J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
Why would one wish to do that? Nobody has suggested 264 1 $bGod for a
rock. All we need is 264 2 for the seller of the rock. Like
manuscripts, equipment and naturally occurring objects are not
published, and should have the appropriate 264 indicator for
M. E. m.k.e.m...@gmail.com wrote:
Don't confuse RDA's production statement, which refers to man-made
stuff, with what might be similar statements in another universe for
naturally occurring objects.
Thinking this over, I should qualify that the production statement would
also apply to
Bernhard said:
RDA, to my knowledge, doesn't define the term, although why not?
I mean, in the light of RDA's ambitions...
In light of RDA's ambitions to be used outside the bibliographic
world, there certainly needs to be better provisions for objects.
Museums for example could use 264 0
Adam responded to my statement:
RDA as now written does not require a not identified publisher
statement (264 1) when recording producer (264 0)
That is because it would be contrary to the definitions, Mac.
Production in RDA is limited only to unpublished resources. It can't
of Washington Libraries
-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 10:01 PM
To: asch...@u.washington.edu
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA imprint revision
Adam responded to my statement:
RDA as now written does not require a not identified
Adam said:
I think technically it is NOT possible to use 264 _2 and 264 _3 with 264 _0
in an RDA-coded record
Why would one wish to do that? Nobody has suggested 264 1 $bGod for a
rock. All we need is 264 2 for the seller of the rock. Like
manuscripts, equipment and naturally occurring
6 matches
Mail list logo
