J. McRee Elrod <m...@slc.bc.ca> wrote:

> Why would one wish to do that?  Nobody has suggested 264 1 $bGod for a
> rock. All we need is 264  2 for the seller of the rock.  Like
> manuscripts, equipment and naturally occurring objects are not
> published, and should have the appropriate 264 indicator for
> manufacturer and distributor.

Don't confuse RDA's "production statement", which refers to man-made stuff,
with what might be similar statements in another universe for naturally
occurring objects.  RDA woefully lacks any direction on telling us to
forego 260/264-like statements for these objects--if that's the intent of
the standard.

Presumption through silence isn't good guidance.

> No they are not.  Much of RDA is very unclear, and not in accord with
> reality.

I disagree.  Some of it is unclear.  I have the same problems with parts of

Mark K. Ehlert

Reply via email to