Jamie,
Two more questions about the forthcoming transfer of RDA-L:
1. Will the URLs for mails in the present archive still be working?
For example, will
http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca/msg11767.html
still retrieve your announcement of 18 December? I've sometimes
Adolfo,
I've read up the comments in the PCC-list archive on this topic.
I like the practice of UCSD (I quote from Ryan Finnerty's mail): UCSD
does not use CCTs when the works in a compilation are issued for the
first time in that compilation. Examples include an original book of
poems by
We are talking about the level of the work here.
The title of the manifestation is, of course, always recorded in the
respective manifestation element.
Heidrun
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
Am 20.12.2013 13:37, schrieb Heidrun Wiesenmüller:
I think the interesting point to note
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
But you know that we had non of that casuistry in our rules?
And for reasons that had been discussed thoroughly for quite some time.
Did we or our users suffer from that or were they pestering us
for qualified contentional collective titles?
Isn't it just the very
James Weinheimer wrote:
On 12/20/2013 2:49 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:
snip
Adger Williams wrote:
Aren't conventional collective titles really Form/Genre headings?
(Poems. Selections, vs. Essays Selections, vs. Works Selections)
Would they not serve their function less confusingly
James,
Before making our records even more complicated (and committing more
and more ever-disappearing resources) it would make sense to find out
if collective uniform titles are/could be useful to the public and if
not, why not, and then continue from there. Otherwise, we are all
working on
Adolfo,
My understanding of FRBR is that regardless of independent existence prior to its
appearance, each poem, short story, song, etc., is considered a work in and of itself
regardless of whether their creator considered them such. Since a compilation
is simply defined as a gathering of
James,
All of these careful arrangements *completely disintegrated* when they
were placed into the computer catalog. Since computers are rather
mindless, the uniform title Works is now placed alphabetically under
the author's name (W) and as a consequence, people are supposed to
*actively
Mac,
Yes, I was only talking about collective titles as a subtype of the
former uniform titles.
It seems RDA calls this a conventional collective title. The glossary
gives as the definition: A title used as the preferred title for a
compilation containing two or more works by one person,
I am uncertain about the relationship of 6.2.2.10 (Recording the
Preferred Title for a Compilation of Works of One Person, Family, or
Corporate Body) and 6.27.1.9 (Additions to Access Points Representing
Works) - both in theory and in practice.
If I've got two different collections of works
I'd like to add my thanks for sharing this huge amount of work with the
community.
After having started on the Bodleian's documents, I'm most favourably
impressed. These materials are very thorough with lots of helpful
detail, easy to understand, and contain very good explanations even for
Mac,
Many thanks to yourself and your grandson!
My interpretation is that the power of actually granting the degree
resides with the university only. But obviously the faculty must tell
the representative of the university (the chancellor) who is to be
decorated in this way. I think this is
According to the German RAK rules, a thesis note is also recorded if
there is no formal thesis statement, i.e. if it's not the real thesis
which was handed in for the degree, but a later publication of the text.
There is only a slight difference in the style of the notes:
Note for the real
the thesis
template to RDA.
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun
Wiesenmüller
Sent: 02 December 2013 09:57
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Faculty in 7.9.3.3
I'm
John,
I think the RDA instruction was probably worded that way to allow freedom to
record whatever feels most useful and to take into account varying amounts of
information available. In most cases it's enough to record the university
name, but some libraries feel very particular about
Mac,
Another of those ambiguous English words. It can mean the teaching
staff of an educational institution. But in this context, it means a
subunit of a university which grants degrees. In other words, the
body which granted the degree should be in 502. $b.
(...)
The institution in
On a related note:
The other day, we were wondering how habilitation theses should be
treated under RDA. These are quite common in Germany. In case you're not
familiar with this European concept:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habilitation
Some universities grant the academic degree of Dr.
Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 12:15 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac
We've been discussing 2.3.2.6 Collective Title and Titles of Individual
Contents the other day, and there was some disagreement about its
meaning, especially with regard to the optional additions.
It seems to me that 2.3.2.6 covers two different cases:
#1: A resource containing several works,
Isn't it amazing that *nobody* has commented on the new prices for the
RDA Toolkit?
Looking at http://www.rdatoolkit.org/content/2014pricechange, I had a
short moment of mirth when I noticed that the symbol for the British
pound is used for the Euro prices as well (let's wait and see whether
Pete,
Working in Germany, I can't see the full OCLC record either, but I know
exactly what you mean as this is a question which has bothered me for
some time, as well.
