2.3.1.6 says Do not transcribe words that serve as an introduc tion **and are
not intended to be part of the title** We shouldn't zero in on the first half
of the sentence without remembering the second half-and the second half puts
the decision of whether or not to record such words completely
Heidrun Wiesenmüller said:
So, yes - I admit that we can arrive at a good solution, using only RDA and
hard
thinking. But as somebody who teaches cataloging, I can't help wondering: Why
does RDA so often make it so very difficult? Having a straightforward looking
rule
like 2.3.1.6,
I have in front of me an interesting case: a book that is anti-copyrighted.
It has the statement:
Anti-copyright @ 1994 This book may be freely pirated and quoted.
Looking at RDA 2.11.1 Basic instruction on recording copyright dates I see
the scope statement: a date associated with a claim of
Stephen,
True, perhaps this particular problem is only a problem for people like
me, coming from a different cataloging background. I haven't had 30
years of experience with AACR2. Most of my cataloging experiences are
with a different code, the German RAK. And RAK has an explicit example
of
Ben,
I have in front of me an interesting case: a book that is
anti-copyrighted. It has the statement:
Anti-copyright @ 1994 This book may be freely pirated and quoted.
Where do you get all these lovely examples?? I'm quite envious...
Looking at RDA 2.11.1 Basic instruction on
Stephen McDonald said:
But this is not a new rule. AACR2 had exactly the same rule.
The AACR2 rules concerning introductor words are 25.3B, applying to
uniform titles for items published after 1500, and in 1.1B, where the
examples are clear.
The WEMI arrangement of RDA, as opposed to the
Ben Abrahamse posted:
Anti-copyright @ 1994 This book may be freely pirated and quoted.
Assuming no publication date on the item:
264 1 $a$b$c[1994]
540 $aAnti-copyright @ 1994 This book may be freely pirated and
quoted. --Verso title page.
An anti-copyright date is not a copyright date,
7 matches
Mail list logo
