On 16/12/2013 21.09, Kevin M Randall wrote:
snip
Adam Schiff wrote:
LC's policy, however, implies that the compiled work
does not become known by its title except through the passage of time (e.g.
Whitman's Leaves of Grass), and that for newly published compiled works, a
conventional collective
James,
All of these careful arrangements *completely disintegrated* when they
were placed into the computer catalog. Since computers are rather
mindless, the uniform title Works is now placed alphabetically under
the author's name (W) and as a consequence, people are supposed to
*actively
On 17/12/2013 14.07, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:
snip
But, is it possible to make collective uniform titles useful and
functional for today's information tools? I believe they could and
that people would appreciate it, but that would take complete
reconsideration from the user's point of
Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 6:55 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9
I confess to having been part of the writing of the NACO Module 6 training
materials, but the more
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gary Hough
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 10:03 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9
While there is a theoretical sense in which an author can write only one
complete works, in actual practice
been heretofore pursued--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gary Hough
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 9:03 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9
and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 9:21 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9
no2013093410 Adémar, $c de Chabannes, $d 988-1034. $t Works. $k
Heidrun posted:
I am uncertain about the relationship of 6.2.2.10 (Recording the
Preferred Title for a Compilation of Works of One Person, Family, or
Corporate Body) and 6.27.1.9 (Additions to Access Points Representing
Works) - both in theory and in practice.
Can't comment on the theory,
A few comments on this very interesting thread.
In MARC date qualifiers are ambiguous between works and expressions. Always
sticking dates in $f with the old-style punctuation perpetuates this
ambiguity. The problem affects not only conventional collective titles,
but potentially also any work
and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam Schiff
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 6:19 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9
They are considered separate compilation works, assuming that they have
different contents. The PCC NACO
, Wilson, Pete wrote:
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 01:44:25 +
From: Wilson, Pete pete.wil...@vanderbilt.edu
Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 6.2.2.10 and 6.27.1.9
Adam--Can
16.12.2013 23:39, John Hostage:
We need to be able to enter data in MARC fields without punctuation
and let the punctuation be generated as necessary on output. The
punctuation could even differ in different contexts. (We can dream,
can't we?)
This dream has long since been reality in
12 matches
Mail list logo