In fact, I've brought the same point up twice on this list before (oh
dear, it seems I'm repeating myself...). Read up
Mac said:
Verena Schaffner asked:
How would you define the differences between jurisdiction, government a=
nd territorial authority?
They are not mutually exclusive. We normally use jurisdiction to
mean the larger government in which a smaller one is found, e.g.,
British Columbia in
John,
It is true that in RDA government and jurisdiction are used almost interchangeably in the sense of
Gebietskoerperschaft, but perhaps with subtle differences. That paragraph in 11.2.2.5.4 gives an idea of what is meant by
government, but it uses jurisdiction in another sense, which the
Mac,
Heidrun said:
That confirms my suspicion that in many (though not all) cases, the best
solution for the German version of RDA would be to translate both
government and jurisdiction with the same German term
Gebietskoerperschaft.
This ignores the fact that government refers to those in
Mac said:
If the place is part of the corporate body name, obviously a
geographical qualifier is not needed for the name used as an entry. If
removing that geographic name for a cross reference, should it not
then be a qualifier at the end of the shorter form of the name?
Exactly. And
@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: 05 November 2013 19:33
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Conference names without meeting, symposium a.s.o.
Reading up on the treatment of conferences under RDA, I got a bit worried when
I came to the question of the name
Following this lively discussion, I find it harder and harder to make up
my own mind...
With persons, I believe that (as I've said before) using dates as a
means of distinction doesn't really help a lot. And as long as the data
from the authority record is easily accessible (which it is in
Reading up on the treatment of conferences under RDA, I got a bit
worried when I came to the question of the name of a conference. There's
a very good presentation
http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/source/special_topics_conferences.ppt
which, among many other useful things, explains that the name of
John,
Isn't a festschrift by definition a compilation of of works by different persons,
families, or corporate bodies? As such it would fall under RDA 6.27.1.4 and the
authorized access point would be the preferred title of the compilation, so no
corporate main entry.
Yes, but isn't that
Mac,
Hedrun said:
Corporate bodies are considered to be the originator if
A) they have prepared the work or
B) they have initiated and edited the work
What about prepared by Alpha Consulting for Beta Society? Often
societies, government offices, and other corporate bodies, commission
a
Mac said:
Our practice has changed drastically. For example, once Journal of
the American Chemical Society would be been entered under the Society.
Actually, it still is under the German rules.
RAK has a rule which is similar (yet not identical) to RDA's idea of
corporate bodies which are
Adam said:
I think the instruction was written as it is because only one place
may be used in a qualifier when needed to break a conflict.
Yes, that seems very plausible. One gets the feeling that the person(s)
who wrote the instruction were mainly thinking of access points and not
of the
Bernhard said:
28.10.2013 09:11, Heidrun Wiesenmüller:
RAK has a rule which is similar (yet not identical) to RDA's idea of
corporate bodies which are responsible for originating, issuing, or
causing to be issued. The definition in RAK is: a corporate body which
has either prepared
Richard,
There are sub-elements for Location of Conference, Etc., and Location of Headquarters,
but in 11.3.1.1 these are just examples (note the instruction says .e.g.).
I did indeed notice the e.g. and found that odd as well. If location
of conference and location of headquarters are just
Mac said:
In our practice, it is not enough to have produced the work, the work
must be official. An art galley produces as exhibition catalogue,
but the main entry is the artist, due to the reproductions of the
artist's works being the prominent feature (336 still image precedes
336 text).
The German rules for main entry under corporate bodies differ very much
from the Anglo-American tradition, which makes it sometimes difficult
for me to decide when RDA 19.2.1.1.1 (Corporate bodies considered to be
creators) is to be applied.
Would the following types of publications usually
Can it really be that 11.3.3.3 allows only for the recording of *one*
local place associated with a corporate body? The instruction reads:
For other bodies, record the name of the local place that is commonly
associated with the name of the body (...).
Unlike 11.3.2.3 (Recording location of
Karen said,
But, we are avoiding the Latin terms in RDA as often as poss., correct?
Verso is a perfectly good English word, which you can find in any
decent dictionary. Granted, it's a loan word from Latin. But so is
title and page (which I assume were brought to the English language
via
John,
I'm glad to hear you'll be blogging again from this year's JSC meeting.
Thank you very much for taking the time, it is very much appreciated!
Heidrun
On 21.10.2013 19:11, JOHN C ATTIG wrote:
The discussions have not yet taken place; the documents being announced are
proposals and
But there is another problem connected with AAPs in the form text
strings: An AAP which is unique with respect to authority file A does
not necessarily have to be unique with respect to authority file B as well.
