Karen,
If each aggregate Manifestation is linked to an aggregate Expression,
and each aggregate Expression to an aggregate Work well, then we
have a one-to-one between Manifestations, Expressions and Works. We're
back to ISBD or MARC in that case.
I'm not sure whether that description
Am 06.01.2012 10:05, schrieb Bernhard Eversberg:
Exactly. The Bibliographic Universe does not follow FRBR as its
blueprint but FRBR tries to draw a model of the universe that fits a
number of observable characteristics considered important. As any
model, it has blind spots, there are matters
sinister (With additional materials)
- Published: New York : H. Holt, [1947]
Would that be an answer to your concerns or have I misunderstood the
problem?
Heidrun
--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmüller M.A.
Hochschule der Medien
Fakultät Information und Kommunikation
Wolframstr. 32
Diane Hillmann wrote:
I keep hearing a couple of threads in this conversation that I think
need further examination. The first is that there needs to be
'agreement' on how to handle these situations, before anyone can do
anything. This implies that we need to retain the notion that it's
think, in my model.
Heidrun
--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmüller M.A.
Hochschule der Medien
Fakultät Information und Kommunikation
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart
Tel. dienstl.: 0711/25706-188
Tel. Home Office: 0711/36565868
Fax. 0711/25706-300
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Karen Coyle wrote:
Quoting Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de:
Firstly, the system should be able to distinguish between an
aggregate work and an ordinary work. The whole/part relationship
(from my approach) would not be enough as ordinary works can have
parts as well. So
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
How nice to have Heidrun join Bernhard as a voice of reason from
Europe. Germany may save more than the euro zone!
Mac had me blushing violently here... I'm not so sure about the euro
zone, but I believe it is a very helpful experience to find out that
there is more
Karen Coyle wrote:
What type of entity would be part be? I'm thinking that there is no
such entity as part but that a work can be a is part of another
work. Taking into account that the work is a single entity that may be
related to any number of expression/manifestations it cannot be
Here are some more issues with the model of the Working Group, now
centering on the concept of an aggregating expression. The more I
think about this, the less I understand what this entity is supposed to
be in the first place, and what might be the point of having it at all.
In the main body
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
You may contemplate any number of models that go beyond this,
as this thread amply testifies, but I seriously doubt any such
approach will be an economic use of resources. Economy dictates
that we use what we have more extensively and in better ways.
Sure, it is nice
Thomas Brenndorfer wrote:
This problem also appears in the use of 655 genre/form headings. A
GSAFD genre/form heading like Short stories (despite the plural
form) is applied to an individual work -- in effect, a single short
story. A collection of short stories would get the 650 heading,
Barbara,
1. Naming the parts - by having the relationship/link to the whole, you alleviate the necessity of having to
provide a title for the parts that includes the title of the whole. There may continue to be a
need for a default display form to name the work, but I hope we can eventually
Casey A Mullin wrote:
In the mean time, I'll respond to Karen and Heidrun's comments. To be
clear, I'm not suggesting certain works/expressions be flagged as
primary or secondary. What I'm referring to is the idea that certain
works/expressions need not even be identified in the data.
Thomas,
No, the scope of the report emphasized the primary relationships, but the
nature of the entities cover what is already covered by other relationships,
such as existing whole-part relationships. There are already many conventions
for situations when individual entities interact with
One addendum to my last mail:
Thanks to Thomas Berger again, I've noted that it says on p. 5 of the
report: An aggregating work is not a discrete section or even
necessarily an identifiable part of the resulting manifestation and does
not contain the aggregated works themselves.
I think the
Mac wrote:
Heidrun said:
Then something similar could be used to catch the primary/secondary
aspect in augmentations ...
