The other day, we were discussing the rules for transcription in 1.7. We
wondered how exact an exact transcription has to be according to the
standard rule of RDA. When it says as it appears on the source, does
this also refer to spacing? There is one explicit rule for spacing
(1.7.6), but
28.05.2013 08:28, Heidrun Wiesenmüller:
The other day, we were discussing the rules for transcription in 1.7. We
wondered how exact an exact transcription has to be according to the
standard rule of RDA. When it says as it appears on the source, does
this also refer to spacing? There is one
-Original Message-
From: Bernhard Eversberg e...@biblio.tu-bs.de
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 08:55:42 +0200
b) If you have a title string index for browsing or left-anchored
searching (agreed, no one wants that any more), then there will
Hm...
How very useful are those indexes for
Hi, All
I have a question about authorized access point representing the work (main
entry) for collaborative works. RDA 6.27.1.3 does tell us if there is only
one principal creator, the principal would be selected as the main entry.
If there is more than one principal creator (or in doubt), the
Joan,
If it is truly a collaborative work by the three named authors, then, it
will look like this:
100 1_ Gumbley, Warren, 1962– $e author.
245 10 Management of wetland archaeological sites in New Zealand / $c
Warren Gumbley, Dilys Johns, and Garry La.
700 1_ Johns, Dilys, $e author.
700 1_
Tony
Thanks for your reply. Your example is taking the first-named as the main
entry and also encoding the other two. So the alternative means encoding
all creators instead of only the principal? I thought that we would do the
same thing when we encode the principal or the first-named as the main
The RDA alternative implies that all the names would be in one field in MARC,
which doesn't work; hence the LC-PCC PS not to apply it.
Bob
Robert L. Maxwell
Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept.
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568
We
Robert,
Thanks. That is what I thought. I do not think that it would work in MARC.
But it raises a totally different idea (right?).
Thanks again,
Joan Wang
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Robert Maxwell robert_maxw...@byu.eduwrote:
The RDA alternative implies that all the names would be
Hi Mac. I also feel a little uncomfortable using contributor type
relationship designators in a 100 field with the creator type relationship
designators, but I thought that doing so is supposed to be acceptable
according to the PCC Guidelines for the Application of Relationship
Designators in
Were there supposed to be an answer to my questions here from the JSC
Secretary? I don't see that anything came through other than my message.
Does anyone else have any text?
Thanks,
Dana
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
Every now and then I see the word Bibframe in emails. Is it replacing MARC?
How is that going to be?
-- angelina
Angelina Joseph
Cataloging Librarian
Ray Kay Eckstein Law Library
Marquette University
Milwaukee, WI 53201
Ph: 414-288-5553
Fax: 414-288-5914
email: angelina.jos...@marquette.edu
BibFrame refers to the Library of Congress program, Bibliographic
Framework Initiative that is indeed exploring a transition from the MARC
format. Please check their website for more information:
http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/ They also have a listserv you are welcome to
join.
- Barbara Tillett,
Thank you, Barbara.
--angelina joseph
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of JSC Chair
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 2:51 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Bibframe
BibFrame refers to the
It may be awhile before it all comes to pass despite the decree that it should
be in approximate sync with RDA. A recent question on the discussion list:
Will it be possible to use a BIBFRAME authority to link a BIBFRAME Work
describing a FRBR Work to a BIBFRAME Work description of a FRBR
Are relationship designators required?
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:01 PM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
Dana van Meter said:
The examples in the PCC Guidelines seem to indicate that one can use
creator and contributor type relationship designators in the same field,
as long as they
They are not core in RDA. Required elements are clearly indicated as core
when you look at the RDA instructions.
For PCC policies, I suggest you use the PCC list.
- Barbara Tillett, JSC Chair
On Tuesday, May 28, 2013, Gene Fieg wrote:
Are relationship designators required?
On Tue, May 28,
Angelina Joseph asked:
Every now and then I see the word Bibframe in emails. Is it replacing MAR=
C? How is that going to be?
You will have answers from those more in the loop than I, but there is
my *very* biased answer.
Bibframe is a work in progress, so no one knows if/when it will
replace
Dana Van Meter said:
Not having a fuller list of terms in RDA is really a failing of RDA
Not to mention not haviving them in one alphabetical order. For a single
alphabetical list, see the MRI 21.0D:
http://special-cataloguing.com/mris/21
You need to sign up for a free account to consult.
Suggestions for additional terms are always welcome. - Barbara Tillett, JSC
Chair
On Tuesday, May 28, 2013, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Dana Van Meter said:
Not having a fuller list of terms in RDA is really a failing of RDA
Not to mention not haviving them in one alphabetical order. For a
Dana Van Meter posted:
1. Are we allowed to use, then, the more specific terms indented
underneath the relationship designator performer (which is in bold)
Yes. For one list is alphabetical order see the MRI 21.0D:
http://special-cataloguing.com/mris/21
... MARC relator codes for terms
28.05.2013 23:45, J. McRee Elrod:
Angelina Joseph asked:
Every now and then I see the word Bibframe in emails. Is it replacing MAR=
C? How is that going to be?
You will have answers from those more in the loop than I, but there is
my *very* biased answer.
Bibframe is a work in progress, so
21 matches
Mail list logo
