I agree. And that is why we don't follow pcc rules altogether. For
instance, we will add the "Translation of" note, include pagination of
bibliographies if appropriate. We do think that entries should be
justified in the description. Why? Because we have to realize that
cataloging uses very truncated, coded language for some of the entries.
Put the justifications in straightforward English informs the patron/user
more adequately, sometimes, than the formal language of our entries.
That is why I wish we could go back to the GMD; the 33X fields could be a
bit mystifying to users: text unmediated volume. Maybe we have to have a
séance to get the to "mediated" ones????
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 2:13 PM, J. McRee Elrod <m...@slc.bc.ca> wrote:
> It bothers me in our discussions concerning RDA usage, that most parse
> the rules without reference to patron service.
>
> No set of rules can every cover all eventualities. In the absence of
> a rule, e.g., how to record "'61" as a date of production, the most
> important consideration it seems to me should be what produces the
> most helpful record?
>
> How anyone would think 264 0 $c'61 is better for patrons than $c1761,
> $c1861, or $c1961, with or without brackets, is beyond me.
>
> In particular situations, for particular material, the rules may even
> need bending a bit.
>
>
> __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
> ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
>
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu
Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.
