I have two publications with the same title proper, one of which is a summary
of the other:
245 00 Water availability in the Ovens : $b a report to the Australian
Government from the CSIRO Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project.
264 #1 [Clayton South, Victoria] : $b CSIRO, $c [2008]
I know, Adam, that you are really asking an RDA related question. But we have
had such records merged before in OCLC. In those cases, in addition to other
fields there might be in the record to distinguish the two works, OCLC has
advised us to bracket an edition statement in the 250.
Jenifer
Adam Schiff wrote:
The question that I have is how best to distinguish between the source
work and
the derivative work. On the record for the summary I could add the
following:
787 08 $i Summary of (work): $t Water availability in the Ovens
but since the title is identical, this must
I agree with Kevin. But would you also need to add (Report) to the reciprocal
787?
Sara (who doesn't yet catalog in RDA)
Sara Shatford Layne
Principal Cataloger
UCLA Library Cataloging Metadata Center
sla...@library.ucla.edu
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access /
I think many of the linking fields (including 787) are best used to record
manifestation-level relationships. If I were recording a work-level
relationship, I'd probably use 730 in this case, with an authorized access
point for the work; as you say, at least one of them would need to be
Yes, this is a good question. I don't think we've resolved yet whether once
there is a conflict BOTH names/titles need to be qualified or just one.
Bob
Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Adam L. Schiff said:
The question that I have is how best to distinguish between the
source work and the derivative work.
Margaret Mann advocated the sort of qualification you propose. It is
my understanding the RDA does not allow it, apart from something like
(Conference) after an initialism
How about that old standby: Selections. And then use the cutter of the
main work and add a 2 to it.
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.eduwrote:
I have two publications with the same title proper, one of which is a
summary of the other:
245 00 Water
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: August-27-12 7:39 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
The
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Adam L. Schiff said:
The question that I have is how best to distinguish between the
source work and the derivative work.
Margaret Mann advocated the sort of qualification you propose. It is
my understanding the RDA does not allow it, apart from
In the current infrastructure, adding a uniform title/preferred title for the
work (with the qualifier included) to each record would make it possible
(although not easy) for the computer to look up the work cited. Wouldn't it?
Sara
Sara Shatford Layne
Principal Cataloger
UCLA Library
Jonathan,
In this case, yes there is a bib. record with a 130 field with Water
availability in the Ovens (Summary) and another bib. record with a 130
with Water availability in the Ovens (Full report).
Also note your $t in the 730 field should have been a $a. In 787 though,
it would be $s
Adam said:
RDA definitely allows the addition of qualifiers to distinguish works with
the same title ...
But not in 245 where they would be most helpful, and where Margaret Mann
would have them (pre MARC), right?
I can't seem to find a good relationship designator for the access point
made
13 matches
Mail list logo
