J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
RDA has WEMI; Bibframe has W/I.
My limited grasp of the BIBFRAME discussion suggests that it doesn't have
to be structured as WEMI. Since it's trying to be all things to all
people, it only has to accommodate it.
--
Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex
Stephen Early asked:
And whether I like it or not, RDA treats the microfilm as the
manifestation on which I must base my description. Since you've
been going through RDA longer than I have*, I would be interested in
your comments/justifications.
The short answer is I don't. RDA has WEMI;
, March 28, 2013 5:32 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] New format reproductions and RDA
Emily Flynn said:
Using RDA for cataloging microform reproductions, this means that the
original only gets noted in a 776 field ...
There are other options, including 534 and repeating
Emily Flynn asked:
What about the fixed fields? How are you treating the two dates from
repeating 264s then? Using r in DtSt or representing the original
vs. microforms dates in a different way?
We find it counter intuitive that apart from continuing resources, the
later date does in date one,
Benjamin A Abrahamse said:
On the CONSERlist there has been discussion of this same issue and the point
has been raised: if we can (perhaps for slightly different reasons) countenance
a provider neutral practice with respect to electronic reproductions, could
we think of microfilm
Whether the resource is in the original format or a reproduction does not make
a difference in regard to choice of access points for the work and expression.
The MARC fields and subfields should be the same. The only instance in which
access points might not be appropriate is if the name is
With RDA, reproductions in a new format (such as microform) shift cataloging
focus to the manifestation in hand rather than the original content the new
format conveys. The same was true in the switch from AACR(1) to AACR2 but an
LCRI allowed for the use of a 533 reproduction note enabling the
Field 046 could be used to record the creation date of the work, and could
certainly be indexed and displayed. You could also still use field 534 in
RDA I think.
^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA
Emily Flynn said:
Using RDA for cataloging microform reproductions, this means that the origi=
nal only gets noted in a 776 field ...
There are other options, including 534 and repeating 264.
We put the original publisher in 264 1, and the micro distributor or
manufacturer in 264 2 or 3. We
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] on behalf of Adam L. Schiff
[asch...@u.washington.edu]
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 3:29 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] New format reproductions
10 matches
Mail list logo