Are we using primary/secondary in two ways? That is, to refer to the
aggregate (e.g., conference proceedings vs. a paper in the
proceedings), and to a basic work and its
Thomas Brenndorfer wrote:
That's an excellent point, and I see the difference better now. I had
begun mulling over the comparison of an aggregate -- a collection in
the conventional sense -- and aggregating, a new concept referring
to the effort to bring things together. The aggregating work
Thomas,
lots of stimulating thought in your latest post. I'll just comment on
some bits.
These are contributor relationship designators between persons (or corporate
bodies or families) and expressions.
But the report on aggregates follows up on the FRBR revision for expressions, where
Thomas wrote:
Somewhere in this mix there is the notion of the primary work (a phrase found in RDA at
20.2.1.1.). Some of the RDA expression attributes and relationship elements settle around an idea that there
are supplementary works being expressed as augmentations to a primary work. RDA
Mac:
Heidrun said:
Now I even wonder: Can an aggregating work have a title?
Certainly they can:
Shakespeare's Bonnets
Tennessee William's Plays
Faulkner's Short Stories
Conference on Biophysics
Equal Marriage Rights Symposium
Papers on Fracking
Sure, but these are plain simple
Mac said:
It seems to me work is being used in two ways here, the effort of
creating the aggregate, and the resulting aggregate.
The aggragating effort has no title, apart from editor, compiler,
etc. in the statement of responsibility. and as some would like, $e
relator terms.
But the
John Espley wrote:
the system is also in line with the Final Report of the FRBR Working
Group on Aggregates. That is, Virtua can have an aggregating
Manifestation which is linked to its aggregating Expression to the
Expressions aggregating Work as well as to the individual
Work/Expressions
John,
I guess I did not read the Final Report that carefully, since I'm not
sure what the difference is between aggregating expressions/works and
aggregate expressions/works.
I'm not surprised. We had a long and difficult time on this list working
out the difference. Have a look at these
Simon,
I think what is meant is not work in the sense of sweat-of-the-brow
labor, but instead refers to the conceptualisations that are
considered to form a separately copyrightable work (for example,
selection and arrangement).
Works are conceptual/intentional in nature, made up of sets of
but a moment.
--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmüller M.A.
Hochschule der Medien
Fakultät Information und Kommunikation
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart
Tel. dienstl.: 0711/25706-188
Tel. Home Office: 0711/36565868
Fax. 0711/25706-300
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
I am mulling over the data element work manifested in the examples for
RDA bibliographic records released by the JSC some time ago:
http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC_RDA_Complete_Examples_%28Bibliographic%29_Revised_2012.pdf
For instance, look at the example for Arlene Taylor's The organization
*entity*
and a string, like an ISBN, that might be considered to identify, or
partially identify, an entity in the bibliographic description through
its use in various contexts.
On 6/3/12 7:51 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:
I am mulling over the data element work manifested in the examples
situation. There is great concern, however, that aiming at scenario 1
would be too costly. But perhaps the German National Library (DNB) will
go one step further and adopt something closer to scenario 1 a later stage.
Heidrun
--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmüller M.A
Mac said:
I failed the mention record exchange. To exchange records, the
records need to be complete in themselves. Just as UTLAS substituted
text for RSN in access points when exporting records, our ILS would
have to be capable of creating the complete textual record, not only
for display
Thomas,
thank you for this very instructive mail.
It is correct that one Creator element and one Title proper element can
duplicate the Work Manifested element if the form used is the authorized access
point for the work (name + title form), as opposed to an identifier (such as a
URI).
Thomas said:
The Find user task needs to be satisfied. In card catalog conventions, the main entry
heading collocates related works. Using some sort of (standardized) method for the value
of the Work manifested means that other works can specify something that will
link back to the work in
Karen said:
One advantage of clustering, in my view, is that bibliographic items
can be clustered based on different criteria if desired. Thus
communities that have a different view of Work or Expression from the
*standard* RDA view can see the Work that meets their needs without
having to
Many thanks to Simon for this very useful roundup. It's good to be
assured that there are ways of coping with ordered values in the
representation languages.
