I started this message on Friday afternoon and thought maybe my brain was
just tired, but now on Monday morning the scope statement in 7.4.2.0.1
still doesn't make sense to me. "An equivalent item is a specific item
reproduced by the resource being described." It's the word "by" that is
bothering
I don't have my comments in front of me that I have already sent in to my
liaison to the committee, but the example you point is a good example of
some of the ham-handed English in RDA. In general, I would suggest that if
the committee wants to describe a general concept that it go to AACR2 which
Yes, the first time I read this, I had also written "Is this in original or
reproduction record?" beside 7.4.1.1.1b.1. In both cases, I decided the
note was actually in the record for the original and was describing the
other manifestation because of the colon after the word "reproduction" and
be
3 matches
Mail list logo
