Hi again! I don't think I would write up a content note in 520 since in 336 the content type is clearly defined as still image. Now, for « normal » still images (i.e. pictures on a sheet of paper or other 2D carrier), we never include terms like « ill. » or « images » since it would be redundant to say an image is illustrated! We simply recorded « colour », "b&w", « some colour », or even « colour and b&w » (if using ISBN (NB)) Where I get a little confused, however, is when we're talking about still images gathered as a volume. I took for granted that, like still images in 2D format, we would not be allowed to repeat « images » or « illustration » since we already had the 336 specifying the book only contains images. Perhaps if I count the pages, I could then record: 65 unnumbered pages : some color ; 28 cm
Would that be better??? Have a great weekend everyone! Marie-Chantal L'Ecuyer-Coelho Bibliothécaire Direction du traitement documentaire des collections patrimoniales Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec 2275, rue Holt Montréal (Québec) H2G 3H1 Téléphone : 514-873-1101 poste 3730 mc.coe...@banq.qc.ca www.banq.qc.ca Avis de confidentialité Ce courriel est une communication confidentielle et l'information qu'il contient est réservée à l'usage exclusif du destinataire. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire visé, vous n'avez aucun droit d'utiliser cette information, de la copier, de la distribuer ou de la diffuser. Si cette communication vous a été transmise par erreur, veuillez la détruire et nous en aviser immédiatement par courriel. -----Message d'origine----- De : Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] De la part de J. McRee Elrod Envoyé : 16 août 2013 12:50 À : RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Objet : Re: [RDA-L] Illustration terms in 7.15.1.3 Heidrun said: >I think we'll have to discuss that for the German application. Judging >from the discussion here and some examples I've seen, I'm not so sure >this rule has been universally followed (although I see your point). Even the AACR2 glossary does not have a definition of "photograph". But in the Autocat archives (a decade of so ago I think) you will find the definition discussed. Has any rule ever been universally followed? Yes, cataloguers often mistakenly call reproduced pictures "photographs". For hugh inconsistency consider the misinterpretation of the AACR2 rule on place of publication jurisdiction. The rule has the *same* if needed provision for transcribing or supplying jurisdiction, yet I have seen: Boston Boston, MA Boston, MA USA Boston, Mass. Boston, Mass. USA Boston [Mass.] and even Boston [MA] Just transcribe or supply the !@#$%^ jurisdiction! A city known in the Beltway may not be known in Tokyo. It's faster to just give it than to ponder, or consult a list as do the Australians. Since "WA" can be Washington State or Western Australia, I don't think postal codes should be transcribed or supplied, unless part of the publisher's address in parentheses following the jurisdiction. At least we gained the option to supply jurisdiction added to RDA, as opposed to putting it in a note. We need a fuller RDA glossary, and one which does not include the word being defined in the definition, and doesn't misdefine "computer". In another post: >"1 volume (non paginé) :$b en partie en couleur ;$c28 cm" How would the patron know it's pictures? I suppose you could say so in a 520, but I would like something in 300. How about: 1 volume (non pagine) :$bimages en partie en couleur ;$c28 cm You are saying that the images are some in colour. It seems appropriate me me to say to *what* "couleur" applies. We are not talking about the volume's dust cover or binding. __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