So now we only need to adjust RDA. I still wonder whether this
apparent gap in the code (unless I've missed something important) was a
Karen said:
I don't know what your authority records look like nor how they are
exchanged and updated. Perhaps that's another difference, and
something we could learn from German libraries?
I'll give you a couple of examples from the brand-new Common Authority
File (Gemeinsame Normdatei,
in the facet). But perhaps we can add a
mapping to MARC area codes (when they are there...) to improve the system.
Heidrun
--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmüller M.A.
Hochschule der Medien
Fakultät Information und Kommunikation
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart
Tel. dienstl.: 0711/25706-188
Tel
Thomas said:
And a further point, as is brought up in some entity-relationship modeling
discussions...
Attributes can become entities.
Normally, an attribute is some value by itself. However, that value could also
be pulled in from a table where that value has associated other values or
Karen,
Heidrun, looking at these examples (which naturally do not tell the
whole story) it seems to me that the authority records in your
catalogs do more than just establish preferred name forms; instead,
they approach what to me seems more like the description of a person
entity. The
Karen,
I don't know what your authority records look like nor how they are
exchanged and updated. Perhaps that's another difference, and
something we could learn from German libraries?
O.k, so here is some basic information about cataloguing procedures in
Germany. Beware - this is going to
I'd like your thoughts on a problem which the German library community
has to face when making the move to RDA: It's the question of whether
the description of a serial should be based on the first or the latest
issue (in cases of minor variations, which do not call for a new entry
James Weinheimer wrote:
A question:
When a serial has title changes A to B to C to D (D is the latest
title) and a library has only A and B, what does a library do now?
Firstly, bear in mind that of course we also have split entries, so if
there is a major change, a new record will be
James Weinheimer wrote:
So it is more of a difference in what is considered a minor change.
No, actually we've got exactly the same rules for what is considered a
major change and what is seen as a minor change. I believe there used to
be some differences, but since 2007 we've been using
Mary L. Mastraccio wrote:
Although I understand the logic of first issue, I agree with Germany's logic that the
latest issue is the current valid information so should be the basis of cataloging.
Current records when cataloged can become out of date over time but the
record [assuming it is
John Hostage wrote:
I think basing the description on the latest issue makes sense, especially in
the context of a centralized database. This is essentially what we do already
for integrating resources (RDA 2.1.2.4). Germany always seems to be years
ahead of us technologically. Maybe they
James Weinheimer wrote:
These sorts of practices always interest me and I try to come up with
ideas that bring them together. One way of looking at this would be
that a record for a serial is the manifestation, and that this single
manifestation has variant titles (not necessarily earlier
.
Heidrun
James Weinheimer Weinheimer wrote:
This is a provocative discussion. I agree with what you say, but I
would like to make the following observation
On 26/10/2012 22:30, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:
snip
James Weinheimer wrote:
It occurs to me that we have the concept of *the* title
quite a stir when it announced
that it will henceforward collect primarily digital publications and
reduce the acquisition of printed materials.
Heidrun
--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmüller M.A.
Hochschule der Medien
Fakultät Information und Kommunikation
Wolframstr. 32, 70191
This is great!
Many thanks to JSC for paving the way for a more flexible
approach.
Heidrun
Alan Danskin wrote:
JSC
Announcement: First
This is indeed rather unsettling.
Funnily enough, they even take the FRBR report (1997 text, in the
English version) as their example to show what BIBFRAME might look like
(p. 16ff). But one wonders whether they've taken the trouble of actually
reading it. The BIBFRAME entity work, it seems,
-lite in this paragraph.
BIBFRAME must also accommodate for RDA-full.
Heidrun
--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmüller M.A.
Hochschule der Medien
Fakultät Information und Kommunikation
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart
Tel. dienstl.: 0711/25706-188
Tel. Home Office: 0711/36565868
Fax
Here's an (admittedly very small) problem which I've been discussing
with some colleagues the other day.
