As Kevin Randall pointed out:
The guidelines are clearly stated in RDA 6.2.1.7:
Initial Articles
When recording the title, include an
initial article, if present.
Alternative: Omit an initial article
(see appendix
24.09.2013 13:01, Danskin, Alan:
... JSC recognised that the omission
of the article is not good practice because the resulting title does not
accurately represent the resource and (more importantly) may render the
title ungrammatical in inflected languages.
That antiquated omission rule was
My question is in regard to local print reproductions (reports run off a
library printer) of a government document (public domain) PDF received (for
example) in email by a bibliographer. We get a fair number of these and I need
to figure this out.
In AACR2, we simply cataloged the original,
Hi, All,
I stumbled onto an LC record that lists the editor of an anthology,
Melissa Marr, in the 100 field. She writes the
introduction and one story in the
anthology. The title
of the book is Rags and
Patricia Fogler said:
In AACR2, we simply cataloged the original
Sorry, no. That was a LCRI which contradicted AACR2.
In RDA, given an 008 Ctry 264 coded for a specific library, this record
would not be one I would think another library would feel comfortable
editing for their own use.
Lynne LaBare posted:
I stumbled onto an LC record that lists the editor of an anthology,
Melissa Marr, in the 100 field.
That is wrong under either AACR2 or RDA. But some feel RDA should have
allowed editor main entry.
700 1_|aMarr, Melissa,|e editor of compilation.
Yes, with title main
6 matches
Mail list logo
