As an example, the cataloger has an early edition of Jane Eyre. The author name
on the title page is Currer Bell. Although Currer Bell is a pseudonym for
Charlotte Bronte, we wouldn't want the cataloger to enter under Bell, Currer
rather than Bronte, Charlotte, because it is commonly known --
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:47:56 +, Arakawa, Steven steven.arak...@yale.edu
wrote:
As an example, the cataloger has an early edition of Jane Eyre. The author name
on the title page is Currer Bell. Although Currer Bell is a pseudonym for
Charlotte Bronte, we wouldn't want the cataloger to enter
OCLC #779266283 is a recent example, not RDA, with a 100 for Vine, Barbara,
a 700 for Rendell, Ruth, and this in the 245: Ruth Rendell, writing as
Barbara Vine and I find that helpful.
Isn't it good for people to know that Vine is a pseudonym for Rendell, and
to see that multiple times, because we
Pamela Dearinger said:
OCLC #779266283 is a recent example, not RDA, with a 100 for Vine, Barbara, a
700 for Rendell, Ruth, and this in the 245: Ruth Rendell, writing as Barbara
Vine
and I find that helpful. Isn't it good for people to know that Vine is a
pseudonym for Rendell, and to see
Well, I don't know what to do about that either. I was actually just
responding to the following:
But I would not like to start seeing records that have a 100 for the
named person on the resource and a 700 for the actual author
and I meant to say some of us don't pay attention to what we are
And really what we need are systems that use the relationships in authority
records to offer the user choices. You search for Barbara Vine and the system
asks you if you also want to retrieve her real identity Ruth Rendell. Our
OPACs don’t do a great job with this yet.
Adam Schiff
University
I find it difficult to reconcile the following two RDA instructions
concerning titles of nobility:
9.4.1.3 (Recording Titles of Persons) says: Record titles as separate
elements, as parts of access points, or as both. This also refers to
titles of nobility (9.4.1.5). So 9.4.1.3 seems to allow
As I see it, 9.4.1.3 is simply saying that sometimes you record it as a
separate element, sometimes as part of an access point, and sometimes as both.
It isn't saying you always have a choice about it. It directs you to 9.19.1.2
for specific instructions on recording as part of an access
Stephen,
As I see it, 9.4.1.3 is simply saying that sometimes you record it as a
separate element, sometimes as part of an access point, and sometimes as both.
It isn't saying you always have a choice about it. It directs you to 9.19.1.2
for specific instructions on recording as part of an
This is just a guess, but could examples of the first case include the
exceptions listed under 9.19.1.2? If the titles or designations in those
exceptions are not added to the access point, then perhaps they could be
included as other elements (e.g. 368) in an authority record. However, the
three
Good point. Thanks for pointing me to the exceptions.
But I agree it's not clear whether in these cases you'd want to record
the title at all.
Heidrun
Arthur Liu wrote:
This is just a guess, but could examples of the first case include the
exceptions listed under 9.19.1.2? If the titles
The instruction at 9.4.1.3 is an exact parallel to the instruction at
9.3.1.3, so I think you can apply the same line of reasoning in both
instances. There will be times when we record a person's dates or title as
a separate data element, times when we record dates or titles as parts of
access
(KC) I am really asking about variant access points for the works. If there is
an authorized access point for a work under an author's real identity, and we
have decided that he/she is so well-known that none of his/her alternate
identities need to be given life as NARs in their own
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 17.10.2013 00:02, schrieb Charles Croissant:
The instruction at 9.4.1.3 is an exact parallel to the instruction at
9.3.1.3, so I think you can apply the same line of reasoning in both
instances. There will be times when we record a person's
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Arakawa, Steven
Sent: October-16-13 6:32 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Pseudonyms under RDA
(KC) I am
Thomas quoted an RDA example:
Authorized access point: Cunningham, E. V., 1914-2003. Sylvia
Variant access point: Fast, Howard, 1914-2003. Sylvia
I ain't gwine do dat. I agree with Adam that there should not be two
access points for the same person in the same bibliographic record.
A see or
Implementing these access points in a card catalog produces
Fast, Howard, 1914-2003. Sylvia
see
Cunningham, E.V., 1914-2003. Sylvia
This captures the reality that users would legitimately seek the title Sylvia
under the name they saw in a few cases.
RDA E.1.3.2 provides the instructions
Thomas posted:
Implementing these access points in a card catalog produces
Fast, Howard, 1914-2003. Sylvia
see
Cunningham, E.V., 1914-2003. Sylvia
In a card catalogue, Fast is a cross reference, not an alternate
access point.
Even better in a OPAC would be being taken directly from the
18 matches
Mail list logo
