An esteemed colleague has reminded me off list of the truncated
records of "olden days", which some vendor supplied records call to
mind.
Those were the days of not transcribing the statement of
responsibility if it were the same as main entry, and "The Office" and
such as imprint if it were the same as main entry. Lubetsky had
wonderful ideas, but forbidding redundancy came back to bite us in the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] when OPAC architects started deconstructing the unit card
arrangement.
In the early days of recon, a lot of our work was supplying those
missing 245/$c's and 260$b's. Without the item in hand we didn't know
whether the title page had "by" of not. That's one reason "/"
replacing "[by]" of earlier years seems such a good idea to me. With
RDA's absence of "/", would we need to go back to "[by]", "[par]", etc.
for every language we catalogue?
RDA seems to be being done by young people who don't remember the
mistakes of yore, such as having an access point replace a trancribed
element, and seem determined to repeat them.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
