I am through chapter three. I have found a few misreferences or references
that were only vaguely connected to the data element involved. As far as
chapter three is concerned, it has to be rewritten and made a lot more
compact. It strikes me that with all the references in each section, that
It seems many of these misnumbered references through out the final draft. I
wonder this could be considered not only the typos of the instruction numbers,
but also having errors in Online RDA for linking each related instructions
and/or creating certain workflows ...
I was also feel
Keiko Suzuki wrote:
I was also feel discouraged to see the [RDA] table of contents file
(itself contains 113 p.!?) posted today.
I hazard to think this is an exploded view of the online version of the
contents rather than something one would properly use for a paper-based
product.
Mark K.
Greta said:
It could be misnumbered, did you look at the nearby rules? I've
found two misnumbered references already.
I wonder if these blind and wrong references are the result of
renumbering in successive drafts, as opposed to typos?
Whatever the cause, this can not be a final draft.
When
4 matches
Mail list logo
