[RDA-L] relationship designator between two aggregate works

We are working on an RDA record for a compilation of columns selected from the Science Scope journal. We wanted to provide an access point for Science Scope in 730 field. Here, columns are in whole-part relationships with the two aggregate works [i.e., contained in (work)/contains (work)], but

[RDA-L] Relator terms Best Practices for Music Cataloging using RDA and MARC21

For scores published without an accompanying sound disc, would the use of the relator term performer in subfield e be correct if the music was written by others? This situation is typically found in pop folios and compilations such as the The Doris Day songbook. Connect with Queens Library:

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

That's what I would use in that situation -- though Singer or Vocalist could also be applied, depending on how specific you wish to be. -- Amanda Raab | Catalog and Metadata Librarian ROCK AND ROLL HALL OF FAME + MUSEUM | Library and Archives 2809 Woodland Ave. | Cleveland, OH 44115

[RDA-L] RDA encoding

I have what is probably a naïve question, touching on RDA and BIBFRAME. I'll preface the question with an example. Imagine a resource with the following title page: An heroic epistle to an unfortunate monarch, by Peregrine the Elder. Enriched with explanatory notes. The second edition.

Re: [RDA-L] Change of title, not content : RDA experts

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Gene Fieg gf...@cst.edu wrote: I asked this question before, but we might as well go with RDA in this matter. Book in hand: A brief history of the Western world / Thomas H. Greer, Gavin Lewis. Prev. title: A brief history of Western man. Under RDA do we

Re: [RDA-L] RDA encoding

Francis, Just a quick and not very thoughtful or informed reply to your question. Without seriously considering details of RDA or Bibframe, your example is not as simple as it seems. Each of the elements your two scenarios use would need to be defined using shared definitions, and I read

Re: [RDA-L] Change of title, not content : RDA experts

Authorized access points are not required in RDA. The decision to use them is up to you. In your case it might be a good idea to create one. Damian Iseminger Head of Cataloging New England Conservatory From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access

Re: [RDA-L] Change of title, not content : RDA experts

Damian Iseminger wrote: Authorized access points are not required in RDA. The decision to use them is up to you. In your case it might be a good idea to create one. I beg to differ. In RDA chapter 17 (General Guidelines on Recording Primary Relationships), it says at 17.3 Core Elements:

Re: [RDA-L] Change of title, not content : RDA experts

Kevin, I also beg to differ. It is up to you how you want express the Work manifested relationship. According to 17.4.2.2 you can use an identifier or an authorized access point OR a composite description. The only thing Core is expressing the primary relationship. So in the situation is was

Re: [RDA-L] Change of title, not content : RDA experts

Based on slide 23 and its notes from the LC session on FRBR, RDA, and MARC, where the title of the 2nd ed. doesn't match the title of the 1st ed., a 240 is required in the bib record. As Damian notes below, the creation of an authority record for Expression is not required by RDA, but I'm not

Re: [RDA-L] Change of title, not content : RDA experts

Kevin, I totally agree with you. I don't see how the composite description helps at all in collocation. As a music cataloger I use uniform titles everyday, just because of the nature of music publishing (multiple language manifestation titles for the same work) but then I've realized that most

Re: [RDA-L] relationship designator between two aggregate works

Todaka said: We are working on an RDA record for a compilation of columns selected from the Science Scope journal. We wanted to provide an access point for Science Scope in 730 field. The recently added $4prv Provider seems right to me. If the journal also published the collection, you could

Re: [RDA-L] RDA encoding

Matthew, In these encoding scenarios, the entities that we want to treat as *data* would be handled in distinct fields, separate from the transcription. For an imprint we could augment the transcription with separate data elements, such as: hasPlaceOfPublicationtgn7011781/hasPlaceOfPublication

Re: [RDA-L] Change of title, not content : RDA experts

LC's RDA training materials provides the answer to your question (see http://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/RDA%20training%20materials/LC%20RDA%20Training/Module3ExpressionsAndContentSept12.doc, Appendix 2). The examples provided indicate that a uniform title would be used to collocate the editions if

Re: [RDA-L] Change of title, not content : RDA experts

For each resource you must name the work embodied in the resource. That can be done with an authorized access point (e.g. in MARC 130, or 100/240, or it can be implied with 100/245 (or 245 alone) when the title portion of the authorized access point of the work is identical to the

Re: [RDA-L] Change of title, not content : RDA experts

Thanks for locating the documentation on this Daniel. But we shouldn't be expected to have to try to find it there - it needs to be in the LC-PCC PSs where catalogers can be expected to look once they have been trained in RDA. Hopefully someone from LC PSD is reading this and can put

Re: [RDA-L] RDA encoding

Francis Lapka wrote: I have what is probably a naïve question, touching on RDA and BIBFRAME. I'll preface the question with an example. Imagine a resource with the following title page: An heroic epistle to an unfortunate monarch, by Peregrine the Elder. Enriched with explanatory

Re: [RDA-L] Change of title, not content : RDA experts

Probably John, but the example illustrates the more simple case of two editions with the identical title. It's obviously more of a judgment call if you have versions with different titles, but hopefully the later version clearly states that it is just a revision of the earlier edition. Maybe