Am 02.10.2013 01:55, schrieb J. McRee Elrod:
ISBD is the most successful international library standard ever, and a
major component of the hoped for UBC. It is sad to see it
sidetracked.
We don't know if the last word on that has been spoken yet.
Right now, lacking any proof-of-concept and
Adam wrote:
I recently taught at RDA at the National Library of Israel. They do
not have a single preferred script, nor a single language of
cataloging. In fact they have four: Hebrew, Arabic, roman, and
Cyrillic. Depending on the script of the resource they are
cataloging, they will use
On 02/10/2013 12.21, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:
snip
Adam wrote:
I recently taught at RDA at the National Library of Israel. They do
not have a single preferred script, nor a single language of
cataloging. In fact they have four: Hebrew, Arabic, roman, and
Cyrillic. Depending on the
J. McRee (Mac) Elrod said:
As I understand it, what are Expressions in RDA (e.g. translations) are Works
in Bibframe. The WEMI structure of RDA would be as irrelevant to Bibframe
as it is to MARC.
Not so. As I understand it, both RDA Works and RDA Expressions are represented
as Bibframe
Adam
I agree with you that Fictitious character from Card isn't an
appropriate qualifier. 9.19.1.2 instructs to add the term Fictitious
character to names for fictitious characters. There is no instruction
to modify this qualifier into a phrase. I don't think Fictitious
character from Card is
We have an author whose birth date is known to be between 1310 and 1319.
We can record it in the 046 following edtf, but how would people deal
with it in an RDA authorized access point? RDA 9.3.1.3 doesn't have an
example of between 1310 and 1319, but should this mean we can't do it?
It's as
Richard,
This reminds me of an earlier discussion about the use of the question mark
instead of approximately. I can see your $d as: 1310?/1319?- or as: 1310/1319?-
I originally put it as 1310-1319?- But that looks like the person may have only
lived 9 years. The problem is one of training
Richard All,
I’m also planning to do several days of NACO training later this month. I have
downloaded the files and I hope I will be able to use them… However, when I
started reviewing them I found that I would need to do significant work on the
powerpoint presentation because the screen
For between 1310 and 1319, can you not say 1310s anymore. It says in the
draft version of RDA 1.9.2.5:
Decade Known: If the decade is known, record the first year of the
decade followed by an s. I don't find it in the Toolkit. Was there a
reason for taking it out.
Jack Wu
Franciscan University of
Hi all
I've had several people ask me about what to record for Publisher Name when
they see something like Academic Press, an imprint of Elsevier.
On the one hand publication place and name are transcribed as they appear on
the source of information (2.8.1). On the other hand the scope for
Hello, Everyone.
Another aspect of this is that the place of publication varies on a lot on this
sort of publication. Routledge publications are a good example. The title
pages now usually say
Routledge
Taylor Francis Group
London and New York
while the title page verso says
First
The following ACOC and DNB responses for the November 2013 JSC meeting are
available on the public website (http://www.rda-jsc.org/workingnew.html):
6JSC/ALA/22/DNB response
6JSC/ALA/24/ACOC response
6JSC/ALA/24/DNB response
6JSC/ALA/25/ACOC response
6JSC/ALA/26/ACOC response
6JSC/ALA/26/DNB
I said:
As I understand it, what are Expressions in RDA (e.g. translations)
are Works in Bibframe.
Thomas Meehan responded:
Not so. As I understand it, both RDA Works and RDA Expressions are
represented as Bibframe Works.
Isn't that what I just said?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod
I think you would have to say
$d active 14th century
1.9.2.5 would allow you to do [between 1310 and 1319] for a publication date,
but it does not apply to dates of birth. It doesn’t appear that you could do
$d [between 1310 and 1319]-
The only other option I could see would be to use an
Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.edu wrote:
But, speaking for myself, I think the FRBR model would be a lot simpler to
grasp, not to mention more applicable to non-monographic resources, if the
expression level were jettisoned altogether.
I have to say that I highly doubt if FRBR is more
The last time I looked at this LC-PCC PS (a few days ago), it had not yet been
changed. I don’t know if LC plans to follow the rest of the PCC on this.
Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries
From: Panchyshyn, Roman
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 6:01 AM
To:
Benjamin said:
I don't see what the category of Expressions give us that couldn't
be recorded and expressed through relationships among Works.
I agree. And RDA should be reshuffled in arrangement to reflect
Bibframe's W/I, even if we can't get ISBD arrangement.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac)
I don't know either, but in the LC original cataloging we're getting
here (at least for monographs), it seems like it's rare for there
not to be at least one relationship designator for every
contributor, no matter what the contributor's role(s).
Mike Chopey
I personally find the expression level extremely useful for distinguishing
between, e.g., different translations, different formats, etc. It's not a
relationship between works. A translation isn't a different work from the
original. A recording of a work isn't a different work from the text.
I'm wondering what the collective wisdom is regarding providing a variant
access point in bibliographic records to the portion of a title proper
that precedes an alternative title.
As you all are probably aware, in RDA an alternative title is treated as
part of the title proper (2.3.2.1), but
Adam said:
As you all are probably aware, in RDA an alternative title is treated as
part of the title proper (2.3.2.1),
As it was in AACR2. Granted it would be better if the $b were after
the ,or, before the alternate title. (Earlier, it created a problem
with GMD placement, but that concern
21 matches
Mail list logo
