Heidrun said concerning qualifying corporate body cross references:
>But I was amazed that this doesn't seem to be absolutely necessary under
>RDA.
That is but one of *many* long established helpful to patrons
practices which are not "absolutely necessary" under RDA, but I hope
we will continue anyway.
Among these are added entry for authors in addition to main entry
where relevant; justification of added entries in the description;
standardized sentence capitalization; providing jurisdiction after
place name if not on item; ISBD punctuation; guessing rather than "not
identified" for imprint elements; etc.
>Personally, I see no reason for changing our practice in this
>respect, but other people may have different ideas
We agree that helpful practices should continue.
We have had only one client say they want the "LC minimum", including
no relationship terms apart from "illustrator" for children's
material. We do full records, and remove unwanted fields and
subfields on export. e.g., 010$z, 506, 530, 538 from e-book records
going to OCLC; 300 for e-serial records going to Serial Solutions. We
don't want truncated records in our system.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
