But it would perpetuate one of the nastiest MARC21 features: the
punctuation at the field or subfield end.
Why not include it in $i?
Mac
Johnathan Rockind said:
This seems like a perfectly reasonable and good solution to me,
On Jun 29, 2007, at 4:11 PM, Adam L. Schiff wrote:
I think from our discussion on this matter is that RDA needs
another element to record what I will call the linking word or
term in the title.
How does
It does not differ, it is the same semantic content. Surely, RDA and
MARC need to be compatible. Just as both need to be compatible with
ISBD, if the ISBD elements are still important. And just as both need
to be compatible with FRBR, if the FRBR model is important. (I
realize there is some
Quoting James Agenbroad [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Is there a reason I don't see why we need to distinguish between alternative
titles and parallel titles?
A parallel title is of equivalent weight to the title proper, but
distinct from it. Generally it's provided when the document is
addressed
Quoting Robert Maxwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes, there is a difference. Alternative titles and parallel titles
aren't worded the same way. There remains the problem of what to do with
that pesky little or.
And equivalents in other languages; in some languages, more than one
(Latin has vel or
This seems like a perfectly reasonable and good solution to me,
expressed clearly and well. I'm confused why the thread continues
after Adam's contribution, ignoring it, and discussing instead why
various other solutions are all unsatisfactory?
Jonathan
On Jun 29, 2007, at 4:11 PM, Adam L.
This is, at least as presented, a matter of markup. I'm not sure that
markup alone, or this markup in particular, solves the problem that
worries me the most, which is trying to get both display and access out
of one single set of data elements. I'm still unclear as to what we are
trying to
I think from our discussion on this matter is that RDA needs another
element to record what I will call the linking word or term in the
title. To have title proper and alternative title elements is not enough,
because the linking word or and its equivalents in other languages need
to be
I am beginning to suspect that the difficulties arising for the
treatment of the conjunction preceding an alternative title may be why
ISBD is formulated to include alternative titles in the title proper. I
am not against the JSC's decision to create the new element for the
alternative title.
Friday, June 29, 2007
At present AACRE defines:
1. Parallel title. The title proper in another language and/or script. and
2. Alternative title. The second part of a title proper that consists of
two parts, each part of which is a title; the parts are joined by or or its
equivalent in
/ Resource Description and Access
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Agenbroad
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 4:37 PM
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] linking word element needed
Friday, June 29, 2007
At present AACRE defines:
1. Parallel title. The title proper
11 matches
Mail list logo
