Re: Comments on RDA 7.6

I am glad this rule has come up. I find 7.6.1.0.1 is very poorly worded. I wanted to raise the issue of syntax of RDA in general at CCDA, but time ran out. One of the basics of definition is that you don't use the word itself in providing a definition. In 7.6.1.0.1, the word 'described' is us

work (or expression)

Hi, My question has to do with the statement “work (or expression).” Can I read “work (or expression)” to mean exactly “an expression of a work”? I get a better read when I plug “expression of a work” into “work (or expression).” I understand a work to be useless unless it is expressed.

Re: Comments on RDA 7.6

In my critique that I sent into my liaison I also mentioned the rather tortuous English used in RDA; it is a lot better than it used to be. I think we have to employ, as best we can, the sentence format of: subject--verb--object. In RDA we have too many places where qualifiers and prepositional

General comments on RDA 7.7

7.7 Whole-Part Relationships I am having a hard time understanding why it is necessary to have separate sections in 7.7 for works (or expressions) and manifestations (or items). The examples in 7.7.1.0.2 for whole works (or expressions) include series, serials, and works divided into sections or