Actually, after I left work last night, I thought of "reproducer" too -
it's succinct and leaves no doubt about the function either. I'm with Mac
on this one!
Adam
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 16:59:17 -0700
From: J. McRee Elrod
Reply-To: Resource Descr
Heidrun said:
>Is it only me, or is there really a conflict between 8.4, on the one
>hand, and 9.2.2.5.3 and 11.2.2.12, on the other hand?
It might have been clearer if the text has said, rather than
"preferred", 'if the name appeasr in a script which can not be
reproduced by the cataloguing age
Adam asked:
>Am I correct in my thinking that the implication of this policy statement
>is that if an edition statement ends in an abbreviation, a second period
>would NOT be added?
I certainly hope you are correct. We will not add that second period
to 250, and will delete it if present, co
Deborah said:
>we will be well on our way to the goal of everyone sharing new terms
>globally.
Because of bilingual Canada, the same terms will not be used even
continentally, much less globally. I assume Mexico will have its own
terms on this continent.
Bibframe has the same unilingual proble
Deborah Fritz said:
>But, can anyone think of a better designator to propose than 'producer of
>reproduction'?
We prefer one word terms, e.g., "reproducer", "manufacturer".
we like to have as much as possible seen in one line hitlists.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{
Mark said concerning "manufacturer" as a relator:
>It won't be added to the relationship designator list in the back of RDA
>because it already exists as an element name in Chapter 21.
For ease of use there should be one alphabetic list of relators
including "creator", "contributor" and "manufa
Mark said:
>
>I disagree. I usually like to know if I'm getting an "original" thing or a
>photocopy/printout by the local institution or another outfit like
>UMI. Quality can vary.
We actually don't disagree pm this. I like to know that too. It;s
just not as vital in determining authority and
I'm rather unsure about the relationship between the general rule for
names found in a non-preferred script in chapter 8 and the corresponding
more specific rules for persons and corporates bodies in chapters 9 and 11.
The general rule in 8.4 says: "Record names in the language and script
in w
8 matches
Mail list logo