RDA 1.7.5 tells us: Replace symbols and other characters, etc., that
cannot be reproduced by the facilities available with a description of
the symbol enclosed in square brackets.
An
I'm mulling over RDA 2.3.4.2: Take other title information from the
same source as the title proper.
With books, the title proper is usually found on the title page. Does
that really mean that under RDA I can only take other title information
which is also placed on the t.p.? It's certainly
Fortunately, it's not a closed list.
At the beginning of 18.5.1.3, RDA says: Record one or more appropriate
terms from the list in appendix I (...) to indicate the nature of the
relationship more specifically than is indicated by the defined scope of
the relationship element itself.
But RDA
-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 2:59 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Sources of information for other title information
I'm
and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 10:08 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Sources of information for other title information
Deborah,
Good point.
Still, I don't really feel comfortable
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:08
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Sources of information for other title information
Deborah,
I absolutely agree that the point in question should be handled the way
you
Here's a postscript to the discussion (for those of you who still care):
I just checked the definition of other title information in the ISBD
consolidated and found that it is similar, but not identical to the one
given in RDA.
ISBD consolidated (2011), chapter 1.3:
Other title information
I've been asked off-list whether an English translation of the German
cataloging rules RAK (short for Regeln für die alphabetische
Katalogisierung, i.e. Rules for alphabetical cataloging) is available.
To my shame I must confess that we never took the trouble of translating
our rules. With
Steven,
Thanks for pointing me to AACR 1.1F15 and the LCRI - that's very useful.
I'd have assumed that the mentioned statements (...) that neither
constitute other title information nor form part of statements of
responsibility refer to mottoes, bis of verse and some such, which can
Mac said,
I strongly urge you (and EURIG) to consider continuing ISBD
abbreviations rather than language of the catalogue inclusions.
I'll admit one motive is selfish, so that SLC can use your records
with less editing. We have had as clients international agencies in
Austria and
John Hostage wrote:
It's fortunate that there is now a German representative on the Joint Steering
Committee. There are a number of provisions in RDA that were carried over from
AACR2 because there wasn't time to reconsider them fully in an international
context.
Yes, we're very glad to
Mac,
I agree with many of your observations, e.g. that in practice it doesn't
make much difference whether a corporate body gets main or added entry.
Users probably won't even notice it.
Still, I don't think we can simply ignore the relevant RDA rules and
stick to our tradition. Because if
John Myers said:
A major criticism of mine regarding RDA has been the heavy reliance on terms
rather than codes. Mac's comment makes me realize that the codes would be
equally language dependent -- what is a mnemonic code in English would be
random gibberish to colleagues elsewhere. Where
Referring to the concept of separate bibliographic identities, Laurence
said:
This concept is not part of the Anglo-American tradition, but it was
included in a revised edition of AACR2. In my opinion, it was an
ill-considered attempt to deal with the problem that some authors use
different
Dan Matei said:
This super entity would be useful. When I search for Bill Clinton, I would
like to get:
Bill Clinton (as himself): n1 entities;
Bill Clinton (as governor of Arkansas): n2 entities;
Bill Clinton (as president of USA): n3 entities.
Likewise: search for Frederic Dannay:
Ellery
Thomas said:
Just a suggestion-- would not relationship designators serve as the data to accomplish
much of this. That is, without adding anything to existing records, or deciding a priori
that one entity is a super entity.
For example, the use of the relationship designators real
Mary,
When we worked on our discovery system, we did include 'see'
references and limited 'see also' references in the search. So
searching for Julie Andrews also retrieves children's books by Julie
Edwards (for example). We decided not to include 551's since we were
afraid it would
Thomas said:
Actually, I found it rather appealing to have name as a separate entity in FRAD (it
seemed to make the model much more flexible), until one of my students quite reasonably asked:
What about people with the same name, then? Do they share the same name entity?