AAPs may work reasonably well as long as data stays within the bounds of
one
Mac said:
Benjamin said:
While I agree that the access point should not serve as a unique
identifier for systems, there is still the need for users to distinguish easily
between identically-named entities in an index.
It seems to me Benjamin is *very* right about this. Too much of our
Isn't that perhaps a case of RDA 2.5.6 Designation of a Named Revision
of an Edition, i.e. could it be the updated edition of the first edition?
If so, then I think the solution would be First edition, updated
edition, because 2.5.6 comes after 2.5.2 according to D.1.1.
As far as I know, 2.5.6
.
Steve McDonald
steve.mcdon...@tufts.edu
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun
Wiesenmüller
Sent: Wednesday, October
Mary Mastraccio wrote:
I hope that rather than changing your practice, the Anglo-American practice
will change to your practice--as in having the dates in a separate field (046)
rather than using a subfield $d. It has been suggested that the 100$a does not
need to be unique because other
Working my way through the rules for nobility and royalty, there was one
more thing which bothered me.
For kings, etc., RDA 9.4.1.4.1 calls for recording the title and the
name of the state in a language preferred by the agency. This fits in
with the principle of using a well-established form
Kevin said:
I agree about being sure we don't let current practices limit our design for the future.
But if data is going to be tagged as being RDA, then it needs to conform to RDA
'Äsguidelines--which means that if authorized access points are being used, they need to
be made unique.
I find it difficult to reconcile the following two RDA instructions
concerning titles of nobility:
9.4.1.3 (Recording Titles of Persons) says: Record titles as separate
elements, as parts of access points, or as both. This also refers to
titles of nobility (9.4.1.5). So 9.4.1.3 seems to allow
Stephen,
As I see it, 9.4.1.3 is simply saying that sometimes you record it as a
separate element, sometimes as part of an access point, and sometimes as both.
It isn't saying you always have a choice about it. It directs you to 9.19.1.2
for specific instructions on recording as part of an
at authorities.loc.gov
http://authorities.loc.gov, so I am unsure.
-Arthur Liu
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller
wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de
mailto:wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote:
Stephen,
As I see it, 9.4.1.3 is simply saying that sometimes you
record
, Kevin M Randall wrote:
Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:
So, I wonder: What is the function of the first sentence in 6.2.2.10? Should it
be seen as the basic rule or rather as an exception for rare cases?
I do think that the expectation behind RDA 6.2.2.10 is that most compilations published in modern
Adger Williams wrote:
Actually, since these are collective titles for collections of works,
I am not quite sure to what kind of entity Bernard's link would
point. It wouldn't be to a single work record; it could be to some
kind of collective entity or to a position in a genre/form index or
Elhanan,
The German-speaking community is still preparing for the implementation
of RDA, and many decisions have yet to be made. So I cannot tell you for
certain how we're going to do it.
But we have a strong tradition of recording information about e.g.
carrier in coded form. For display,
I said (with respect to information about an imprint):
I can think of at least three possible ways in which such an
information can appear in the resources:
#1: a statement like X, an imprint of Y
#2: X on the title page, with an additional information, e.g. on the
verso of the title page: X
Mac said:
steven Arakawa posted:
I understand that work titles can conflict and we would need to break
the conflict in such cases ...
Only if neither has an author main entry (or author as part of AAP as
Kevin would say). Of course two different works should not have the
same preferred
Trying to follow this thread (which is a rather difficult one for
somebody not cataloging in MARC), it occured to me that it touches upon
something which has puzzled me for some time.
Kevin wrote:
Nature is called: Smith, John. Poems. Selections
The Sea is called: Smith,
)
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
[wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de]
Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2013 06:49
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA
Adam wrote:
I recently taught at RDA at the National Library of Israel. They do
not have a single preferred script, nor a single language of
cataloging. In fact they have four: Hebrew, Arabic, roman, and
Cyrillic. Depending on the script of the resource they are
cataloging, they will use
Steve said:
I believe it is the difference between recording the name and recording
the preferred name. The General Guidelines on Recording Names (RDA 8.5)
makes it clear that it is talking about recording the name as it appears in the
item. On the other hand, RDA 8.6 talks of recording the
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
Lynn wrote:
Is there a reason we can't do something like this for graphic novels and the
like:
1 volume of illustrations ; some color or 138 pages of illustrations ; some
color
I haven't gone through the RDA rules in depth like many of you, but 3.4.12.1
says to give the number of units
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 Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 2:19 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustration
Mac said:
I would consider architectural drawings to be plans, not maps,
regardless of scale. Maps usually depict the earth's surface. There
are also maps of the moon, and of fictitious places, etc.
