Adam Schiff said:
In our current database environment, variant access points refer to used
for references (4XX) in authority records, they aren't intended as
additional access points in bibs. In a bib you would only use the
preferred access point for an entity.
This applies only to most
Adam,
Thanks. I understand that aspect. But it's not as clear to me in the RDA
drafts how these VAP's are to be applied, i.e. there is no statement to
the effect that these refer to bibs/authorities and/or FRBR/FRAD. In AACR
'references' clearly referred to authority records and title
Adam L. Schiff said:
I have to disagree with Mac Elrod's post. In terms of the December 2007
draft, the term variant access point is only referring to cross-references
in authority records, not variant titles in bibliographic descriptions.
You have underscored my point beautifully. Thank
Adam, without going on about this too long (and recognizing that you are
not personally responsible ) I would like to understand the nature of
the access points in the bibliographic record.
The RDA draft says:
5.1.3 ACCESS POINT
...
5.1.3.2 The term *access point* refers to a name
You have to go back to the rules that deal with creators, that were in the
former chapter 6 that was released last spring:
6.3.1.0.3 A person, family, or corporate body responsible for compiling an
aggregate work may be considered to be a creator of the compilation if the
selection,
Jonathan, here's what John Attig said about names vs. reality in the
#2 scenario:[see below for link]
It [the #2 scenario] also includes a single composite bibliographic
record for each resource, but the access points in that record are
linked to authority records. These authority records
Martha Yee mentioned this also in her Dec. 17 post with comments on the
recent drafts:
I heartily support the entry of more works under compilers, as a name in
conjunction with a title is much more likely to be a distinctive work
identifier than is a title alone. However, I cannot figure out
I think I disagree with that interpretation. I think our preferred
names are best understood as both identifiers and display labels in
the _present_ environment! I don't think the choice of scenarios
effects this, personally. Those scenarios are questions of how the
data is to be encoded, and
8 matches
Mail list logo
