title
Twelfth night, or, What you will
should file as
Twelfth night What you will?
I thought that would be the effect of enclosing or in the new
nonfiling characters--or would just drop out. That is why I was
suggesting we don't in fact
I don't understand. Are you saying you think the title
Twelfth night, or, What you will
should file as
Twelfth night What you will?
No. I think it should file under title proper as Twelfth night, to
prevent having two files, one under the title proper (when that
appears alone or as a 240),
At 02:20 PM 6/29/2007, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
I don't understand. Are you saying you think the title
Twelfth night, or, What you will
should file as
Twelfth night What you will?
No. I think it should file under title proper as Twelfth night, to
prevent having two files, one under the title
I think from our discussion on this matter is that RDA needs another
element to record what I will call the linking word or term in the
title. To have title proper and alternative title elements is not enough,
because the linking word or and its equivalents in other languages need
to be
I am beginning to suspect that the difficulties arising for the
treatment of the conjunction preceding an alternative title may be why
ISBD is formulated to include alternative titles in the title proper. I
am not against the JSC's decision to create the new element for the
alternative title.
Friday, June 29, 2007
At present AACRE defines:
1. Parallel title. The title proper in another language and/or script. and
2. Alternative title. The second part of a title proper that consists of
two parts, each part of which is a title; the parts are joined by or or its
equivalent in
Yes, there is a difference. Alternative titles and parallel titles
aren't worded the same way. There remains the problem of what to do with
that pesky little or. If we treated them as parallel titles, would we
transcribe
The tempest = or The enchanted island
or perhaps
The
Kevin M. Randall said:
I think what Robert was getting at was: When the entire phrase (including
alternate title) is indexed, should it file as Twelfth night, or, What you
will or as Twelfth night What you will?
Of course if both title proper and alternate titles are being indexed
as one
I said:
Nonfiling for or, as one poster suggested, would only be needed if
it were at the beginning of the alternate title with only one subfield
code, e.g., Twelfth night,$bor, What you will would require or (3
spaces) to be nonfiling ...
I should have added: if the alternate title is being
I find very disturbing the concept advanced by some who favour an even
more radical departure from AACR2 than RDA, that statements of
responsibility can be replaced by subfield coding fore names in entry
points, allowing display in direct order; ignoring both the importance
of connecting words
15 matches
Mail list logo
