[RDA-L] Fwd:

http://www.hotelgloriachiancianoterme.it/ako7ed.php?s=ot

Re: [RDA-L] MLA Best Practices for Music Cataloging using RDA and MARC21 -- 6.9 Content Type/6.10 Language of Expression

Adam et al., While content type is theoretically core, it is, as Casey says a problem in music authority records for expressions, which may represent more than one expression and thus more than one content type. In any event, DCM Z1 still says: "Do not supply. Pending outcome of report/recomm

Re: [RDA-L] Best Practices for Music Cataloging using RDA and MARC21

The examples in the document are intended to illustrate encoding recommendations specific to each element. They are not intended to be complete record examples. We do plan to include complete MARC bibliographic and authority record examples in a future version of the document. Thank you, Case

Re: [RDA-L] Best Practices for Music Cataloging using RDA and MARC21

Kathy said: >Examples of 336 are under the appropriate RDA instruction (6.9). See page 51. Why are they not included in all examples with 337, 338, 344, 347? >Examples of $e relator terms are shown in relation to RDA Chapters 18-20 Why are they not shown in all examples? We are still doing ma

Re: [RDA-L] MLA Best Practices for Music Cataloging using RDA and MARC21 -- 6.9 Content Type/6.10 Language of Expression

Thanks for the feedback, Adam. Just a quick response for now: we have opted to focus on those elements in bib and authority records that apply to music-specific situations. The practice of coding language in authority records is probably best addressed at the PCC/LC level. As for coding conten

Re: [RDA-L] MLA Best Practices for Music Cataloging using RDA and MARC21 -- 6.9 Content Type/6.10 Language of Expression

The section on 6.9 Content Type only addresses recording this element in bibliographic records. Shouldn't it also address when and if to record this in authority records for expressions? The same question applies to 6.9 Language of Expression. Adam ^^ Adam

Re: [RDA-L] MLA Best Practises - 6.3. Form of Work

For most 3XX attribute fields, the LC/PCC recommendation is to prefer controlled vocabulary, which results in terms recorded in the plural form in many cases (such as when LCSH or LCGFT is used as the controlled vocabulary). I'm wondering then whether the section 6.3 on Form of work should exp

Re: [RDA-L] Best Practices for Music Cataloging using RDA and MARC21 -- Draft open for comment (fwd) (fwd)

Examples of 336 are under the appropriate RDA instruction (6.9). See page 51. Examples of $e relator terms are shown in relation to RDA Chapters 18-20 (pages 70-72). Kathy Glennan Head, Metadata Creation and Enhancement / Music Cataloger University of Maryland kglen...@umd.edu -Original Me

Re: [RDA-L] Best Practices for Music Cataloging using RDA and MARC21 -- Draft open for comment (fwd) (fwd)

Mac Elrod wrote: > I was surprised to see examples of 260, when PCC has said that no new > RDA records are to have 260. The examples give 260 as an alternative to 264. It is clearly stated that "MLA strongly recommends using the 264 field." (Footnote 12 on page 17.) However, while it's clear

[RDA-L] Best Practices for Music Cataloging using RDA and MARC21 -- Draft open for comment (fwd) (fwd)

"Best Practices for Music Cataloging using RDA and MARC21." http://bcc.musiclibraryassoc.org/BCC-Historical/BCC2013/RDA_Best_Practices_for_Music_Cataloging.pdf Interesting, and a lot of work. I was surprised to see no examples of $4 relator codes or $e relator terms. I was surprised to see exa

Re: [RDA-L] Best Practices for Music Cataloging using RDA and MARC21 -- Draft open for comment

Casey, thanks to you and your committee for this monumental work. I have one question (for now ;)): on p. 72, could you specify what $e term(s) is/are appropriate for the first case (when performers/performing ensembles are recorded in a 100/110 field (and in 245 $c) because they are treated

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

OK. I have had only occasional access to the RDA Toolkit and had not had an opportunity to delve deeply into RDA, and therefore was unaware of the complexities involved in the Author/title rules and searching. kathie Kathleen Goldfarb Technical Services Librarian College of the Mainland Texa

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

Kathie said: >... other than for classification purposes, I do not believe the Main >entry really has that much significance ... Wouldn't that be Cuttering purposes, not classification? What about 600$a$t and 700$a$t entries? Then there is the matter of coordination with scholarly citation prac

[RDA-L] Best Practices for Music Cataloging using RDA and MARC21 -- Draft open for comment

[Cross-posted widely. Please excuse the duplication] Colleagues, The MLA-BCC RDA Music Implementation Task Force is happy to announce the release of the first complete draft of "Best Practices for Music Cataloging using RDA and MARC21." This document represents over sixteen months of effort b

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

> -Original Message- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Goldfarb, Kathie > Sent: February-11-13 10:07 AM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

In searching, whether the name is in a 1xx field or in a 7xx field, the results list should be interfiled, as they were in our card based catalog. The display/indentation on that card would show whether the author was a main or added entry, but it would not affect the filing (if I remember corr

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

Does it help for collocating works under the same person? I think that this is the significance of distinguishing creators from contributors. Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Goldfarb, Kathie wrote: > I would interpret " first named person as part of

Re: [RDA-L] Statement of responsibility naming more than three persons etc.

I would interpret " first named person as part of the authorized access points for the work " as referring to the existence of a 1xx OR 7xx for that person, but not necessarily as main entry. In fact, other than for classification purposes, I do not believe the Main entry really has that much s

[RDA-L] 2012 approved RDA proposals: changes posted

The final versions of the proposals approved by the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA during and after its November 2012 meeting have been posted on the JSC web site. See the "Sec final" documents listed in the *table of new working documents*or