[RDA-L] RDA reproduction question

I've an expedite request for a local printout copy of what I think is OCLC# 811622782. I don't understand this RDA record. I was hoping someone could direct me to RDA documentation about cataloging reprints? We are not creating original RDA records as yet. We are incorporating RDA (mainly

Re: [RDA-L] RDA reproduction question

Many thanks for the responses on my reproduction question. The record in question has been edited makes much more sense. I realize that LC is now cataloging the work in hand, rather than the original when cataloging reproductions in their RDA records. My understanding had been (taken

[RDA-L] thanks -- RE: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question

I very much appreciate your detailed reply. I want to hasten to clarify that I wasn’t trying to point out any institution as doing anything wrong or nonstandard. Merely citing an example (of a record that looked to be done by the rules but rules that were confusing me). Getting the

[RDA-L] 502 coding in RDA

I am trying to make a local decision on the 502 for our catalog in preparation for RDA training. I remember some discussions on this topic a month and 2 ago am hoping to hear that someone has come up with a good solution since. We would like to start coding the 502 subfields, but as best

Re: [RDA-L] 502 coding in RDA

Avenue New York, NY 10016-3405 TEL: 212 590-0380 FAX: 212-768-5680 NET: eoke...@themorgan.org Visit CORSAIR, the Library’s comprehensive collections catalog, now on the web at http://corsair.themorgan.org FOGLER, PATRICIA A GS-11 USAF AETC AUL/LTSC patricia.fog...@us.af.mil 2/22/2013 9:01 AM I am

[RDA-L] thanks RE: [RDA-L] 502 coding in RDA

elements. //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135    On Fri, 22 Feb 2013, FOGLER, PATRICIA A GS-11 USAF AETC AUL/LTSC wrote: I am trying to make a local decision on the 502 for our

[RDA-L] RDA Print Reproduction 264 question

I sent this question to OCLC, but I'm on a bit of a deadline and the RDA list does seem the right place after all. I’m back again looking at reproductions. This time I’m looking at the publisher from an RDA standpoint. My primary question (I’ve a few follow-on prepared but let’s start with

[RDA-L] RDA local printouts

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,

[RDA-L] RDA local printouts

I really appreciate Lynn Mac's replies. I will probably use a 2nd 264 and cite our library as manufacturer. It doesn't display nicely but that's another issue. So in revision I am thinking for my record: 008 Form:r dtst:s dates: 2003, 264_1 [Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania] : ǂb Army

[RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)

I'm working through today's name authority changes wondering why I'm finding: ‡a Wiggin, Ender (Fictitious character) but ‡a Wiggin, Peter ‡c (Fictitious character) Is this simply two different agencies interpreting the rules differently? We don't catalog a lot of fiction here so I've not

[RDA-L] Thanks RE: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)

smime.p7m Description: S/MIME encrypted message

[RDA-L] Fictitious characters as authors

Michael Bernhard said: It seems to me, too, that the heading for Holmes should be Holmes, Sherlock |c (Fictitious character). I would like this clarified. In the same load I had a number of name authorities the 2 that were presented as sometime authors of books no longer had any qualifier.

Re: [RDA-L] RDA name authorities |c (Fictitious character)

This is clearly confusing more than myself. I appreciate the forwarding of the PCC list post. And I’m following this continued conversation with interest. When a fictitious character is already established in the subject authority file the subject record is being cancelled a “new one”

[RDA-L] 775 previous edition/different title/format

I have a print copy (Not a reproduction for once, thank goodness!) of the 2012 Law of armed conflict deskbook. I just input OCLC861338166 and am realizing that there is a previous edition of this work so I am thinking through the edit to the record. The previous ed. title is slightly

Re: [RDA-L] 502 dissertation note in RDA

We have been using the more complex 502, coded out as of the last batch of school papers. Our systems librarian was able to edit the display so that it generated a Thesis statement that our bibliographers would like. our 502 ‡b M. Phil. ‡c School of Advanced Air and Space Studies ‡d 2012.

[RDA-L] 347 for digital files

We are noticing that GPO is now coding 347 in records describing PDF files. We are not seeing these in other RDA records for PDF files. [of course we may not be looking at the records that ARE using it] Right now we are leaving the data in the records. We haven't been adding them to the

[RDA-L] 240 uniform title

I'm trying to explain the use of a 240 uniform title in a bibliographic record clearly to my staff. I have a tenuous grasp on uniform titles and welcome any direction to specific training in depth about the choices of MARC tags in different situations. I understand that the title in question

Re: [RDA-L] 240 uniform title

there won't be a conflict. Also, you don't know for sure that Trimble will be the creator of each of the quarterly reports. Adam Schiff University of Washington Libraries -Original Message- From: FOGLER, PATRICIA A GS-11 USAF AETC AUL/LTSC Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 7:18 AM

Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator

I'd like to jump off this discussion ever so slightly ask what relationship designator one would use for a 110 corporate agency that is charged with issuing a quarterly report. I'm still thinking about these GAO reports in which the report is this agency's findings on a specified topic; I feel

Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designator for corporate creator

I have to say that I was going with creator myself after reading a few RDA-list comments. But putting it out locally to our bibliographers, it's been voted down in favor of author. So I guess it's going to vary from one library to another. As much of RDA appears to be doing. //SIGNED//