Abbas, June M. wrote:
snip
But, in light of all of these insightful discussions, is linked data even going
far enough? Is it really providing users with useful representations of the
objects in our collections? Is MARC + FRBR (encoded by whichever standard the
community settles for) BUT
Quoting Weinheimer Jim j.weinhei...@aur.edu:
It is my own opinion that whatever we produce cannot ever be
Enough for what people want and need from information. (Thanks for
putting it that way, June!) Those ways of thinking about the catalog
are over, and I think, forever. While this may
That's pretty neat stuff Jim. My Umlaut software approaches from a different
direction, taking known items (rather than searches) and trying to find
supplementary in other specific databases; for now mostly focusing on finding
electronic full-text or searching (which is useful even without
RDA 7.16.1.1 (earlier draft) shows the examples:
Includes index.
Bibliography: pages 859-910.
There is no indication of wording to use for footnotes, still Includes
bibliographic references?
Will most of us be willing to give up the handy:
504 $aIncludes bibliograhic references (p. 859-910)
I was a reader for RDA and I remember reading the example you cite.
LC used Includes bibliographical references to cover all types of
citations. I remember when I asked a cataloger back in the 80s about using
the term bibliography for endnotes; to my mind then they were not
bibliographies.
We
J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
RDA 7.16.1.1 (earlier draft) shows the examples:
Includes index.
Bibliography: pages 859-910.
There is no indication of wording to use for footnotes, still Includes
bibliographic references?
Wording isn't prescribed, nor is any reference(!) made to
6 matches
Mail list logo
