Re: [RDA-L] New format reproductions and RDA

2013-04-08 Thread M. E.
J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote: RDA has WEMI; Bibframe has W/I. My limited grasp of the BIBFRAME discussion suggests that it doesn't have to be structured as WEMI. Since it's trying to be all things to all people, it only has to accommodate it. -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex

Re: [RDA-L] New format reproductions and RDA

2013-04-05 Thread J. McRee Elrod
Stephen Early asked: And whether I like it or not, RDA treats the microfilm as the manifestation on which I must base my description. Since you've been going through RDA longer than I have*, I would be interested in your comments/justifications. The short answer is I don't. RDA has WEMI;

Re: [RDA-L] New format reproductions and RDA

2013-04-04 Thread Flynn, Emily
, March 28, 2013 5:32 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] New format reproductions and RDA Emily Flynn said: Using RDA for cataloging microform reproductions, this means that the original only gets noted in a 776 field ... There are other options, including 534 and repeating

Re: [RDA-L] New format reproductions and RDA

2013-04-04 Thread J. McRee Elrod
Emily Flynn asked: What about the fixed fields? How are you treating the two dates from repeating 264s then? Using r in DtSt or representing the original vs. microforms dates in a different way? We find it counter intuitive that apart from continuing resources, the later date does in date one,

Re: [RDA-L] New format reproductions and RDA

2013-03-29 Thread Leibowitz, Faye R
Benjamin A Abrahamse said: On the CONSERlist there has been discussion of this same issue and the point has been raised: if we can (perhaps for slightly different reasons) countenance a provider neutral practice with respect to electronic reproductions, could we think of microfilm

Re: [RDA-L] New format reproductions and RDA

2013-03-29 Thread Kevin M Randall
Whether the resource is in the original format or a reproduction does not make a difference in regard to choice of access points for the work and expression. The MARC fields and subfields should be the same. The only instance in which access points might not be appropriate is if the name is

[RDA-L] New format reproductions and RDA

2013-03-28 Thread Flynn, Emily
With RDA, reproductions in a new format (such as microform) shift cataloging focus to the manifestation in hand rather than the original content the new format conveys. The same was true in the switch from AACR(1) to AACR2 but an LCRI allowed for the use of a 533 reproduction note enabling the

Re: [RDA-L] New format reproductions and RDA

2013-03-28 Thread Adam L. Schiff
Field 046 could be used to record the creation date of the work, and could certainly be indexed and displayed. You could also still use field 534 in RDA I think. ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA

Re: [RDA-L] New format reproductions and RDA

2013-03-28 Thread J. McRee Elrod
Emily Flynn said: Using RDA for cataloging microform reproductions, this means that the origi= nal only gets noted in a 776 field ... There are other options, including 534 and repeating 264. We put the original publisher in 264 1, and the micro distributor or manufacturer in 264 2 or 3. We

Re: [RDA-L] New format reproductions and RDA

2013-03-28 Thread Benjamin A Abrahamse
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] on behalf of Adam L. Schiff [asch...@u.washington.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 3:29 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] New format reproductions