tion and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of John Hostage
Sent: 24 May 2013 16:08
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about examples in 2.5.6.3
There is also this example in 2.5.1.4:
World's classics ed., New ed. rev.
er people have interpreted the rules
etc.
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: 25 May 2013 18:31
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Questi
interpreted the rules
etc.
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: 25 May 2013 18:31
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about examples
ISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: 25 May 2013 10:44
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about examples in 2.5.6.3
Gene,
You know, can we just record what is actually in the item, instead of
inventing things (note phrase cited above. Who writ
] Question about examples in 2.5.6.3
Gene,
> You know, can we just record what is actually in the item, instead of
> inventing things (note phrase cited above. Who writes like that?)
> Inventions of what things should be go back to pre-AACR2 rules. Do we
> want to go there?
I'm no
Gene,
You know, can we just record what is actually in the item, instead of
inventing things (note phrase cited above. Who writes like that?)
Inventions of what things should be go back to pre-AACR2 rules. Do we
want to go there?
I'm not sure I get your meaning. I believe RDA _does_ indeed
You know, can we just record what is actually in the item, instead of
inventing things (note phrase cited above. Who writes like that?)
Inventions of what things should be go back to pre-AACR2 rules. Do we want
to go there?
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Joan Wang wrote:
> Great! Heidrun.
Great! Heidrun.
These examples should be reexamined.
Thanks,
Joan Wang
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller <
wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote:
> John Hostage wrote:
>
> There is also this example in 2.5.1.4:
>> World's classics ed., New ed. rev.
>>
>
> Oddly, this examp
John Hostage wrote:
There is also this example in 2.5.1.4:
World's classics ed., New ed. rev.
Oddly, this example is almost identical to one in 2.5.6.3
(Recordingdesignations of a named revision of an edition):
new edition, revised, reset, and illustrated
Designation of edition: World's cla
Message-
>> > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
>> > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Michael Chopey
>> > Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 01:48
>> > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
>> > Subject: [RDA-L
Original Message-
> > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Michael Chopey
> > Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 01:48
> > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> > Subject: [RDA-L] Question a
John,
I think the idea is that the Designation of a named revision is a separate
element, so from that point of view it should be capitalized like the Edition
statement is (A.5).
Actually, I thought "designation of a named revision" wasn't to be
capitalized exactly _because_ it is a separat
I agree with Joan. The rules about capitalization are in appendix A, and
A.5 only tells us to capitalize the element "designation of edition",
but not the element "designation of a named revision of an edition"
(which, personally, I find a rather odd element, by the way). I think
there is simpl
ription and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Michael Chopey
> Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 01:48
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: [RDA-L] Question about examples in 2.5.6.3
>
> I'm confused about the capital
I look at A.5 about the capitalization of edition statement. It says to
capitalize the first word or abbreviation of the first word in a
designation edition. It also refers to 2.5.2. It does not indicate 2.5.6
Designation of a Named Revision of an Edition. So I assume that we do not
have to capital
I'm confused about the capitalization of the examples in 2.5.6.3
(Recording Designations of a Named Revision of an Edition).
This rule and its examples came over from AACR2 mostly untouched (the
phrase "designation of" replaces AACR2's "statement relating to" ... and
that's about it), except t
16 matches
Mail list logo
