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. But 6.23.2.9.4 says, For an individual book [of the
Apocrypha] use the name of the book as a further subdivision,
It appears that 6.23.2.9.2 (Rule citation reminds me of AACR1) is
miswritten: It probably should read: For books of the canon that Catholics
and Protestants hold in common
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 7:47 AM, Shorten, Jay jshor...@ou.edu wrote:
6.23.2.9.2 says, “For books of the Catholic or
For what it's worth, the RDA text Jay quotes is a mash-up of several
.18A rules under AACR2 25.18 with a few tweaks here and there to
accommodate the dropping of O.T and N.T and to fold in a footnote.
Here are the relevant excepts:
25.18A. Bible
25.18A1. General rule. Enter a Testament as a
Part of the problem with these rules is that the deuterocanonical books
ARE part of the Roman Catholic canon, so that 18A1 and 18A5 seem
contradictory. Another part of the problem is that there are other canons
that should be considered in the cataloging rules. The Eastern Orthodox
canon
Jay Shorten asked:
Bible. Tobit
or
Bible. Apocrypha. Tobit?
Nobody has actually answered Jay's question.
My conclusion is the second example above.
Bible. Tobit would be more in keeping with the treatment of other
Biblical books.
But as I read 6.23.2.6 (in the last text I saw), one would
First of all, I hope the title is spelled Jubilees in RDA.
Secondly, Esdras, 1st, is really the 3rd or 4th Esdras in the Apocrypha.
See authority record below:
n 80017836
040 DLC ǂb eng ǂc DLC ǂd DLC ǂd OCoLC ǂd UPB
130 0Bible. ǂp O.T. ǂp Apocrypha. ǂp Esdras, 1st
430 0Esdras (Book 1,
Mac,
I suspect you have chosen the form intended by the RDA folks, but the form
has no rationale. The problem here is the two rules (18A1 and 18A)
contradict each other and therefore do not allow a decision to be reached
on the basis of the rules. If RDA is intended to be international,
7 matches
Mail list logo
