[RDA-L] 76X-78X linking fields

Many 76X-78X linking entry fields can be created by inserting the cited record in Connexion, supplying the information on author, title, imprint, etc. from an existing bibliographic record in OCLC. If this cited record has information that is not RDA compliant, e.g. abbreviations when I know

[RDA-L] Citation annotations

Would annotations of formal citations for instances be of interest in this mix? Something like InstancehasMLACitation. Could have annotations for all the top formats. This would certainly be useful to our students, I don't know if machines would care. Michael Mitchell Technical Services

Re: [RDA-L] Citation annotations

oops, wrong list. sorry Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of

Re: [RDA-L] 76X-78X linking fields

Data in a linking entry is supposed to match data in the target record. You should not edit 76X-78X to RDA unless you are also editing the target record to match. Christopher Thomas, M.L.S. | Electronic Resources and Metadata Librarian (949) 824-7681 | fax (949) 824-6700 |

[RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points

From my readings and the reading other's comments it has been said that RDA no longer requires you to justify your additional access points. Is this a valid interpretation of people's comments? If, so is there a specific rule that states this or is it implied? Thank you.

Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points

You are correct, access points do not need to be justified in the body of the bibliographic record in RDA. There is no equivalent to AACR2 21.29F (If the reason for an added entry is not apparent from the description ... provide a note ...) However, neither does RDA forbid making such notes so

Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points

Can I chime in here. I like the idea that the access points have to be justified by something in the bib record. Why? It makes it clear that we are not making stuff out of the blue and (2) it is written in plain, clear English, something for the patron who may not understand our coded,

Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points

Don asked: RDA no longer requires you to justify your additional access points. Is this a valid interpretation ... RDA requires no correlation between entries and transcription, so yes, one may have added entries not included in the description. SLC very much hopes this never happens. We find

Re: [RDA-L] Streaming RDA (query from a ludite!!)

Kia ora Anne At the National Library of New Zealand we are currently developing policies around the RDA cataloguing of DVDs, streaming videos, etc. There are a number of possible options and alternatives – in particular questions around what data to include in the 300, 34X and 538 fields. We

Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designators for related expressions, works etc for a music score

Hi Siân, Here are my thoughts, for what they're worth! Yes, I think it is useful to record the relationship between Neruda's work and Daughtrey's concerto. This is recorded as a relationship to a related work (25.1) and it could be recorded as an unstructured description in the 500 rather

Re: [RDA-L] Relationship designators for related expressions, works etc for a music score

Since there are only two poems, why use a collective title for them? Why not give access points for each of them, if their titles are known? The access point Poems. Selections. English is quite misleading, since it gives no indication of how many selections will be found in the resource.