This issue is
In our regional cataloging experts group, we were dicussing RDA carrier
types yesterday.
We were completely mystified why flip charts warrant a carrier type of
their own (flipchart). We found it very hard to imagine any library or
other institution collecting flip charts, in the first place.
Libraries
617-253-7137
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 3:45 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: [RDA-L] Carrier type
Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 3:05 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Carrier type Flipchart
Many thanks to Benjamin, John
Benjamin,
I absolutely agree.
More's the pity that RDA's standard rule for the extent element
(3.4.1.3) requires us to give the number of units and an appropriate
term for the type of carrier as listed under 3.3.1.3. Fortunately,
there is also rule 3.4.1.5 c) which allows us to use a term in
Greta de Groat wrote:
I began the RDA test with using the term in common usage in the 300, but
found it was easier said than done. There was no guidance on whether to use DVD, or
whether to use DVD video which is listed as an encoding format in 3.13.3.3. Nor was i
sure whether to use DVD+R
Amanda,
unlike REICAT, RAK is pre-FRBR. It is, as it were, of the same
generation as AACR2. Still, there are some interesting differences
between RAK and AACR2.
In the mid-1990s, there was a project to develop a modernized version of
RAK under the working title RAK2. Among other things, the
Diana,
I'm going to take you up on this. It certainly would be a good idea if
the editing team of such a collection were not exclusively made up from
German colleagues.
Heidrun
On 04.02.2013 18:51, D. Brooking wrote:
I also understood Heidrun's proposed project in the same way that Ed
I think Ed's point is a very valid one.
Sometimes, it may only be small differences which can nonetheless be
rather confusing. For example, RAK has some rather odd deviations from
ISBD punctuation: Several statements of responsibility are separated by
a period instead of a semicolon, and
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
German rules give/gave more attention to the parts of a whole, and in
particular, parts of a multipart monograph each got their own records,
linked to the separate record for the work-as-a-whole. (The latter
mostly being the only object cataloged according to AACR,
Amanda wrote:
I am aware that RAK predates FRBR, but was curious to know whether there
had been any comparison or discussion of the principles, prior to the
decision to adopt RDA in Germany.
Now this is a very good question.
There was a project, running from 2002 to 2004, with the aim of
After all this talk about German cataloging, I suppose it's time to get
back to RDA ;-)
The other day we discussed the optional omission for statements of
responsibility naming more than three persons, etc. (RDA 2.4.1.5). The
general feeling was that although everybody ought to try and follow
that there are
many maps. So 1 atlas (xy pages) looks rather odd to me.
Heidrun
Greta de Groat wrote:
On 2/4/2013 5:51 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:
Greta de Groat wrote:
In addition, these (plus CD-ROMs and Blu-rays) had the problem of
being applicable to multiple content types--they could be video
.
Heidrun
Am 06.02.2013 22:06, schrieb JSC Chair:
You can do exactly what you suggested with RDA. - Barbara Tillett
On Wednesday, February 6, 2013, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:
After all this talk about German cataloging, I suppose it's time
to get back to RDA ;-)
The other day we
Barbara Tillett wrote:
You are right the rules do not specifically say you can do it, but it
is definitely in the spirit of RDA and perhaps you'd like to work with
Christine Frodl to propose an adjustment to the way RDA states this? -
Barbara
I'll certainly discuss this with Christine Frodl
Mac wrote:
However, you can choose which entities to include in 7XX authorized access
points in a MARC bibliographic record; those access points do not need to
be justified in a transcribed element or by a note.
This is my major argument with RDA. If revising, please consider
restoring
Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:
If we were expected to transcribe the statement of responsibility, not just
record it, the use of the mark of omission would make perfect sense. Yet, the
two Optional Omission instructions under 2.4.1.4 seem to suggest that mark of
omission in S-o-Rs has been
Shana McDanold wrote:
I really like your suggested local policy:
(...)
