Interesting point, but I'm not sure about the reading of 19.1.2. Does
it really mean that creators of components may be treated as co-creators
of the aggregate (which would presumably mean that they could have
creator-level relators), or just that they are to be treated as creators
with respect
Posting the follow message on behalf of ACOC (the Australian Committee on
Cataloguing) and Kevin Marsh, the ACOC representative to the Joint Steering
Committee for Development of RDA:
The training documentation used by the National Library of Australia for
the RDA train-the-trainer courses held
I believe this is related to the removal of the limitation on the number of
added entries in AACR2 21.7B for collections of works by different persons or
bodies (from list of changes in RDA - http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/5sec7rev.pdf
).
In the examples in AACR2 21.7B, there are added entries
I had previously requested to be unsubscribed from this.
Please confirm receipt of this and unsubscribe my email.
Thank you.
Very Truly Yours,
Carlen DeThorne
Head of Adult Services
Lake Bluff Public Library
123 E. Scranton Ave.
Lake Bluff, IL 60044
Bernadette said:
Interesting point, but I'm not sure about the reading of 19.1.2. Does
it really mean that creators of components may be treated as co-creators
of the aggregate ...
I think not. That would result in main/prime entry under the first
mentioned author of a part.
For analytic
The Association for Library Collections Technical Services (ALCTS) has named
Beverley Geer as the 2013 recipient of the Ulrich’s Serials Librarianship
Award. This award for distinguished contributions to serials is presented by
the Continuing Resources Section of ALCTS and consists of a
I said:
We need a $e term and $4 code for contributor.
Could someone with the appropriate skills and connections propose the
addition of contributor to RDA relationship terms, and cnt
Contributor to the MARC code list?
They are needed for writers of parts of collections, when those parts
don't
Hi there,
I have in hand an item that I'm not quite sure how to treat under RDA. It was
originally published under a pseudonym which the author only used for the
series that it was a part of. The series is now being republished under the
author's current pen name, with the statement on the
The relevant RDA instruction is 6.27.1.7 Different Identities for an
Individual Responsible for a Work.
If:
an individual responsible for a work has more than one identity (see
9.2.2.8)
and
there is no consistency in how that individual is identified on resources
embodying the work
I didn't answer Lori's specific questions when I cited the relevant RDA
instruction.
The name in the 100 should be whichever one is the result from applying
6.27.1.7. The other name should NOT be included as an access point,
because, at least in theory, the authority record for the work
Thank you, Adam! I appreciate your help.
Cheers,
Lori
Lori Van Deman-Iseri
Cataloging Librarian
Tigard Public Library
lo...@tigard-or.gov
503.718.2658
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On
The Welcome message one received when first subscribing provides the proper
protocol for unsubscribing. I quote it here for interested parties'
convenience:
You may leave the list at any time by sending a SIGNOFF RDA-L command to
Lori asked:
Which name should be in the 100 field? Should both names be included
as access points?
I don't think you should have two access points for the samer person;
that is what cross references are for.
We would enter under the later name, but have a note (503, but 500 for
those of you
Thank you, Mac... I appreciate your help. I was imagining that I'd only use one
access point, but wasn't sure since it was not a situation I'd run across
before and hadn't found the rules that Adam kindly pointed out to me earlier.
Since the series is already established under the pseudonym,
Mac Elrod wrote:
We would enter under the later name, but have a note (503, but 500 for
those of you who accept that bad MARBI decision) saying the ealier
edition was published under the earlier name. We would Cutter the
editions to stand together.
Adam cited Ann Rampling/Ann Rice.
The
Kevinn asked:
So are you actually considering the two different manifestations of
Exit to Eden as distinct WORKS?
No. It is a matter of legacy records differing from current records,
since LC rarely changes records retrospectively, nor can we since the
records have already been sent to
16 matches
Mail list logo
