Adam,
Yes, the PCC practice statement for 2.8.1.4 (Generally do not omit levels in
corporate hierarchy) is among those that will be published in the October
release of the RDA Toolkit.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
Adolfo Tarango wrote:
Might you use the workflows?
In my first post, I mentioned: I suppose the handiest thing would be a
Workflows document, since it would be accessible through the RDA Toolkit, even
if it isn't actually integrated with the text. Much slower and clunkier than a
LOCAL
Troy Linker wrote:
We are working on developing something similar to this for RDA Toolkit
and we have detailed it on our development blog
http://www.rdatoolkit.org/development/RDA-28. We think of it as locally
shareable bookmarks, but I think these bookmarks would work in this
situation
All new RDA records should have 264 fields not 260; RDA created during test may
have either or both fields; AACR2 legacy mostly have only 260. This is all very
accommodating, but where is the uniformity of practice? Does it not complicate
indexing or conversion?
RDA, LC, PCC, OCLC seem not to
I have found no guidance on this in RDA (not saying it's not in there, but
searching for copyright or copyright date does not bring it up); so which
is preferable?
264:x4:$c (c)1994-2010
or
264:x4:$c (c)1994-(c)2010
Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and
I think since a copyright date must always be preceded by the copyright
symbol, your second option would be more correct. But I'd like to see
what others think about this. If the resource itself says (c)1994-2010
then perhaps it's ok to transcribe it that way. Then again, doesn't RDA
say to
Thanks for the response.
There is no single copyright statement for the whole work, just an individual ©
on each vol.
Re: doesn't RDA say to record only the latest copyright date?, the only
guidance I could find is 2.11.1.3, If the resource has multiple copyright
dates that apply to various
Benjamin Abrahamse wrote:
I have found no guidance on this in RDA (not saying it's not in there, but
searching for copyright or copyright date does not bring it up); so
which is preferable?
264:x4:$c (c)1994-2010
or
264:x4:$c (c)1994-(c)2010
As I understand it, the dates on either
There is something redundant about having a separate element for copyright
date, and then including the copyright symbol or other text in the element.
That would seem to be make it less machine actionable, if anyone ever tries to
do that. But this is a problem that runs throughout our data.
John,
Thanks for pointing me to the LCPS. I didn't see it because the link was for
2.11 as a whole, not the specific rule.
--Ben
p.s. I like your title, Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian, is that
something you got post-reorg, or have I just never noticed it before?
Benjamin
Please cancel my subscription to this listserve.
David Anderson
Cataloger, Custom Cataloging
dander...@bwibooks.commailto:dander...@bwibooks.com
1340 Ridgeview Drive
McHenry, IL 60050
800.888.4478, ext. 6432
Fax: 800.888.6319
Always at your service
inline: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap)
For your convenience, the RDA-L welcome message is pasted below, including the
instructions for subscribing to and unsubscribing from this list.
Welcome to RDA-L - an electronic forum for discussion of RDA.
The purpose of this listserv is to facilitate informal discussion on RDA :
Resource
If you care about machine actionable, that (c) character is really
annoying to those working on machine access. It's not intractable, it
can be dealt with, but it's just one more annoyance in MARC requiring a
workaround. Especially in a 264 where the element is already machine
identified as a
Jack Wu said:
This is all very accommodating, but where is the uniformity of practice? =
Does it not complicate indexing or conversion?
Very perceptive. Not to mention programming for OPAC display and
bibliography printing.
RDA, LC, PCC, OCLC seem not to have caught up with each other at least
Yes, I'd agree with you Benjamin. If you have a multipart monograph or
serial you might wish to record the earliest copyright and the latest.
^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206)
16 matches
Mail list logo