Ryan Hildebrant made some excellent suggestions concerning
relationship designator terms for rare books. It would be good to
have the group he represents address the option of reltionship
desingation codes. Codes are a better solution when records need to
be exported in more than one language.
Deborah posted:
>246 1# $i Variant title from cover: $a ...
Since the item is already indexed by title proper, wouln't a more
helpful note and access point be:
246 1 $iCover subtitle:$a ... ?
If tracing the cover title in toto, I would use 246 14, because that
2nd indicator represents what it
I do not think that cover title applies in this situation, because, as a
note, that would not explain the source of my Variant Title, which was the
whole purpose of my note.
I'm sorry to be so pedantic, but I'm trying to work through the logic of
what to do in this particular situation:
Tit
On 19/12/2012 18:52, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
> How wonderful to see my cataloguing teacher remembered and quoted. Ms
> Pettee occupies my cataloguing pantheon along with Margaret Mann and
> Judith Hopkins.
>
> Lubetski doesn't make it, because he went too far in reducing
> redundancy, not anticip
James quoted Julia Pettee:
>"The rapid development of cooperative cataloging for which many
>libraries contribute copy, has created a demand for a multiplicity of
>minute rulings to aid in producing uniform work. The writer believes the
>very formidable extent of this demand makes necessary a most
Heidrun posted:
>t.p.: [Name of author] [title proper]
>cover: [Name of author] [title proper] [thing that looks like other
>title information]
How we would treat this would depend. If the title proper is
distinctive, we would record the cover title in 246s (one for the
whole title and one for
I will not mention unnecessary rules, fine distinctions not germane to
transcription of title/titles. Just don't say how after many years with
AACR2 with few cases of ambiguity that in RDA, which a few have
drafted, choice and recording of title, basic issues which should be
clear to most, have be
I was also concerned about clarity in both training and MARC 246 applications
if in practice we used "variant title" for what I would have called the "other
title" on the cover. Reworded the guidelines would result in:
"If the presentation on the cover is ambiguous -- the variant title could
po
Deborah wrote:
But this list under 2.3.6.1 is not restrictive--the scope note says "Variant
titles *include* the following", leaving it open for us to add types of
variant titles that are not included in the list.
This is where the LC-PCC PS for 2.3.6.3 is really handy (even though it is
still
Steven Awakara wrote, and Deborah Fritz replied:
b. If the presentation on the cover is ambiguous -- the other title
could possibly be interpreted as the title proper -- make a 246 1 $i Other
title on cover: $a -- Just as you would if you had the same
situation on the title page. Do not t
Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 3:30 AM
[snip]
By the way, as we're are talking about variant titles: I was wondering the
other day about an example at 2.3.6.3 ("Recording variant titles"):
"Arranging and describing archives and manuscripts Title proper recorded as:
Arra
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
1. What about the "rewording"? Does it reduce the amount of necessary
exegesis?
Perhaps a bit, but not dramatically so.
Readability has certainly increased considerably in the reworded
chapters. But the rewording doesn't help with matters of arrangement.
E.g. i
On 19/12/2012 10:08, Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
> Am 19.12.2012 09:29, schrieb Heidrun Wiesenmüller:
>>
>> Phew, one really must read RDA *very* carefully...!
>>
>
> Three or four questions:
>
> 1. What about the "rewording"? Does it reduce the amount of necessary
>exegesis?
>
> 2. Based on the
Am 19.12.2012 09:29, schrieb Heidrun Wiesenmüller:
Phew, one really must read RDA *very* carefully...!
Three or four questions:
1. What about the "rewording"? Does it reduce the amount of necessary
exegesis?
2. Based on the fact that next to no one will have all the time
it would take
Deborah,
you're right: 2.3.2.5 doesn't fit because it only covers title
information which is positioned on the source for the title proper.
Phew, one really must read RDA *very* carefully...!
So it seems we have to base the argument for "things which look like
other title information but can
15 matches
Mail list logo
