[RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

I am uncertain about the relationship of 6.2.2.10 (Recording the Preferred Title for a Compilation of Works of One Person, Family, or Corporate Body) and 6.27.1.9 (Additions to Access Points Representing Works) - both in theory and in practice. If I've got two different collections of works

Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

Heidrun posted: I am uncertain about the relationship of 6.2.2.10 (Recording the Preferred Title for a Compilation of Works of One Person, Family, or Corporate Body) and 6.27.1.9 (Additions to Access Points Representing Works) - both in theory and in practice. Can't comment on the theory,

Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

A few comments on this very interesting thread. In MARC date qualifiers are ambiguous between works and expressions. Always sticking dates in $f with the old-style punctuation perpetuates this ambiguity. The problem affects not only conventional collective titles, but potentially also any work

Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

Adam--Can you give any examples of NACO authority records that have qualifiers like your Best of X's poetry? I have been unable to turn any up and am curious. Thanks. Pete Wilson Vanderbilt University -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and

Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

no2013093410 Adémar, $c de Chabannes, $d 988-1034. $t Works. $k Selections (Opera liturgica et poetica) n 85278491 Anastasius, $c Sinaita, Saint, $d active 640-700. $t Works. $k Selections $s (Sermones duo in constitutionem hominis secundum imaginem Dei) no2010055326 Raabe, Wilhelm, $d

Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9

16.12.2013 23:39, John Hostage: We need to be able to enter data in MARC fields without punctuation and let the punctuation be generated as necessary on output. The punctuation could even differ in different contexts. (We can dream, can't we?) This dream has long since been reality in