...@bl.uk
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam Schiff
Sent: 16 October 2013 19:59
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Multiple bibliographic identities
of Washington Libraries
From: Pamela Dearinger
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 11:19 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Multiple bibliographic identities
Well, I don't know what to do about that either. I was actually just
responding to the following:
>But
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
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
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 w
Adam said:
>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.
It's nice to agree with Adam. There should not be two entries for the
same person in a bibliographic record. That's the function of a see
or see also
6 matches
Mail list logo
