Adam said:
I think the instruction was written as it is because only one place
may be used in a qualifier when needed to break a conflict.
Yes, that seems very plausible. One gets the feeling that the person(s)
who wrote the instruction were mainly thinking of access points and not
of the
October 2013 08:51
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Can corporate bodies only have one associated place?
Adam said:
I think the instruction was written as it is because only one place
may be used in a qualifier when needed to break a conflict.
Yes, that seems very
-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: 28 October 2013 08:51
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Can corporate bodies only have one associated place?
Adam said:
I think the instruction was written as it is because only one place
may be used in a qualifier
Richard,
There are sub-elements for Location of Conference, Etc., and Location of Headquarters,
but in 11.3.1.1 these are just examples (note the instruction says .e.g.).
I did indeed notice the e.g. and found that odd as well. If location
of conference and location of headquarters are just
Can it really be that 11.3.3.3 allows only for the recording of *one*
local place associated with a corporate body? The instruction reads:
For other bodies, record the name of the local place that is commonly
associated with the name of the body (...).
Unlike 11.3.2.3 (Recording location of
-Original Message-
From: Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2013 12:06 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Can corporate bodies only have one associated place?
Can it really be that 11.3.3.3 allows only for the recording of *one*
local place associated with a corporate
6 matches
Mail list logo