Elrod
Date: ven. 2013-05-17 23:12
À: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Objet : Re: [RDA-L] a rather than t for ETD
Greta asked:
So, if we are supposed to be cataloging online monographs according to Prov=
ider-neutral guidelines, wouldn't that mean that they would still be catalo=
ged as unpublished
- Original Message -
From: Paradis Daniel daniel.para...@banq.qc.ca
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2013 8:15:10 AM
Subject: [RDA-L] RE : [RDA-L] a rather than t for ETD
With the latest update to the RDA Toolkit, instruction 2.8.1.1 now includes the
sentence: Consider all
-Original Message-
From: Greta de Groat
Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2013 9:55 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RE : [RDA-L] a rather than t for ETD
Why would this be an exception to the P-N practice? I don't see it
addressed there as an exception. It seems to me that we have
20.03.2013 15:49, Laurence S. Creider:
Second, I agree that the notion of publication needs reconsideration in
light of a longer consideration of the history of the book from ancient
times until now. I do not think that anything fit for public reception
is a workable definition.
For our
Is part of the problem that we use published versus unpublished as a
dividing line for textual material but not for other types of material?
Typescripts or unpublished items produced with a printing press or even
Word documents can be coded as manuscript though they are not
handwritten, but the
Am 21.03.2013 12:01, schrieb Elizabeth O'Keefe:
Is part of the problem that we use published versus unpublished as a
dividing line for textual material but not for other types of material?
Well, apart from the difficulty of drawing it, the Lubetzkian question
has to be asked: Is this dividing
On 21/03/2013 12:26, Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
snip
Am 21.03.2013 12:01, schrieb Elizabeth O'Keefe:
Is part of the problem that we use published versus unpublished as a
dividing line for textual material but not for other types of material?
Well, apart from the difficulty of drawing it, the
19.03.2013 21:58, J. McRee Elrod:
Theses are produced in one or a very few number of copies, without editorial
review or peer review in the same way
that published monographs are made.
..
For consistency we should consider electronic theses as published.
That print ones are not is a
Mac,
With 264 0, the distinction means little in RDA. Only one fixed field
and 264 2nd indicator are affected.
This is not RDA, it is MARC. I have said for some time that I think that
the whole continuum from unpublished to published needs to be rethought in
light of the history of the book
Bernhard,
First off, thank you for continuing to contribute. I have learned a great
deal from your posts.
Second, I agree that the notion of publication needs reconsideration in
light of a longer consideration of the history of the book from ancient
times until now. I do not think that
Which perhaps begs the question of why have two different Type codes for the
same kind of content? (Which I acknowledge is an encoding and communication
format question rather than an RDA question.)
John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
Schenectady NY 12308
I've always had a problem with considering ETDs published, although I
understand that for practical purposes it is easier to consider everything
available via remote access as published. But I really don't see an
electronic dissertation as anything less of a manuscript than a printed
one.
Adam
I remember that I asked the question before, and got an answer Yes. If we
do not consider ETDs published, do we consider them manuscripts? The
following is the definition of manuscript from RDA Toolkit:
1)
In general, a text, musical score, map, etc., inscribed or written entirely
by hand,
Even printed theses by computer have always been considered unpublished
manuscripts rather than published textual monographs, so I am not sure
that it matters if one has a printout from the computer file or a digital
image of the file contents. Theses are produced in one or a very few
number
My understanding is that back in 2007 when the OhioLINK libraries drew up a
standard for ETDs, there were many long philosophical discussions about the
published vs. unpublished status. These concluded when OCLC said they
consider ETDs to be published. At my library we have therefore been coding
Adam said:
Even printed theses by computer have always been considered unpublished
manuscripts rather than published textual monographs
With 264 0, the distinction means little in RDA. Only one fixed field
and 264 2nd indicator are affected.
Theses are produced in one or a very few number of
Could someone confirm for me that the example for an online dissertation
has an error:
http://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/RDA%20training%20materials/SCT%20RDA%20Records%20TG/index.html
Record
5, Holzapfel, Structural Analysis of Active Site Conformations...
I believe the Type should be a not t,
I think that you indicate a very interesting problem. US dissertations
have been considered unpublished since universities stopped issuing them
with a dissertation note. On-demand microfilms or photocopies are still
considered unpublished. On the other hand, most people would consider a
18 matches
Mail list logo
