Looking at examples in the testdata, you find (spaces added for clarity)
336 $a text $2 rdacontent
337 $a unmediated $2 rdamedia
338 $a volume $2 rdacarrier
which reveals that the item is a plain book.
The same might, using the codes instead, also be recorded like this:
336 $b txt $2
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Bernhard Eversberg
Sent: February 17, 2011 8:48 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA and MARC
Looking at examples in
Please excuse this very basic question if it has already been answered. I have
only recently joined the ListServ.
It is my assumption that LC and OCLC will announce adoption of RDA soon after
the end of the evaluation period.
If my institution does not buy/adopt RDA immediately thereafter,
Thomas Brenndorfer said:
Even better, I think, would be an entire overhaul of the inputting screen.
Well, that's something that I have been asking for DECADES. Maybe at least
the new stuff in RDA will push the ILS developers a little more...
Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Here is a more detailed list of AACR2/RDA differences.
-
Most changes are to choice of entry, or to description, not form of
entry.
-
The few changes to
Kathleen Lamantia asked:
If my institution does not buy/adopt RDA immediately thereafter, will we st=
ill be able to do original cataloging?
In answer to a question concerning reprospective change to legacy
records, OCLC informed me that they will leave AACR2 records as they
are, and continue
Hello
What worries me is the existing OCLC policy
*If a record created according to either AACR2 or RDA already exists in
WorldCat, please do NOT create a duplicate record according to the other
code. Such duplicates are not within the scope of the OCLC policy on
parallel records and OCLC staff
RDA 337 is from 007/00, which is for category of material and RDA 338 is
from 007/01, which is for specific material designation. Catalogers have
the option to use code, instead of word to describe 337$b and 338$b.
We could make the terms for category of material more user-friendly, e.g.
using
John Hostage said:
Bracket adjacent element in the same field, e.g., 260 |a[S.l.
:|b[s.n.],|c[2010?].
RDA does not use these abbreviations.
No. But ISBD does. Those long screen eating phrases will be separately
bracketed as shown. This is also an ISBD provision.
__ __ J.
Anna Clifton | Librarian | Land Environment Court Library | Department
of Justice Attorney General
Email: anna_clif...@agd.nsw.gov.au | Phone: 02 9113 8254 | Fax: 02 9113
8255
225 Macquarie Street SYDNEY NSW 2000 |
DX 829, Sydney | GPO Box 1484, Sydney NSW 2001
Department of Justice
John Hostage said:
Not clear what the second sentence means. Uniform titles for treaties
entered under a jurisdiction have been in subfield $t of 110 in
authority records and of 710 in bib records, or in 240 of bib records,
for 30 years.
110 1_ |a South Africa (Republic). |k Treaties, etc.
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: February-17-11 8:03 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Uniform title for
J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
110 1_ |a South Africa (Republic). |k Treaties, etc.
|b Botswana, August 24 and September 4, 1973.
Our files of full of these $kTreaties, etc. uniform titles for
in 110 entries for treaties. And so is the LC online catalogue.
It is my understanding
If/when RDA is adopted by the national cataloguing agencies, and we
must integrate them with our older AACR2, records, there are some
things we *must* do to avoid split files, and some things we *could*
do to create greater uniformity in display.
A talk containing scripts you can pass along to
14 matches
Mail list logo