Permission to suggest it for local use at my institution?
Absolutely :-)
Heidrun
--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr.
~~
On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:
Barbara Tillett wrote:
You are right the rules do not specifically say you can do it, but
it is definitely in the spirit of RDA and perhaps you'd like to work
with Christine Frodl to propose an adjustment
I agree with Ben, but would like to point out that the rule about which
statement of responsibility is core can get more complicated than just
saying it's always the first one.
RDA 2.4.2.3 says: If not all statements of responsibility appearing on
the source or sources of information are
Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 02:12
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Compilations
In one of the last mails in the statement of responsibility thread, I
had posed a question about the LC practice for collections of essays
and such like. Probably, many
In the light of ongoing discussions in Germany, this is a very
interesting question for me.
According to the German RAK rules, there is a clear solution for this
case (which I believe I have mentioned before on this list, but my
former example was perhaps a less obvious one):
First, here's
Description and
Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] *On Behalf Of *Heidrun
Wiesenmüller
*Sent:* Tuesday, March 19, 2013 1:29 PM
*To:* RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
*Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] RDA and the Title Proper
In the light of ongoing discussions
John Hostage wrote:
The ISBD consolidated edition defines it as other title information
introducing the title proper, and occurring above the title proper on
the prescribed source of information for the title and statement of
responsibility area. Sounds sort of like Evaluation of pilot
Mac wrote:
Perhaps need for distinctiveness should influence date inclusion in
title proper? If different works have the same title, but different
dates, they are needed?
Interesting idea - very pragmatic.
In relation to at head of title data, the most frequent occurrence for
us is motion
In RDA 1.4, we read: When recording an element listed above as a
supplied element, record the supplied element in the most appropriate
language and script. (The elements listed are those that are normally
transcribed more or less exactly in the bibliographic description.)
Now I was wondering
Paul,
RDA is actually quite clear on this matter. In this case (unlike the one
I was talking about), it's not a complete element which is supplied, but
only a part of it.
The basic rule for this can also be found in 1.4 (Language and script):
When adding data within an element listed above,
information about language and script.
Judy Kuhagen
JSC Secretary
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller
wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de
mailto:wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote:
Paul,
RDA is actually quite clear on this matter. In this case (unlike
the one I
Ben,
I think the / should indeed be replaced by a = according to 1.7.3,
as it obviously is a case of parallel statements of responsibility (i.e.
two different RDA elements). But I'd find it odd to have only Mit
Beiträgen von as one of these statements of responsibility. As this is
only an
Libraries
617-253-7137
*From:*Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] *On Behalf Of *Heidrun
Wiesenmüller
*Sent:* Monday, April 01, 2013 2:12 PM
*To:* RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
*Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] 2.4.3.3 Parallel statements
-bac.gc.ca] *On Behalf Of *Heidrun
Wiesenmüller
*Sent:* Monday, April 01, 2013 3:07 PM
*To:* RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
*Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] 2.4.3.3 Parallel statements of responsibility
I'm afraid so, only I think it should start with mit instead of
Mit
Mark,
now that's an interesting point (I had to look up monkeywrench, though).
The particular rule in the ISBD you mentioned seems to refer to a
special situation: When it is not possible to give an appropriate
statement of responsibility after each title or other title information,
the
Amanda,
All of the examples have approximately in lower case:
approximately 60 slides
approximately 600 pages
Granted that RDA doesn't give things in MARC format, but as the first element
shouldn't the approximately be capitalized?
300 Approximately 60 slides : $b etc.
I believe
I'm rather puzzled by A.9 myself.
As 7.13.2.4 is mentioned as an example, I assume the instruction refers
to a number of elements, mostly in chapter 3, which have the word
details as part of the element name, e.g.:
3.6.1.4 Details of base materials
3.7.1.4 Details of applied materials
3.9.1.4
1 - 100 of 256 matches
Mail list logo
