I have what is probably a naïve question, touching on RDA and BIBFRAME. I'll preface the question with an example. Imagine a resource with the following title page:
" An heroic epistle to an unfortunate monarch, by Peregrine the Elder. Enriched with explanatory notes. The second edition. London: Published in the year MDCCLXXVIII by E. Benson " Let's suppose that a cataloger encoded the data in one of the following (imaginary) schemes: Encoding 1 <titleStatement>An heroic epistle to an unfortunate monarch, by Peregrine the Elder. Enriched with explanatory notes.</titleStatement> <editionStatement>The second edition.</edition> <imprint>London: Published in the year MDCCLXXVIII by E. Benson</imprint> Encoding 2 <titlePage> An heroic epistle to an unfortunate monarch, by Peregrine the Elder. Enriched with explanatory notes. The second edition. London: Published in the year MDCCLXXVIII by E. Benson </titlePage> Would these encodings be considered valid RDA cataloging for the elements covered in the example? That is, would these encodings satisfy the RDA core requirements for Title, Statement of Responsibility, Edition statement, and Publication statement? All of the required data is included, but it is not encoded in parsed fields equivalent to RDA elements. Does this make it invalid? If not, would it be reasonable to expect BIBFRAME to accommodate (or play well with) encoding scenarios such as these? Francis _________________________________ Francis Lapka, Catalog Librarian Yale Center for British Art, Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts 1080 Chapel Street, PO Box 208280, New Haven, CT 06520 203.432.9672 francis.la...@yale.edu<mailto:francis.la...@yale.edu>
