Getting Started with RDA: A CIG pop-up workshop
3rd July 2013, University of Warwick
The CILIP Cataloguing and Indexing Group is pleased to announce a new workshop
aimed at helping libraries migrate to RDA.
If you are planning to adopt Resource Description and Access (RDA), or just
thinking
15.05.2013 14:44, C.J. Carty:
The Cambridge RDA Steering Group is pleased to announce that it is
making available all of its RDA documentation and training materials
under a Creative Commons CC-BY licence for anyone to reuse or adapt. Our
intranet is not publicly accessible so we have created a
RDA 6.23.2.9.2 says: For books of the Catholic or Protestant canon,
record the brief citation form of the Authorized Version as a
subdivision of the preferred title for the Bible.
Is my interpretation correct that Authorized Version here is not meant
in a general sense of some standard
On 16/05/2013 14:21, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:
snip
RDA 6.23.2.9.2 says: For books of the Catholic or Protestant canon,
record the brief citation form of the Authorized Version as a
subdivision of the preferred title for the Bible.
Is my interpretation correct that Authorized Version here
In England, the expression Authorised Version, often simply AV. certainly
means the version published in 1611,
(also known as the King James Bible) irrespective of the religious
denomination of the speaker/writer.
Others more familiar than I can speak of N. American usage, but I have
always
Malcolm Jones wrote:
In England, the expression Authorised Version, often simply AV. certainly
means the version published in 1611,
(also known as the King James Bible) irrespective of the religious
denomination of the speaker/writer.
Others more familiar than I can speak of N. American usage,
I believe that this is one area that the JSC didn't have time to completely
reconsider before RDA was published. I think your understanding of the rule is
correct and it would make sense for the German translation to follow the French
example. Indeed, I don't see why books of the Bible aren't
Personally, I'd consider 'Authorized Version' to be a relative term, and always
understood the generic, universally recognizable term for the 1611 translation
to be the King James Bible. I presume there's an academic (and presumably C of
E) understanding of 'Authorized Version' as being the
Certainly, Authorized Version in the context of RDA 6.23.2.9.2 is a
specific designation for the King James Bible, not a generic term -- this
usage in cataloging rules predates RDA and goes back through AACR to the
ALA rules of 1949 and presumably further.
As Heidrun notes, this is an
Martin Kelleher wrote:
Personally, I'd consider 'Authorized Version' to be a relative term, and
always understood the generic, universally recognizable term for the 1611
translation to be the King James Bible. I presume there's an academic
(and presumably C of E) understanding of 'Authorized
You are right, the adaptation of 6.23.2.9.2 that was made in the French version
was deliberate, to respect the spirit of 0.11.2 and ensure that titles for the
books of the Bible would be recorded in French in a French catalogue. It goes
without saying that the French cataloguing community would
Authorized Version makes no sense in the USA, except as authorized by a
particular non-governmental body. The Jefferson Bible was published by
the GPO in 1904, but this was not an authorization.
The term Authorized Version does work in the UK. According to the
Wikipedia article you cite, it was
Hi all
May I ask maybe a simple question? I have an item of which the author plays
multiple roles. How can I enter the relator code, #e? Do I repeat the #e to
include as author, illustrator, editor, etc on the same tag 100 field?
Thank you for your spirit of sharing!
Ms Malarvele Ilangovan
Tamil
13 matches
Mail list logo
