Re: [RDA-L] RDA rule equivalence AACR rule 21.23C1

I believe the relevant instructions are at RDA 6.28.1.5. Steve McDonald steve.mcdon...@tufts.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access

Re: [RDA-L] RDA rule equivalence AACR rule 21.23C1

and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of McDonald, Stephen Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 4:14 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA rule equivalence AACR rule 21.23C1 I believe the relevant instructions are at RDA

Re: [RDA-L] Multiple bibliographic identities

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

Re: [RDA-L] Titles of nobility

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

Re: [RDA-L] Names found in a non-preferred script (8.4 vs. 9.2.2.5.3 and 11.2.2.12)

Heidrun Wiesenmüller said: The general rule in 8.4 says: Record names in the language and script in which they appear on the sources from which they are taken. The alternative reads: Record a transliterated form of the name either as a substitute for, or in addition to, the form that appears

Re: [RDA-L] GMD - where is everyone on this?

We are leaving a GMD if it is present (in both AACR2 and RDA records), but we are not adding a GMD to an RDA record if one is not present. We are following the principle of least work-it doesn't hurt our system right now if it is present in an old RDA record, but we won't add it.

Re: [RDA-L] Cataloguing PDF files.

It would not be subfield y. Subfield y is a text phrase, not a path to the resource. If you wanted to put it into subfield d, the path would be: DATA-HT-01/Mapped Drives/Liberty Data/e-docs/3330004.pdf But by putting a scheme in front of the path, you turn it into a URI. http is the best

Re: [RDA-L] 264 with only a copyright date

Gene Fieg asked, regarding the inclusion of copyright date and inferred publication date in an RDA record: And how is the user supposed to make sense of this? How are thesis advisors supposed to make sense of this when checking bibliographical citations? How will it display I don't see

Re: [RDA-L] 264 with only a copyright date

Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of McDonald, Stephen Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 1:49 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 264 with only a copyright date Gene Fieg asked, regarding the inclusion

Re: [RDA-L] 260 and 264 Fields

Because the 264 allows you to have separate fields for production, publication, distribution, manufacture, and copyright, in accordance with RDA, coded so that machine processing can distinguish them. The initial testing of RDA used the 260, and based on the results it was felt that a new

Re: [RDA-L] Use of brackets in RDA records

If you are following the instructions under 19.2.1.1.1 to determine that the publisher is also the creator, and the publisher name comes from the resource itself in accordance with 19.1.1, I don't believe that you need square brackets.

Re: [RDA-L] fictitious characters in RDA

If a fictitious character were established as a 100 in a Name Authority Record and you wished to use it as a subject, you would have to establish a 650 Subject Authority Record for the fictitious person. This is explicitly stated in the LC-PCC-PS, including an example for Jessica Fletcher as a

Re: [RDA-L] 2.3.1.6 Introductory words

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,

Re: [RDA-L] order in 245 when title is more than one language,

I can understand the logic of that. Would you also have a 246 field with the complete title in German, and a 246 with the complete title in English, with the B.446 in each? That would seem to meet all needs. Steve McDonald

Re: [RDA-L] dimension of discs and end punctuations of 264 field

From RDA 3.5.1.3 Recording Dimensions: - Unless instructed otherwise, record dimensions in centimetres to the next whole centimetre up, using the metric symbol cm (e.g., if the height measures 17.2 centimetres, record 18 cm Alternative: Record dimensions in the system of measure