Yes, but not all architectural drawings are plans (e.g. if the drawing
shows the front of a
this a quite useful rule and would be
sorry to see it gone under RDA.
Heidrun
On 14.08.2013 20:47, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:
I find it really difficult to understand what is meant by some of the
terms for the various kinds of illustrations in 7.15 (in German
cataloging, we only distinguish four
Francis,
If a resource consists wholly or predominantly of image content, then this content is no
longer illustrative. That is, the images *are the primary content* in such a resource, so
they no longer fulfill RDA's definition of illustrative content: Content designed
to illustrate the
Kathie wrote:
I brought up this very issue last month in a thread titled Volumes containing only
images. I only received one reply. (From Mac, pragmatic as always.) I'm not sure if
URLs work to link threads in this format, but it is here:
Francis,
I believe RDA could be altered to make a clearer distinction between extent of
carrier and extent of content. The proposal for an Extent of Expression element
is one of the key components of a discussion paper (on machine-actionable data)
to be brought before JSC later this year:
Greta said:
I thought that if we decided something was a still image rather than
text, that we were required to use the list of still image carriers
for the extent at RDA 3.4.4.2. In that case, neither pages nor volume
are in that list, so i think you are stuck with 300 photographs.
Good
Beth,
I cannot help with the MARC coding, but I can try and explain 0.6.1:
My colleagues and I are confused by the two subpoints (a and b)
outlined in 0.6.1 which refer to choosing to apply various levels of
description and/or detail. Do those options only apply when including
“other
Gary,
The rules which you need can be found in 1.9.2 (Supplied date). Under
1.9.2.4 (Probable range of years) there are examples like this:
[between 1800 and 1899?]
[between 1400 and 1600?]
In 2.8.6.6, there is a reference to 1.9.2.
Heidrun
On 13.08.2013 21:19, Gary Oliver wrote:
I have
I find it really difficult to understand what is meant by some of the
terms for the various kinds of illustrations in 7.15 (in German
cataloging, we only distinguish four kinds of illustrations). The German
RDA translation isn't much help either.
So, could anybody help with my questions?
1.
Marie-Chantal said:
Perhaps the solution is to give rare/older materials cataloguers the
possibility to record phrases such as « published by » as an optional addition
... Otherwise, the general instruction could simply ask cataloguers to record
the name of the publisher, distributer, etc.
It beats me why the examples in 2.9.4.4 (and other similar rules, e.g.
2.10.4.4) are all capitalized, e.g.:
Distributed by New York Graphic Society
Sold by Longman
I cannot find any justification for this in appendix A. It's certainly
not mentioned among the elements where the first word must
.
Kevin Roe
Supervisor, Media Processing
Fort Wayne Community Schools
Fort Wayne IN 46802
*From:* Heidrun Wiesenmüller wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de
*To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
*Sent:* Thursday, August 8, 2013 5:54 AM
*Subject:* [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4
It beats me why the examples
Jack,
if there was a rule in RDA saying that the first word of every element
must be capitalized, I would agree. But as far as I understand it,
that's not how RDA works. The main rule of RDA concerning capitalitation
is that you use upper and lower case just like you would do it *within*
a
Marie-Chantal,
I would give 1961, without using any square brackets.
My reasoning goes as follows: You do not have to supply the date,
because in fact you know the year. The only problem is that it is
written on the source of information in some kind of shorthand. But when
you think about
Mac said:
My reaction is, why is this phrase included, when function is covered
by 264 2nd indicators?
My understanding is that transcribing things like Distributed by ...
is all about the so-called principle of representation: The data
describing a resource should reflect the resource's
A, which
takes English as the model language and covers all other languages
only to the degree in which they differ from the model, is
counterproductive for an international application of RDA.
Heidrun
--
-
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmüller M.A.
Hochschule der Medien
Fakultät
Mac said:
It does not matter to me, or patrons I suspect, whether one uses
$c[19]61. $c[1961] or $c1961. It *is* important that the whole year
be there, since one should not have to wait for a note to know whether
it is 1761, 1861, or 1961. A little pragmatism is in order here! To
I'm rather unsure about what the title and statement of responsibility
area should look like if there is both a formal name of the conference
and a specific title of a conference on the preferred source of information.
Let's consider the following example (which I've translated from German
to
And what about writer of afterword, while we're at it?
