Does RDA expect us to add more than author names to the 245, such as Esq.,
PH.D., Dr. and even the law firm lawyers are members of at the time the book
is written?
An example of a record that has caused me confusion is a pcc record
cataloged by LC in OCLC, Trial techniques trials. I have
Adam, Sara and All :
Hi -- I agree with Sara as well -- two separate works loosely, or not,
aimed at two separate audiences. Based on the press release, it sounds as
though *Cain's blood *is aimed at adult readers, and *Project Cain* at the
teen/young adult audience.
snip
In September Simon
Stan Allen sal...@socialaw.com wrote:
Does RDA expect us to add more than author names to the 245, such as Esq.,
PH.D., Dr. and even the law firm lawyers are members of at the time the
book is written?
If the info is part of the statement of responsibility as found on the
piece, the default
We have established a decision here to add titles, degrees,
certifications, etc., as a means for patrons to judge the reliability of
the authors. We are not, however going to add what I refer to as their
'current job titles/place of employment'.
Kathie
Kathleen Goldfarb
Technical
Everett,
Yes, that’s my take on the two works, although the author also describes one
as a companion, or spinoff, of the other, so he seems to consider them related
in some complementary way. I wondered whether I needed a designator like
“companion to” or “spinoff of” or something like that.
Seems to me that the works are related directly to each other, not just
indirectly via the creator. (For example, Peyton Place and Return to Peyton
Place, both by Grace Metalious, are related to each other; but The Tight White
Collar, also by Metalious, is not related to either.) If there is
Stan Allen asked:
Does RDA expect us to add more than author names to the 245, such as
Esq., PH.D., Dr. and even the law firm lawyers are members of at the
time the book is written?
Yes. But some omit institutional affiliations, since they can be
mistaken for responsible bodies. Others
Mark said:
By the way, OCLC #825648041 has a fine example of an unjustified related
title added entry. No note, no designator explaining why the 700 is
around, though I guess it's the title of earlier editions. Someone
in-the-know could invoke RDA 25.2/26.2 or clear up the matter in some other
Why not simply a companion to (work)--which would follow the author's
original description of the relationship?
Cary T. Isley
TCC
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Epstein, Emily emily.epst...@ucdenver.edu
wrote:
From the description, it sounds like the relationship between the two
works is
Adam,
I think there is value in doing so, since YA readers who enjoyed the book aimed
at them might want to read the more complex version; conversely, readers who
find the “adult” version too unpleasant might still enjoy reading a novel that
dealt with its topic and themes. A common author
I do think the mapping is misleading. The point of RDA is to avoid scrambling
of different elements for the sake of convenience. This was the rationale
behind 264 and its various indicators, wasn't it? Why is it considered
necessary to mix up font size with item subunits? Couldn't font size be
Steven said:
I do think the mapping is misleading. The point of RDA is to avoid
scrambling of different elements for the sake of convenience.
Isn't the point of everything we do the convenience of our users?
Why is it considered necessary to mix up font size with item
subunits? Couldn't font
Robert Maxwell said:
I think we need to be using the new, specific, MARC fields for the
information
That's what I think about 503.
But large print to me seems an aspect of physical description, so I
see no more need to hive it off than illustrations or size. we don't
normally record font size,
13 matches
Mail list logo
