Re: [RDA-L] Discussion lacuna

2013-08-09 Thread Adam L. Schiff
LOL, good Friday humor, Liz. On Fri, 9 Aug 2013, Elizabeth O'Keefe wrote: Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 18:01:39 -0400 From: Elizabeth O'Keefe Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Discussion lacuna Or to

Re: [RDA-L] Discussion lacuna

2013-08-09 Thread Adam L. Schiff
Haha, is there a nice illustration showing medium of performance for a spirit expression? On Fri, 9 Aug 2013, Stewart, Richard wrote: Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 17:12:10 -0500 From: "Stewart, Richard" Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access To: RDA-L@LISTSE

Re: [RDA-L] Discussion lacuna

2013-08-09 Thread Stewart, Richard
That is why I like to do RDA workshops in October. All those entities and manifestations, and the occasional medium. On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Elizabeth O'Keefe wrote: > Or to the manifestations. As illustrated in this 19th-century engraving: > > > http://macabremuseum.com/collections-dat

Re: [RDA-L] Discussion lacuna

2013-08-09 Thread Elizabeth O'Keefe
Or to the manifestations. As illustrated in this 19th-century engraving: http://macabremuseum.com/collections-database/spirits-and-their-manifestations-an-evening-seance-engraving/ Liz O'Keefe On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Gene Fieg wrote: > I agree. And that is why we don't follow pcc rul

Re: [RDA-L] Discussion lacuna

2013-08-09 Thread Gene Fieg
I agree. And that is why we don't follow pcc rules altogether. For instance, we will add the "Translation of" note, include pagination of bibliographies if appropriate. We do think that entries should be justified in the description. Why? Because we have to realize that cataloging uses very tr

[RDA-L] Discussion lacuna

2013-08-09 Thread J. McRee Elrod
It bothers me in our discussions concerning RDA usage, that most parse the rules without reference to patron service. No set of rules can every cover all eventualities. In the absence of a rule, e.g., how to record "'61" as a date of production, the most important consideration it seems to me sho

Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print?

2013-08-09 Thread Dawn Grattino
But why is Large print books the see FROM in the AR when everyplace else in the record it is the term used? Dawn Grattino Senior Cataloger Catalog Department Cleveland Public Library 17133 Lakeshore Blvd. Cleveland, OH 44110-4006 (phone) 216.623.2885 (fax)   216.623.6980 e-mail: dawn.gr

Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4

2013-08-09 Thread McCormack, Myriam
I totally support that and especially like your remarks about the English language bias. Myriam. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Leonard, William Sent: August-08-13 2:38 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.C

Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4

2013-08-09 Thread Guy Vernon Frost
That is exactly the option that is available to them. The PCC RDA BIBCO standard record (BSR) metadata application profile (http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/scs/documents/PCC-RDA-BSR.pdf) states to use the Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Books for many of the transcribed fields. 4C2 says to include an

Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4

2013-08-09 Thread L'Écuyer-Coelho Marie-Chantal
Hi! Perhaps the solution is to give rare/older materials cataloguers the possibility to record phrases such as « published by » as an optional addition ... Otherwise, the general instruction could simply ask cataloguers to record the name of the publisher, distributer, etc. ... Marie-Chantal

Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print?

2013-08-09 Thread Joan Wang
Look at this: 150 Large type books 450 Large print books On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Dawn Grattino wrote: > I have always wondered why the 650/655 term was "Large type books." > > > > We have (or had): > > 245 |h [text (large print) > > 300 350 p. (large print) or 350 pages (large pr

Re: [RDA-L] Still doing edition statements for large print?

2013-08-09 Thread Dawn Grattino
I have always wondered why the 650/655 term was "Large type books." We have (or had):   245 |h [text (large print) 300  350 p. (large print) or 350 pages (large print) 655 Large type books People know what "large print" means, so why the discrepency? Dawn Grattino Senior Cataloger Cata