I've just have such a case in front of me: A novel, where the translator
has also provided notes and the said afterword. It gives information
about the author and her work. What is here presented as an afterword
might, in other cases,
by statement of
responsibility with a personal name and did not make the personal name
the main entry or preferred entry.
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller
wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de
mailto:wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote:
I'm rather unsure about what the title
Gene,
Without seeing the actual item, I would place it in the area of resp.
Sorry, that was too much shorthand for a non-native speaker:
Does resp here mean the same as depends? If so, on what - the layout?
If you want to have a closer look, here's a scan of the title page:
meant area of responsibility. The 245 line would read [title] / |c
[name of conference]
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller
wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de
mailto:wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote:
Gene,
Without seeing the actual item, I would place
@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
*Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Names of conferences as title proper, other
title information or statement of responsiblity
I meant area of responsibility. The 245 line would read [title] / |c
[name of conference]
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller
wiesenmuel
Could anybody please explain to me the second part of 2.3.2.9 Resource
lacking a collective title? I'm quite at a loss here.
If the sources of information identifying the individual parts are
being treated as a collective source of information for the resource as
a whole (see 2.1.2), record
Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
[wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de]
Sent: July-27-13 5:54 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] RDA 2.3.2.9 Resource lacking a collective title
Could anybody please explain to me the second part of 2.3.2.9 Resource
lacking a collective title? I'm quite at a loss here
Thomas Brenndorfer said:
In 2.4.1.6, multiple statements of responsibility are linked to the corresponding
title, edition, or series information.
RDA D.1.2.2 prescribes semicolons to separate these statement of responsibility
elements.
So once the individual titles proper are recorded for
Mac said:
RDA gives the option, in the absence of a collective title, of
creating one (with the contents in a note), or of using the titles of
the contents. I strongly urge EURIG to have a policy statement to
always supply a title for the sake of consistency in describing the
same resource;
Mac,
Heidrun said:
I don't think we'll end up with made-up titles, though. It wouldn't be
in accordance with our cataloging tradition ...
How is it possible to catalogue without made up titles? How would you
catalogue realia for example?
I'm sorry, I meant in this case. The German RAK
I may (as usual) simply worry too much about the rules, but I'm
wondering about bilinguial dictionaries with separate facing title pages
in two languages. Which of these two title pages should be used as the
preferred source of information?
2.2.3.1 a) to d) aren't applicable, so we're left
Mac said:
We would treat this the same way we treat any title page which
extends over two pages. often happens with chilren's books.
Right, I see that this can be done, although it's perhaps a bit of a
stretch in the light of the existence of 2.2.3.1.
But if you treat the two facing title
Kevin M Randall wrote:
If the resource is one in which pages are read left to right, then I would probably take
the one on the left-hand side as the preferred source. But seeing as the sequence of the
two pages is probably arbitrary, I would not object to someone just deciding that
none of
Has everybody noticed the change to the option in 2.4.1.5 (Statement of
responsibility naming more than one person, etc.) in the July update? It
went over the fast track, so it's not marked in the Toolkit and also
doesn't appear in the update history.
The option used to read omit *all* but
Kristen,
my understanding is that RDA 3.13.1.3 only tells us that we can record
the font size of resources for persons with visual impairments in this
element, and how we should do it if we choose to. But font size is no
core element, so it is not obligatory to record it. There is also no
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Heidrun
Wiesenmüller [wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de]
*Sent:* Monday, July 01, 2013 3:01 PM
*To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
*Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Translated from notes and code for original
language
Bob,
Translated from the French
Bob,
Translated from the French is an unstructured description of the
relationship of the resource to another expression (though it's not a
very specific description) and is covered by RDA 24.4.3. See also the
example at 26.1.1.3 The English edition of a Spanish publication,
which is also
that the corresponding RDA
instruction number is N/A. So I have to say that I do not know :)
Have a great weekend,
Joan Wang
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller
wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de
mailto:wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote
In 2.8.6.3 (Recording date of publication) there is an example May
2000. This shows that not only the year, but also the month and
presumably even the exact date of publication is to be recorded in this
element, if it is given in the source of information.
I'd like to see some real live
I wonder how a note like Translated from the French does fit in with
RDA, in a composite description scenario. The same goes for codes in
MARC 041 $h giving information about the original language, e.g.:
041 1# $a eng $h fre
(text in English, translated from French)
The only possible RDA
Sorry, I pushed the wrong button just now - here's the complete text of
the mail:
--
I wonder how a note like Translated from the French does fit in with
RDA, in a composite description scenario. The same goes for codes in
MARC 041 $h giving information about the original
1 - 100 of 256 matches
Mail list logo
