Bernhard said:

>RDA, to my knowledge, doesn't define the term, although why not?
>I mean, in the light of RDA's ambitions...

In light of RDA's ambitions to be used outside the bibliographic
world, there certainly needs to be better provisions for objects.
Museums for example could use 264  0 for the artist who carved a
statue, and should be able to use 264  3 for the manufacturer of the
period telephone in its collection.  Museums have far more objects
than books, and RDA is very book centric, particularly in not
recognizing that objects may be manufactured or distributed, but are
not "published" in the public's understanding of that word.
When/if RDA is coded in Bibframe, bf: tags need to be specific for
producer, publisher, distributor, and manufacturer.

We are not in Alice's Wonderland, in which words may mean whatever we
want them to mean.  We are part of a larger culture in which words
have meanings, including "publisher" and "published".

I suspect nobody on the JSC deals with the sorts of things which cross
Julie Moore's desk daily.

   __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (
  {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://
  ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________

Reply via email to