April 5th is just days after Day 1 for RDA. It's time to get practical with the
RDA authorities! Come join NOTSL's program for managing your transition.
Paul Frank from the Library of Congress will talk about name authority records
in RDA, the current state of NACO training, major differences
After all this talk about German cataloging, I suppose it's time to get
back to RDA ;-)
The other day we discussed the optional omission for statements of
responsibility naming more than three persons, etc. (RDA 2.4.1.5). The
general feeling was that although everybody ought to try and follow
Greta,
Thanks for the explanation. I understand the problem much better now.
By the way, as you've mentioned atlases: Here's another interesting
difference between Anglo-American and German cataloging. When cataloging
an atlas, we only give the number of pages and indicate that there are
You can do exactly what you suggested with RDA. - Barbara Tillett
On Wednesday, February 6, 2013, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:
After all this talk about German cataloging, I suppose it's time to get
back to RDA ;-)
The other day we discussed the optional omission for statements of
I feel the same. We get a lot of National Business Institute titles, where
there will be numerous authors most of the time. The names are listed in
alphabetical order and the person who worked the most on that book might be
last in the list of authors because of the alphabetization. If we use
Barbara,
I can??? Now this is a pleasant surprise.
Only I'm not sure where it says so in the rules. The optional omission
in 2.4.1.5 explicitly states omit all but the first of each group.
I've noted that the optional omission in 2.4.1.4 says Always record the
first name appearing in a
I'm relieved to hear Dr Tillett say that this is allowed under RDA. Sometime
you run across some truly gargantuan s-o-r's and sadly need to pick and choose
whom to record.
That said, I agree with Heidrun that neither the rules, as they currently exist
in the Toolkit, nor the LC/PCC CPS,
Heidrun said:
But I'm not happy that the only alternatives are either all names
(standard rule) or only the first name (option). Why shouldn't it be
equally possible to transcribe, say, the first three, five or ten names
and then put [and x others]? This might be a more satisfactory way of
You are right the rules do not specifically say you can do it, but it is
definitely in the spirit of RDA and perhaps you'd like to work with Christine
Frodl to propose an adjustment to the way RDA states this? - Barbara
Barbara B. Tillett
On Feb 6, 2013, at 11:36 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Dear RDA-L people,
After an email conversation with Barbara, I'm writing with some additional
information, making the distinction between transcribing information in a
statement of responsibility and giving authorized access points for
responsible entities. [Barbara is traveling and typing long
However, you can choose which entities to include in 7XX authorized access
points in a MARC bibliographic record; those access points do not need to
be justified in a transcribed element or by a note.
This is my major argument with RDA. If revising, please consider
restoring correlation between
11 matches
Mail list logo
