Dana Van Meter posted:
>Thanks Mac. Do we really need a 501 note and 700$a$t for the Introduzione,
>and the bibliography?
We would only consider it if written by a very well known person, and it is
lengthy. Rather than $t, you could use $ewriter of added text.
>I kind of found the answer to my question of whether I need a 500 note if
>I use the 775 |i in LC's "Reconsidering the Cataloging Treatment of
>Reproductions"(April 29, 2010)--which I interpret to say that I don't need
>a 500 if I'm using a 775
True. Of course ILS vary in the display and indexing of 77X. That's why
we like a 530 even if there is a 776, although we remove it for loading on
OCLC, since the PN standard lacks it.
>LC states that it will "generally use the relationship
>designators 'reproduction of (manifestation)' and 'reproduced as', rather
>than one of the more specific terms
Every client we have has rejected 7XX$i, I assume because $i comes first
while $e comes after. We will remove #e for those who don't want them,
but not assign $i.
>There was an earlier discussion on RDA-L pertaining to whether the |w is
>mandatory in the 775 ...
We more often use LCCN in 77X$w.
>The training module states: "If a bibliographic record OR other
>detailed information about the original is not available, give instead a
>bibliographic history note with as much information as you have in a MARC
>500 field."
Field 503 should NOT have been made obsolete. We still use it.
>Are others also interpreting these 2 statement to mean that the |w isn't
>mandatory in the 775 as long as you have other detailed information about
>the original?
There are other candidates for 77X$w: LCCN, LAC or Amicus 001, as well
as OCN.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
