I can't use RDA yet, so I wasn't paying initial attention to this discussion.
I understood that a fictitious character as author would now be in a 100 field,
but now it sounds like all fictitious characters are to be treated like real
people and placed in the 600 field as well. Is that the
Good points on both sides. Much probably depends on context. The user
looking for an item in another language than English in our public library
is likely to be more comfortable with that language than with English; in
an academic library I might expect the reverse. For us it is probably a
good
Yes that is true, at least for all newly established characters. LC will
(slowly, I imagine) undertake a project to convert their LCSH headings for
ficititious characters to name authorities. NACO libraries will establish
them as well as needed and report existing LCSH terms for cancellation.
Donna Gray-Williams asked:
I understood that a fictitious character as author would now be in a
100 field, but now it sounds like all fictitious characters are to be
treated like real people and placed in the 600 field as well.
That's what we are doing, with $c(Fictitious character) always
Somehow in all these changes in establishment of name authorities for
fictitious characters, I can't find anything that says the choice of main entry
(or Preferred access point, or 100 field data) has changed. Although RDA 9.0
says the scope of persons does include fictitious character; it also
I recommend the training materials available from the Library of
Congresshttp://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/RDA%20training%20materials/LC%20RDA%20Training/LC%20RDA%20course%20table.html
loc.gov site.
Of course, these materials are LoC-centric, so you may need to adapt some
of the information to your
Jack Wu said:
I've always learned that a fictitious character is just that, a figment of =
our imagination. It is not capable of authorship (or as creator) unless =
it's a pseudonym of some real person.
We should describe things as they present themselves. It the title
page says it was written
RDA takes at face value an assertion of creatorship. So yes, it has
changed from AACR2. Any person can be a creator, and RDA asserts that
persons include fictitious and legendary persons and non-humans:
9.0. Persons include persons named in religious works, fictitious and
legendary
Jack Wu j...@franciscan.edu wrote:
I've always learned that a fictitious character is just that, a figment
of our imagination. It is not capable of authorship (or as creator) unless
it's a pseudonym of some real person. I can understand Holmes, Sherlock
getting an access point, but cannot
9 matches
Mail list logo
